(Opinion/Editorial)
Electrification may be the right destination but are we doing it in the wrong order?
Electrification has become one of the principal answers to climate change in the United States. Replace your gas furnace with a heat pump. Replace your gas car with an EV (Electric Vehicle). Replace the kitchen range with an electric or induction model.
The intentions are good. In many cases the efficiency is higher. But are we putting the cart before the horse?
Consider where I live – Massachusetts. Our state is using substantial incentives to encourage homeowners to replace oil and gas heating systems with electric heat pumps – these “rebates” and grants are paid for in ALL electric bills. At the same time, Massachusetts has electric prices among the highest in the country. A 2024 Harvard study estimated that, at the electric and fuel prices then in effect, about half of Massachusetts households and almost ALL heating with natural gas would experience higher annual heating costs after switching to a heat pump.
Heat pumps themselves are not the problem. They are remarkable machines that can deliver two or three units of heat for each unit of electricity they consume. But efficiency and cost are not the same thing. A highly efficient appliance running on very expensive electricity can still cost more to operate than the supposedly less-efficient system it replaced. Our comparison calculator will illustrate this for you.
This raises a fair question: Why were homeowners pushed toward electrification before the underlying economics were put in place?
CLEAN ELECTRICITY FIRST
There is also the matter of where the electricity comes from.
In 2025, New Englands power plants generated about 13% of their electricity from renewables and another 6% from hydroelectric power. Natural gas is, by far, the largest fuel – in some states and regions providing 80% of generation.
The basic picture is clear: our regional grid is less than 20% renewable, similar to the USA National Figure.
Electrification can still reduce emissions, especially when an efficient heat pump replaces oil heat or an EV replaces an inefficient gasoline vehicle. But the benefit is not electric equals clean OR “Electric equals cheaper”.
An electric appliance or vehicle is only as clean and as economical as the system supplying its electricity.
Perhaps we should put much more of our money and effort into renewable generation, transmission, storage, and grid modernization first. Then, as electricity becomes both cleaner and less expensive, accelerate the push toward electrification.
That would be an intelligent sequence rather than an ideological one.
THE EV PRICE LOTTERY
Electric vehicles present another version of the same problem.
An EV owner with inexpensive overnight charging may pay only a few cents per kilowatt-hour. Another owner may pay more than 30 cents at home, while public fast charging commonly costs around 50 cents per kilowatt-hour. In much of the country, this determines whether an EV is exceptionally inexpensive to operate or offers little fuel-cost advantage over an efficient hybrid.
Imagine if gasoline cost $3 per gallon in one state and $12 or $15 in another. We would consider that an enormous national problem. Yet we appear willing to build transportation policy around electricity that can vary almost as dramatically depending on where and when someone charges.
There is another difference. Most consumers have multiple gasoline stations competing for their business. A homeowner normally has one electric utility delivering power. Alternative suppliers may exist in some states, but the wires, delivery charges, and much of the bill remain under monopoly control.
Electric rates can occasionally decline, especially when fuel costs or special charges change. Over the long term, however, homeowners have good reason to expect that utility bills will rise as generation, transmission, distribution, storm resilience, and grid improvements are added to the system.
That uncertainty matters when government is asking families to make major investments in electric heating and transportation.
ELECTRIFICATION STILL MAKES SENSE FOR SOME
None of this is an argument against electrification – entire countries have moved successfully to Electrification with 100% renewables, in the process cleaning up their air and environment greatly. However, the USA is a massive land mass with a large population and legacy infrastructure. We can’t, at will, change to renewable and reasonably priced grid – doing so will take decades.
Some uses make sense now. An induction or electric range uses relatively little energy compared with heating a house or powering a car. It also avoids combustion pollutants inside the home. Even in a high-electricity-cost state, the difference in annual cooking cost is unlikely to determine a household budget.
A heat pump may be an excellent choice for someone replacing electric resistance heat, oil heat or living where electricity is inexpensive. An EV can be a great financial and environmental choice for someone with affordable home charging. The calculation simply does not come out the same for every household or every part of the country. Certain states and regions, California being the largest example, have substantial renewables to fuel your EV or Heat Pump.
That is precisely why one-size-fits-all electrification policies deserve more scrutiny.
PUT THE FOUNDATION UNDER THE HOUSE
The solution is not to retreat to fossil fuels. It is to build the foundation that widespread electrification requires.
The United States needs something approaching a Manhattan Project for clean electricity: vastly more renewable generation, storage, transmission capacity, and a modern grid capable of carrying the additional load from vehicles and buildings.
We also need regulatory policies that make electricity prices more stable and that allow ordinary consumers to benefit as renewable generation becomes less expensive. Otherwise, lower generation costs can be swallowed by rising delivery charges and grid expenses before homeowners ever see them.
Electrification is an important part of our energy future. But paying people to switch to a system that may cost them considerably more before making that system cleaner, more affordable, and more dependable is not sound energy policy.
Build the clean electrical system first. Make its benefits visible in consumers bills. Then the public will not need to be pushed so hard toward electrification.
They will choose it themselves.
SOURCES
Harvard Kennedy School, Heat Pump Adoption Not Cost-Effective for Majority of MA Households, Says New Study:
https://www.belfercenter.org/belfer-news/heat-pump-adoption-not-cost-effective-majority-ma-households-says-new-study
ISO New England, New England Power Grid Regional Profile:
https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/100010/new-england-power-grid-regional-profile.pdf
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Improving Interconnection to the Electric Grid:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/improving-interconnection-to-the-electric-grid