NYC Energy Conservation Code

Online comments: 17

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Data Integrity and Open-Standard Format Mandate (§ 5(f) & § 6(g))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f) and Section 6(g) permit compliance documentation to be presented via static compliance reports and supporting drawing sets.
  PDF
  Objective Issue: Standard flattened PDF outputs omit underlying parametric geometry, node structures, thermal mesh definitions, and dynamic simulation inputs. Static reports prevent DOB plan examiners and subsequent Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) from auditing or modifying baseline calculations without reconstructing the model entirely.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Insert a new subdivision under § 5(f) or § 6(g):
  Mandatory Open-Standard Digital Model Deliverables:
  “In addition to summary PDF reports, all energy models, building envelope thermal analyses, and thermal bridging calculations submitted under this section must include the underlying raw, uncompiled digital source files in open-standard schemas (including ISO 16739 IFC/IFCx for geometry, gbXML or EnergyPlus .idf/.osm for whole-building modeling, and native .thm or equivalent solver files for thermal bridging). All native files submitted shall become part of the official public record of the filing.”
  Technical Rationale: Mandating open-standard native deliverables ensures transparent calculation verification by DOB plan examiners, prevents private vendor data lock-in, and provides the sealing engineer with verifiable control over the supporting digital assets.

  Comment added July 28, 2026 10:46am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Physical Site Condition Attestation and Direct Supervisory Control (§ 5(f)(4))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f)(4)(i)(B)(2) establishes credential options for individuals responsible for energy modeling but does not require verification of baseline physical building conditions or explicit direct supervisory control affirmations.

  Objective Issue: Performing thermal analysis or building modeling without verifying existing physical building geometry and envelope assemblies leads to unverified theoretical assumptions that do not reflect actual building performance.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Insert paragraph (C) under § 5(f)(4)(i):
  Site Condition Attestation & Direct Supervision:
  “The Registered Design Professional signing and sealing the energy analysis shall include an explicit statement attesting that: (1) baseline physical building dimensions, existing envelope assemblies, and mechanical configurations were verified through direct physical site observation or documented field surveys conducted under their direct supervision; and (2) all modeling inputs, assumptions, and calculations were prepared under their direct supervisory control in compliance with New York State Education Law § 7209.”
  Technical Rationale: Establishes clear regulatory accountability, ensures calculation baselines reflect physical real-world conditions, and aligns DOB submittal requirements directly with state professional licensing statutes.

  Comment added July 28, 2026 10:47am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Open Standards and Vendor Neutrality for HVAC TSPR Software (§ 5(f)(1)(iv)(A))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f)(1)(iv)(A) mandates that HVAC TSPR simulation programs use “NYC-specific TSPR software” approved by the building official.

  Objective Issue: Restricting compliance pathways to a single proprietary software tool without explicit open API access or published algorithmic validation creates an administrative bottleneck and potential vendor lock-in.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Amend § 5(f)(1)(iv)(A) as follows:
  Simulation software: “Simulation programs used to calculate the HVAC TSPR must rely on open-standard calculation engines, publish their underlying mathematical algorithms and validation suites publicly, comply with Section C409 or 6.6.2 and 2025 NYC ASHRAE 140 testing and reporting requirements, accurately model equipment performance including part-load behavior, make results publicly available, and be approved by the building official.”

  Technical Rationale: Guarantees that software approval processes remain transparent, open-access, and subject to independent technical verification by the professional engineering community.

  Comment added July 28, 2026 10:48am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  3 DISTINCT COMMENTS COMBINED:

  1. Open Standards and Vendor Neutrality for HVAC TSPR Software (§ 5(f)(1)(iv)(A))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f)(1)(iv)(A) mandates that HVAC TSPR simulation programs use “NYC-specific TSPR software” approved by the building official.

  Objective Issue: Restricting compliance pathways to a single proprietary software tool without explicit open API access or published algorithmic validation creates an administrative bottleneck and potential vendor lock-in.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Amend § 5(f)(1)(iv)(A) as follows:
  Simulation software: “Simulation programs used to calculate the HVAC TSPR must rely on open-standard calculation engines, publish their underlying mathematical algorithms and validation suites publicly, comply with Section C409 or 6.6.2 and 2025 NYC ASHRAE 140 testing and reporting requirements, accurately model equipment performance including part-load behavior, make results publicly available, and be approved by the building official.

  Technical Rationale: Guarantees that software approval processes remain transparent, open-access, and subject to independent technical verification by the professional engineering community.”

  2. Physical Site Condition Attestation and Direct Supervisory Control (§ 5(f)(4))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f)(4)(i)(B)(2) establishes credential options for individuals responsible for energy modeling but does not require verification of baseline physical building conditions or explicit direct supervisory control affirmations.

