A new study from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) makes an odd claim: a new home built in Maryland powered by gas has a lower environmental impact than an all-electric home.
The NIST is an exceptional research institution, which makes these findings all the more troubling. However, our friends at the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) dug into the study’s assumptions and found several major problems:
The NIST report falls short in three critical ways. First, it relies on old and no longer relevant data about the percent of electricity generated by coal-fired power plants. Second, it fails to consider the most efficient electric appliances available on the market. Third, it makes assertions that buildings powered by electricity are more expensive than fossil-fuel fired buildings without providing sufficient supporting evidence or addressing other studies, including [RMI’s study] The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, that reached the opposite conclusion.
Significantly, RMI found that the NIST study assumed that dirty coal generated more than 50 percent of Maryland’s electricity, which hasn’t been the case since 2011. Due to the growth of clean energy and expansion of clean energy laws in the region, the economic decline of coal across the country, the work of grassroots activists pushing back on coal pollution, Maryland’s electricity profile has changed dramatically. According to recent data, coal plants in the state only produced around 19 percent of Maryland’s power. That means the electricity to power buildings is much cleaner than what was being claimed by the study. The NIST study then was relying on outdated data that made all-electric powered homes dirtier than they have been since 2011.
Check out RMI’s full analysis: Getting the Facts Right: Clean, Electric Buildings Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions AND Save Money in New Construction.