Yeah I was thinking of NorCal's gas water heater (and my own when it comes out). I am mindful that not all of this stuff will get to be used as long as it still works, and that in fact the responsible thing at some point is to trash it, as much as it goes against my tree-hugger impulses.
My take is to view these decisions in the context of the market I'm operating in. For this water heater, I'm pretty damn confident that someone getting a water heater at ReStore isn't someone about to go and buy a heat-pump unit. And they probably NEED something that is cheap and functional way more than I need just about anything new in my life right now. I'm okay with that one.
But yea, don't be wasteful when it's not warranted. Just replacing something because it's a couple percentage points more efficient is almost never worth it. But replacing something that is 75% more efficient is frequently worth it. The dividing line is pretty fuzzy, but I've found most things to be pretty clear cut.
My other thoughts on participating in the market:
While the heat-pump water heater reduces my household emissions by about 1,000lbs/yr (with further reductions as the grid gets cleaner), the biggest impact isn't the emissions of my one water heater. It's me voting with my wallet. One of the biggest lessons I've learned in a decade of corporate finance is that success creates success, and declines have a way of becoming mutually reinforcing. By buying this new technology, I am:
-Encouraging local contractors to learn how to install heat-pump water heaters. As demand for these increases, more contractors will learn about them, market them, and sell them to their customers. Companies that specialize in heat pumps may even start investing in lobbying to influence local building codes, which is where there's potential for real change.
-The best way to decrease the price of a new technology is to increase sales volume. The money I spent on the new technology will be used for some growth in sales, marketing, R&D, production efficiency, etc. This will make the next generation even cheaper and more competitive.
-Public policy doesn't lead consumer sentiment, it follows it. As more consumers employ new technologies, more politicians will be comfortable endorsing and supporting it in various ways.
As for natural gas, I've reduced my bill by about $500/yr, but added about $200/yr to my electric bill. This has the following impacts:
1. Since expenses in the natural gas business are largely fixed due to the big capital investments in pipelines, infrastructure, etc, a revenue reduction has to come from decreased spending somewhere. While $500 isn't much in the grand scheme of things, that's $500 less that I'm personally paying towards the fossil fuel lobby that is preventing most decarbonization policies. Shrinking revenue will decrease the natural gas industries ability to expand, retain quality workers, lobby, etc.
2. Since I participate in a wind-energy program through my utility, that's $250/yr going to produce and develop wind energy in Colorado. This will increase investment in the wind business. When I eventually get a new solar system, that will be money going directly to local solar installers, who are becoming quite good at managing lobbying and public policy. They have way more influence than I ever will as an individual.
While I'm under no illusion that my individual decision will make a big difference, I believe most people highly underestimate how small changes in consumer behavior can influence business behavior. It just takes new technologies to show sustained growth over a few years in order to create a beneficial investment cycle that lowers prices, which increases sales, which helps drive down prices even further. The decreasing price of solar and wind is a prime example of this.
The same is true of the fossil fuel companies. They have a TON of fixed expenses that they can't shed. A simple annual revenue decline in the 2-5% range over a number of years would be enough to put many of them in serious financial distress. Those small revenue declines might translate into earnings decreases of 20% or more, which would really decrease what they are capable of, and impact their ability to raise capital.
I believe that choosing who I give my money to is a much bigger decision than whatever specific item I choose to have in my house.