Builders, not consumers, chose energy-wasteful electric heat for profit reasons

Evidence

In most cases, the decision to install electric heat was made by builders, not homebuyers, and builders often chose electric heat because the alternatives were less profitable. Electric heat was cheaper and easier to install, and electric utilities offered builders substantial financial incentives. When people really had a choice – when they hired contractors to build a home according to their specifications – they were much less likely to install electric heat than speculative builders were. But the electric houses still sold. Because a house was a complex and expensive product, almost all homebuyers had to make trade-offs, and many were willing to accept a second-choice heating system in order to get a house with a better kitchen or a bigger bedroom. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 290

Categorization

• XREF: Connects directly to Eco-Justice extraction themes and land-use course: producer-driven environmental decisions made at the point of construction persist downstream. — connects to: Electric heat’s cheaper installation drew builders into energy-wasteful design. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 274; Consumer environmentalism failed because both rich and poor buyers chose energy waste — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 292; Electric utilities marketed heat by betting on future atomic cheapness. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 272 (+2 more)
• ADDENDUM: Supports the Grafting & Growth infrastructure article’s thread that built environments encode decisions made far from end users, and that design choices are vector for environmental cost.

Broader Connections

• Postwar building techniques raised household energy demand by design choices #expands (0.82) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 243
• Cheap energy and mortgage pressure defeated energy-efficient postwar housing design #expands (0.75) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 214