The Biden Administration, on the day after Christmas and without so much as a press release, issued a final rule from the Department of Energy that will eliminate certain natural-gas water heaters. The ones targeted are the ones used by more than 55% of current American households, and the rule is expected to drastically increase the cost of water heaters in the future, and have the greatest impact on low-income Americans and seniors.
The regulations target non-condensing, natural gas-fired water heaters, mandating higher efficiency standards that can only be met by condensing models.
These newer models use technology designed to waste less heat, but have a significantly higher price tag. By the time the rule goes into effect, some 40% of available tankless gas water heaters will no longer meet the DOE’s efficiency requirements.
The rules also require new tankless gas water heaters to use about 13% less energy than the least efficient models available today. While proponents argue that the regulations will help curb carbon dioxide emissions—a key contributor to global warming—industry experts warn that consumers will face increased costs.
Some economists say that new water heaters complying with the rules will cost an average of $450 more than current models.
“A full 40% of customers directly impacted by the rule would see a net cost increase from this rule, rather than even minimal savings. DOE’s estimate of increased cost to customers is not reflective of real-world situations, with direct pricing information from a manufacturer suggesting that the difference in average product price alone is approximately $450 – 200% greater than the $231 difference claimed by DOE to justify the rule. Moreover, the customers most likely to opt for more affordable non-condensing water heaters tend to be low-income and senior households,” the American Gas Association said.
“DOE‘s decision to ban an entire segment of instantaneous water heaters is deeply concerning and irresponsible. The final rule is a violation of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) … To make matters worse, DOE‘s own analysis claims that the average life-cycle cost savings would amount to barely $112 over the entire 20-year average product life. DOE‘s final rule is unjustifiable on legal and practical grounds,” said Matthew Agen, American Gas Association chief counsel for energy.
It’s unclear how quickly the incoming Trump Administration will be able to undo the 11th-hour rule, but during the Trump Administration, there was a concerted effort to prevent this type of regulation from passing in the future.
Trading success for failure because the Progressive faith believes Nirvana is that close.
Wow. Is that all you’ve got left? Water heaters? Scraping the bottom of the barrel, I’d say.
It just adds to the other insanities, including toilets that can’t flush because they’re mandated to use a cup or two of water per flush………..forcing the user to flush 20 or 30 times trying to get their crap to vacate. This is what we get for allowing lawyers and environmental extremists control of our civil engineering.
It is just one more item this administration has attacked in order to subjugate the population. Make energy use prohibitively expensive, and control the population.
But, you do you.
Whidbey,
That’s a fitting epitaph for the Obama/Biden/Harris Administration.
Water heaters matter to people who (unlike you) actually bathe!
Please present just the facts. ‘While proponents argue that the regulations will help curb carbon dioxide emissions—a key contributor to global warming—industry experts warn that consumers will face increased costs.’ Carbon dioxide is an essential element to life as we know it. There are claims that CO2 is leading to every horrible catastrophe imaginable, but those rank right there with Voldemort in reality. CO2 is essential to life, and global warming is a good thing and a natural process. A study of mankind reveals that global warming is linked to prosperity: The Roman era, The Renaissance, The Industrial Age, and others, while global cooling is linked to famine and pestilence: The Dark Ages, The Little Ice Age, Year 536, and others. Just the facts please. Real science, that which allows questions and challenges (and allows you to follow the money), does not correlate carbon dioxide to catastrophic changes in the earth. We now near the peak of the sunspot cycle. Get ready for 11 years of global cooling as our sun becomes less active.
Do not forget, several recent studies have shown the assumed impacts of carbon mon/dioxide as a greenhouse gas are WAY overstated.
When common sense is in the drivers seat this will be revoked.
This is the result of childish actions by the exiting regime members.
Tit for tat
Ya Mark, this will get flipped when the new regime gets settled. This exercise that sleepy joe is doing is a waste of time and resources.
The reality is that the smug progressives hate us. They hate those who exhibit any independent thinking or actions free of their engineered system. They want us to die and freely admit it: “Reduction of population size in those over-consuming nations is a very positive trend, and sensible planning can deal with the problems of population aging.” Paul Ehrlichs, endorsed by King Charles, Bill Gates, and more of their ilk.
Had to put oil in the heating fuel tank last night. Stuck with their new fuel cans in -30 with 30 mph wind for 10 minutes per can. They want us to die, except for their servants, maids and lawn keepers, who they will keep around at sub-minimum wage until they dispose of them.
Absolutely correct.
The parasites of the WEF and the UN’s COP conferences are pushing an agenda where they (who consider themselves the elite) get to live in luxurious estates, while the average person lives in tin shacks outside their walls. There is nothing in their agenda that does not lead directly to that future.
