[epistasis]

Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity, I hopefully edited for better clarity!

The other problem in California is that most heating is done via natural gas, and though heating needs are fairly low if houses had any sort of insulation, there's basically zero insulation in all homes. Which means that every winter, people experience massive natural gas bills that should be close to zero, making it very problematic to switch some of the utility cost burdens from the electricity side to natural gas side. Meanwhile, PG&E profits are at the very top of the utility stock list for its profit margins...

[toast0]

Insulation in California homes depends a lot on where they were built and when. My parents' home in southern california was built in the 1960s, and was pretty much uninsulated, but none of these homes had a/c and the gas heater would be run a few days in the winter. You've got to have a heater to be an inhabitable home by California law, but if it only runs a few days a year, insulation almost doesn't matter. If there's little climate control, not being air sealed is generally a benefit rather than a negative, as it provides passive ventilation, and much of the old housing stock is in areas where the climate is generally pleasant enough all year that outside air is nice enough.

If you've got an attic, it's not too expensive to from zero insulation to basic insulation, and the ROI is pretty quick. Of course, some areas of California had neighborhoods built in the Eichler-style with no attic space; those are hard to add insulation to. A nice large tree over the home can help with summer heat, but large trees over the home have risks and costs too.

[baggy_trough]

> there's basically zero insulation in all homes.

This is completely false.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

In SoCal, but when I moved here from Chicago, I was aghast at the so called insulation. Single pane glass windows, visible gaps in window frames and doors. Probably not legal to sell in the Midwest.

Here, it’s like whatever. I never run the heater, and there are maybe 7 days a year where I want the AC.

[triceratops]

I read "zero insulation" as "shit-tier insulation" and that is approximately accurate for a lot of Bay Area housing.

[baggy_trough]

That's closer to the truth, but to say that all homes have basically zero insulation is just wrong.

[triceratops]

Well sure drywall is technically an insulator, since it's not a thermal or electrical conductor. So is the single pane of glass found on most windows.

Maybe there's some stuff between the drywall and stucco? I never checked because the lead paint on the walls (any of the walls I've lived among; the Bay Area has a lot of old, shit housing) made me wary of drilling holes.

[baggy_trough]

I have lived in multiple homes in the bay area of differing vintages, and they all had at least some attic insulation. I'm not sure what was in the walls. Newer homes have better insulation, of course.

[epistasis]

Well all I can talk about is the 1970s-era boxes that dominate in the Bay Area, which is the major population center that PG&E serves.

If your experience with these homes is different somehow, let me know. But go to SF, go to the peninsula, and you'll find that most homes barely stop air coming in and out of the house, much less have proper insulation. A blower test for SF homes would shock most people in the modern world.

[jandrese]

In LA sure, you can get away with minimal insulation. SF is a different story. That city is shockingly cold. An uninsulated house in SF is wasting loads of energy.

[baggy_trough]

Yes, my experience is that you are simply wrong.