We live in a time when the concept of truth is challenged. Responsible editorial policy should recognize the difference between our best understanding of reality and “just suppose” ideas, and alert readers to misinformation. “If you like your gas furnace, you may not be able to keep it;” “A measure to effectively ban the use of fossil fuels in all new buildings and renovation projects citywide;” and “All-electric rule: Costlier homes, worse efficiency.” Each of these statements should have been identified as untrue.

These are examples of coverage of the Northampton City Council’s approval of an ordinance, required by the state Department of Energy Resources (DOER) for our participation in the Municipal Fossil Fuel Free Building Demonstration Program. The bold headline on David Murphy’s Jan. 31 column contradicts several studies showing that all-electric homes are cheaper to construct and operate.

First, let’s examine which buildings are impacted by the fossil fuel-free ordinance. The ordinance applies only to new construction and substantial renovations (additions that increase the footprint of the existing building by 100% or reconfigure over 50% of the building square footage). Unless you undertake a renovation of that magnitude, there is nothing in the ordinance to prevent you from replacing the heating system in your home as you desire.

For those who are concerned (as we all should be) about the cost of sorely needed new housing, what is the impact? The evidence from those who have done the research tell us all-electric housing is less expensive to build than housing that uses fossil fuels. This includes research performed by DOER, the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and others. The RMI study looked at housing building costs across the country including in Boston. Both building and operational costs for all-electric buildings were lower in all cases, partly because heating and cooling require a single system.

In Northampton, which has been under a moratorium for installation of new gas connections since 2015, propane is the only available fossil fuel for new buildings and it is one of the most expensive ways to heat a building.

The fossil fuel-free ordinance passed in Northampton provides many exemptions. These include scientific and medical research buildings, hospitals and medical offices, and generators. The ordinance also includes opportunities for waivers in cases where compliance would increase the cost of a project by 50% or more compared to compliance with the state’s standard Stretch Building Code.

Finally, arguments that electricity provided by today’s grid is reliant on fossil fuels have no merit. Massachusetts, along with 27 other states and the District of Columbia, has adopted renewable portfolio standards. These require that utilities and retail electricity providers increase the renewable portion of electricity generation.

In Massachusetts, the minimum increases by 2% each year, beginning at 16% in 2018, and reaching 80% by 2050. As renewable sources of energy increase, the grid will need to modernize to accommodate it. These efforts will take some time and are underway. Comparing fossil fuel-based electricity from the grid with gas burned in a furnace ignores the fact that the sources of electricity on the grid are variable and changing.

Hastening the transition to renewable sources of electricity is one reason that Valley Green Energy (VGE) and other Community Choice Aggregation efforts have been created. Northampton, Amherst and Pelham residents were automatically enrolled in VGE unless they had contracted with a third-party electricity provider. VGE’s 100% renewable option (which requires opting in on the VGE website) is about the same price (16.474 cents/kWh) as the National Grid price (16.09/kWh) and includes no energy generated from methane.

Customers who were automatically enrolled without opting u, have the VGE basic rate (13.59/kWh), which includes 27% generated by renewable sources, as required by the state. (Note: Amherst and Pelham should compare the VGE rates with Eversource, the utility that provides their electricity.)

Beyond cost per kWh, when comparing all-electric buildings and fossil fuel-reliant ones, we should factor in the costs of air and water quality impacts. Fracking operations as well as fossil fuel energy generating facilities have negative health impacts on nearby communities. Pipeline construction and leaks have caused devastating water and air quality impacts.

Growing evidence cited by the American Lung Association reveals that many homes with fossil fuel appliances have unhealthy levels of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and other air toxics associated with asthma, cancer and heart disease. Continuing to build structures that contain fossil fuel-dependent appliances including heating equipment extends these consequences.

The date targeted by both Massachusetts and Northampton for achieving carbon neutrality is 2050. As benchmarks, Northampton has targeted a 50% emissions reduction from 1990 emissions by 2030, and 75% by 2040. Buildings constitute about 70% of total carbon emissions for Northampton.

Building new buildings in 2025 that will be reliant on future retrofitting is irresponsible both socially and financially. We owe it to our children, grandchildren, and future generations to act responsibly in the present. Let’s align our efforts to make sure that we are looking at the best information available when we make decisions.

Denise Lello is a member of Mothers Out Front and the Northampton Climate Emergency Coalition.