.
Preventing free energy use is one of many tools they will employ.
Now the average natural gas tankless water heater uses about $300 worth of fuel every year, so in this case you’ll be spending (max) $450 to save 13% on that cost. You’re also helping to save the planet, but of course that component is of no interest to the typical MRAK reader, so we will set that aside.
Plugging those numbers into my trusty Excel economic evaluation model informs me that the investment yields an internal rate of return of 6%, which is better than the “punishingly-low” rates paid to the “poor and elderly” on their savings accounts.
Sounds like a reasonably good deal to me, even before any applicable tax credits are applied. Please accept my apologies for presenting fact-based analysis and logic instead of rhetoric intended to inflame, as I know the former is not particularly welcome on this site.
Well, let’s break down the nonsense. First off, the on-demand water heaters have some good qualities, but saving money is not one of them. They require a ton of maintenance, which will eat through that 6% average savings. The maintenance cost for an on-demand water heater is about $125.00 – $225.00. Yep, there’s that. They also have a far shorter lifespan than the average tank water heater. They are more likely to fail, as they have many more moving parts. That is just a fact, like it or not.
Your words: “You’re also helping to save the planet, but of course, that component is of no interest to the typical MRAK reader.” No, you are in no way helping the planet by buying an on-demand water heater. Let me explain: as I said above, they have a shorter lifespan, and it takes more energy to make and maintain one over its life. Not to mention, there has never been a true scientific challenge to CO2 having a global warming effect. Let’s also bring to the table that simple water vapor has a greater global warming potential than CO2.
You’ve been lied to about CO2 in an effort to divide, create fear, and strip your sovereignty—or rather, have you surrender it. Ninety percent of the people in Alaska love the land and are good stewards of it. It’s sad that your thinking has been so distorted and corrupted that you bastardize your fellow neighbor and brother, who don’t want to buy a lie, much less a weaker model of a water heater designed by regulation to fit inside a box instead of being designed by an engineer with a focus on quality and longevity.
This is exactly what I mean when I say sustainability = degrowth. Sustainability delivers a substandard way of life at a higher cost to the citizen or consumer—who are one and the same—and they use your money to do so. Please wake up.
Dog
Want to buy a bridge?
You don’t math too good do you?
Lets tell the real story:
Given the average annual fuel cost is $300, the annual savings with the new hot water heater would be:
Annual Savings = 0.13 * 300 = 39 dollars
The payback period is:
Payback Period = {Extra Cost}/{Annual Savings} = {450}/{39} or approx 11.54 years.
So It will take approximately 11.5 years (or about half the useful life of a tankless hot water heater) to amortize the $450 extra cost through the fuel savings. So for the elderly, who may or may not have 11.5 years left on the planet, would it be worth it? Should we take away their choice to spend that money on food or housing and force them to spend it on a hot water heater?
And given the miniscule contribution that man-made climate change is a.) a function of added CO2, and b.) exacerbated by the very tiny amount of CO2 produced by the collective use of tankless natural gas water heaters, this new restriction is sublime in its stupidness.
Fact is that the added CO2 from natural gas hot water heaters will provide increase plant growth. CO2 levels, for maximum plant growth, of course, depend on the type of plant and environmental conditions. Studies, however, suggest that many plants, particularly those using the most common C3 photosynthetic pathway thrive in CO2 concentrations between 1,000 and 1,200 ppm.
I am certain that you are well educated enough to find out that CO2 levels now are around .042% of our atmosphere right now or 420PPM. The CO2 level, despite our spending trillions of dollars to mitigate it’s rise, continues to rise about 2(ish) PPM/year. The EPA guidance on the maximum prolonged exposure to CO2, by humans, is 1000PPM (and CO2 levels have been as high as 2000PPM in the last 2 million years). So at the current rate of increase, it would take approximately 232 years to reach 1,000 ppm, putting the timeline around the year 2256.
While we all apprciate the climate cult’s zealous mantra that the sky is falling, one would think that 232 years is time enough to have a cogent and honest discussion on what is actually the worst “greenouse gas” (hint: it’s not CO2) and how we go about fixing that – if we even can. Currently, until we find a way to mitigate the huge amount of CO2 coming from our oceans, volcanos, rotting beetle kill trees, and other natural sources, adding $450 dollars on to the cost of a hot water heater – for a senior on fixed income – to somehow “fix” the climate change, by limiting CO2, seems really really silly to me.
We absolutely need to be good stewards of our planet and environment. But we also need to realize that our environment is inherantly hostile to humans. We have spent the last several hundred years finding ways to tame it, to provide for increased food production and increased places for people to live, surivie, and thrive.
….and now the climate cult wants us to go backwards?
