Too much future-proofing isn't always economical.

Agreed, but combined with all the other benefits, electric heat is still my
choice.

That is very misleading because 20-30% of the electric energy is lost
during power transmission, meaning if resistive heat is powered by a
gas-fired generator station, it may not be as efficient as an
80-90%-eficient gas furnace.

True, but most homes probably aren't running the most efficient gas
furnaces, and probably aren't maintained the way a generator station would
be.

Also resistive heat is more efficient than a heatpump,
yet the latter typically needs only 30-50% as much
electric energy for the same BTU output.

However, heat pumps usually only work well in moderate climates, are
expensive to install, use dust collecting duct work, and require space
outside the home for the compressor.

Safety is probably the best reason to use electric heat.

It was one of our main deciding factors.

air conditioning bill last summer was $90.

We have so few hot days here that we don't need air conditioning.

As for heating bills, that's hard to calculate with electric because our
bill also includes all electric appliances, electric hot water heater,
electric well pump, a full time home office, and woodworking power tools
running fairly often.

However, we are on an "equal pay" plan and currently pay $145 a month,
summer and winter. We average about 30-40 kwh/day during the summer, and
70-80 kwh/day during the winter, weather depending of course.

4400 sq. ft.

It's not an option most people want to hear these days, but reducing square
footage is the best way to cut energy costs. No matter how efficient your
heating and insulation may be, more square footage means more energy is
needed to heat and cool.

The recommendations I have heard is 8 watts per square foot for electric
heat in well insulated houses. That's about 12 kw for our 1456 sq/ft house,
where a 4400 sq/ft house would need 35 kw at the same rate.

Anthony