Colorado should mandate heat pumps in all new homes
Re: “Oregon takes the lead in mandating heat pump HVAC in new residential constructions,” March 7 Real Estate story
Oregon’s mandate for heat pumps is a good first step in weaning society off natural gas. Oregon’s mandate only applies to new construction. Itap not clear what “new construction” means, but if it only applies to new residential subdivisions, the cost of natural gas infrastructure can be avoided, and the $3,000 savings per house would offset any additional cost for the heat pump.
For a new subdivision, geothermal-based heat pump systems are easier because the pipe grid can be installed during excavation and grading. Such systems can be even more efficient than air-based heat pumps and air conditioners.
If our goal is net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, why should we build new homes with gas furnaces that will operate for the next 20 years? After that, converting an existing house with a gas furnace to heat pump heating isn’t as simple as replacing the gas furnace with a heat pump. You need to install the outside equipment with all the associated plumbing and wiring. And the duct work may need to be modified. All this work is much harder (costlier) in a finished house.
Before forcing producers to cut back gas supplies, Colorado needs to take this first step to stop building new subdivisions based on gas heating.
A national carbon fee and dividend law would make transitioning off natural gas more palatable by increasing the cost of fossil fuel while giving folks dividends to pay for it.
Rich Griffin, Aurora
Affordability crisis in America is real, every day for us
We filled up our gas that was down to 3/4 tank, so we could top it off for less. We group any errand trips and have almost stopped any spending that isn’t absolutely necessary.
I am totally insulted by the Oval Office occupant who makes fun of affordability. It’s not a fantasy, it’s reality for those of us who buy groceries, pay heat bills, and fill our own gas tanks. How dare anyone say this war is not affecting real people? How does this war make us safer? It doesn’t. It is just a distraction from the Epstein files.
It means eating ramen soup instead of a meal, skipping doses of medicine to make it last, and having the house so cold that even a sweater or extra blankets makes it feel like winter camping. And we are lucky to have a home … many are not. People are in lines for food, and people living on the streets.
Congress: Stand up and do something, or find a new job after the November elections. Affordability is real, prices going up week after week is real. Anything delivered, anything that is not local, is way more than a year ago. Business people can’t quote a price and not expect a surprise tariff, fee or additional shipping costs. Get real and do something. Amendment 25, Section 4, anyone?
Cheryl Brungardt, Wheat Ridge
We will all pay for the misstep in Iran for years
Donald Trump is a bully. That has been his behavior throughout his personal and business life. He stiffs contractors and then dares them to take him to court. He sues people he perceives as enemies. Now that he is president, he uses the Department of Justice as a tool to further his revenge motives.
Waging war against Iran is bullying on steroids. And make no mistake: This is a war. Whenever Trump talks about it, he uses the word “war.” Republicans in Congress have denied that it is a war, but that’s only because they are too cowardly to stand up to Trump — if they identify it as a war, the War Powers Act comes into play.
Trump’s bullying of Iran will not have a simple resolution. In essence, he has thrown a match into a tinder box, and he has no idea how this will end. In fact, he has no stated objective other than claiming that he has the right to dictate a new Iranian leader. The USA and the Middle East will be paying for his misstep for decades.
James W. Craft, Broomfield
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