Don’t forget to have your tankless water heater descaled 1-6 times a year depending on your water. $250 a pop.
Then any repairs that will need to be done. That could cost could be $1000 or more.
The cost to own a tankless water heater is a lot more than a conventional water heater. They won’t last as long as a conventional water heater either.
“DIFFERENCE in average product price ALONE is approximately $450”. Quote us the installation costs for both units in your “fact-based analysis”. My understanding is that condensing units require a drain. MAX? YOU LIE!
Whidbey,
I guess I’m not what you’d consider the typical MRAK reader and I’d like to explore this statement instead of setting it aside “You’re also helping to save the planet, but of course that component is of no interest to the typical MRAK reader, so we will set that aside.”
How exactly would one be saving the planet? Do you know where the juice in the wall comes from used to power the tankless heater? According to the US Energy Information Administration 43% comes from natural gas, 16% from coal, 19% from nuclear, and “renewables” make up just over 21%. In many cases by burning less natural gas at the point of usage you will in fact be damaging the planet since the savings seen by a slightly more efficient water heater would be lost in transport from the power plant to the tankless heater, in other cases using coal to offset natural gas wouldn’t really be saving the planet would it? How about nuclear, at least that has zero direct carbon emissions, same for “renewables”, but of course you and I both know that most of these “renewables” are anything but renewable and they certainly have a carbon footprint. So, back to the question at hand, how exactly would one be saving the planet by replacing a water heater with a tankless water heater?
“Some economists say that new water heaters complying with the rules will cost an average of $450 more than current models.”
WTD you “facts” don’t work. You are comparing the cost of a year’s worth of gas to the price increase of the new gas tankless water heaters. Apples and Oranges!
You deliberately ignore that the $450 (lets take that a number to work with even though it is an average and costs may be higher) are on top of the price the manufacturer already charges. Per Forbes the price for a new gas tankless water heater ranges from $750-$2300 in 2025. So the price for these new models once the regulation is in effect will be $1200+ – $2750+, add to that the higher installation cost and replacing your water heater with a new model can become unaffordable for those on a fixed incomes etc., supporting Suzanne’s headline.
Then when you install your new regulation water heater you will save about $5.60 every year over the 20 years this thing is supposed to last, according to DOE’s own numbers. This is clearly nothing other than virtue signaling and the tyranny of the elite few.
Do as much damage to the country as you can Biden before you leave office. Leaving a mess for Trump to deal with. Man, talk about a sore loser, Biden’s acting like a childish brat and sold out his own country. If you think what happened in New Orleans was bad, just wait till all the “sleeper cells” he let into the country when he opened the border. Now the start of killing with vehicles and bombs blowing things up is going to keep happening. So this guy was a U.S. citizen? Doesn’t mean crap. How many other sleeper cells are there?
Don’t get me started on pardoning you son…….
Joe Biden, you could f### up a wet dream.
“ While proponents argue that the regulations will help curb carbon dioxide emissions—a key contributor to global warming”
Oddly but expected. What is missing from this quote is a word in front of the words “ key contributor “
– speculative
– perceived
– Widely debunked
– fill in the blank
So many copy and pasted stories related to other topics seem to more often than not, include an opinionated comment prior to the topic. example, find a story from the mainstream superspreaders that doesn’t preempt a 2020 election story with “falsely claimed election fraud”
More real scientist than not can totally debunk the “key contributor” line above
But hey, let’s not let science get in the way of a good agenda.
This is one of the main reasons I voted for Trump. There were other reasons too. And some things I disagree on his approach. But this arrogant liberal climate mindset of we will decide how you live and by what means you’ll do it is just over the top. We have enough regulations already. For me, this issue “Trumps” everything else. The sooner this condescending administration is gone the better. They could care less how what they do might affect your life. Not one bit. Try leaving people alone for a change.
If the Dems have their way we’ll be living in poorly constructed tenement housing with shared cooking facilities, shared laundry facilities, and a shared tiny electric vehicle that you’ll have access to 1 or 2 days per week. The communist dream.
An average tankless water installation is closer to $6-9,000. You have additional gas pipe (200,000 btu vs 50,000 btu), upgraded gas meters, PVC flues (often requiring cutting drywall) and requirements for electrical and drains. Maintenance is also much more expensive, and repairs can be $1,000’s. There is absolutely no scenario where a tankless makes financial sense over a tank. Also don’t forget that during a power outage, a tank water heater will work, a tankless will not. The only logical reasons to install a tankless are for “endless” hot water, to save space or perhaps if the tank is installed over a conditioned space. Another exercise in stupidity by the worst president in our history.
My kid will thank you when he gets to grow up on a planet that is slightly less polluted.