They probably mean cost efficiency rather than thermodynamic efficiency. It would cost a lot to install those systems in addition to the electricity storage necessary to run during a blizzard. I’m not disagreeing that electric is better but there’s a lot more to consider than just “modern systems are better so you should install them” and it’s not a lie to say so.

At very low temperatures? I think if you're above zero F, you should be ok, but below zero it gets expensive.

They're not talking about taxing gas - they're talking about banning it.

> At very low temperatures? I think if you're above zero F, you should be ok, but below zero it gets expensive.

Did you read my comment before replying? I already addressed this. Yes I am talking about well below zero F.

> They're not talking about taxing gas - they're talking about banning it.

Yes and they should ban it. Electric heating is way more efficient, doesn't poison the occupants and can be powered from renwable sources.

Sure, in CA a ban makes sense (though Berkeley law was overturned). But in a polar vortex winter storm, how do you have enough power to keep the building warm if there's no power, and the minimal reserves you may have with battery backup are not enough to run the heat pump?

I think this ban is too bold and will result in political backlash that will end up doing worse than if something less drastic was proposed.

Hochul was 10pts away from losing the last race to a complete RW zealot.

I wouldn't say it's "completely false", it depends on the temperature. Heat pump efficiency drops as the temperature drops. If you live in a place with very cold temperatures for prolonged periods of time, gas may indeed be more efficient.

... gas heating is more cost efficient (heat per currency) is probably what he meant.