  Objective Issue: Performing thermal analysis or building modeling without verifying existing physical building geometry and envelope assemblies leads to unverified theoretical assumptions that do not reflect actual building performance.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Insert paragraph (C) under § 5(f)(4)(i):
  Site Condition Attestation & Direct Supervision:
  “The Registered Design Professional signing and sealing the energy analysis shall include an explicit statement attesting that: (1) baseline physical building dimensions, existing envelope assemblies, and mechanical configurations were verified through direct physical site observation or documented field surveys conducted under their direct supervision; and (2) all modeling inputs, assumptions, and calculations were prepared under their direct supervisory control in compliance with New York State Education Law § 7209.”
  Technical Rationale: Establishes clear regulatory accountability, ensures calculation baselines reflect physical real-world conditions, and aligns DOB submittal requirements directly with state professional licensing statutes.

  3. Data Integrity and Open-Standard Format Mandate (§ 5(f) & § 6(g))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f) and Section 6(g) permit compliance documentation to be presented via static compliance reports and supporting drawing sets.

  Objective Issue: Standard flattened PDF outputs omit underlying parametric geometry, node structures, thermal mesh definitions, and dynamic simulation inputs. Static reports prevent DOB plan examiners and subsequent Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) from auditing or modifying baseline calculations without reconstructing the model entirely.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Insert a new subdivision under § 5(f) or § 6(g):
  Mandatory Open-Standard Digital Model Deliverables:
  “In addition to summary PDF reports, all energy models, building envelope thermal analyses, and thermal bridging calculations submitted under this section must include the underlying raw, uncompiled digital source files in open-standard schemas (including ISO 16739 IFC/IFCx for geometry, gbXML or EnergyPlus .idf/.osm for whole-building modeling, and native .thm or equivalent solver files for thermal bridging). All native files submitted shall become part of the official public record of the filing.”
  Technical Rationale: Mandating open-standard native deliverables ensures transparent calculation verification by DOB plan examiners, prevents private vendor data lock-in, and provides the sealing engineer with verifiable control over the supporting digital assets.

  Comment added July 28, 2026 11:12am

• Anynymous

  2 DISTINCT COMMENTS COMBINED:

  1. Physical Site Condition Attestation and Direct Supervisory Control (§ 5(f)(4))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f)(4)(i)(B)(2) establishes credential options for individuals responsible for energy modeling but does not require verification of baseline physical building conditions or explicit direct supervisory control affirmations.

  Objective Issue: Performing thermal analysis or building modeling without verifying existing physical building geometry and envelope assemblies leads to unverified theoretical assumptions that do not reflect actual building performance.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Insert paragraph (C) under § 5(f)(4)(i):
  Site Condition Attestation & Direct Supervision:
  “The Registered Design Professional signing and sealing the energy analysis shall include an explicit statement attesting that: (1) baseline physical building dimensions, existing envelope assemblies, and mechanical configurations were verified through direct physical site observation or documented field surveys conducted under their direct supervision; and (2) all modeling inputs, assumptions, and calculations were prepared under their direct supervisory control in compliance with New York State Education Law § 7209.”
  Technical Rationale: Establishes clear regulatory accountability, ensures calculation baselines reflect physical real-world conditions, and aligns DOB submittal requirements directly with state professional licensing statutes.

  2. Data Integrity and Open-Standard Format Mandate (§ 5(f) & § 6(g))
  Current Proposed Language: Section 5(f) and Section 6(g) permit compliance documentation to be presented via static compliance reports and supporting drawing sets.

  Objective Issue: Standard flattened PDF outputs omit underlying parametric geometry, node structures, thermal mesh definitions, and dynamic simulation inputs. Static reports prevent DOB plan examiners and subsequent Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) from auditing or modifying baseline calculations without reconstructing the model entirely.
  Proposed Text Amendment: Insert a new subdivision under § 5(f) or § 6(g):
  Mandatory Open-Standard Digital Model Deliverables:
  “In addition to summary PDF reports, all energy models, building envelope thermal analyses, and thermal bridging calculations submitted under this section must include the underlying raw, uncompiled digital source files in open-standard schemas (including ISO 16739 IFC/IFCx for geometry, gbXML or EnergyPlus .idf/.osm for whole-building modeling, and native .thm or equivalent solver files for thermal bridging). All native files submitted shall become part of the official public record of the filing.”
  Technical Rationale: Mandating open-standard native deliverables ensures transparent calculation verification by DOB plan examiners, prevents private vendor data lock-in, and provides the sealing engineer with verifiable control over the supporting digital assets.”

  Comment added July 28, 2026 11:31am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Let the records show that the 2 comments “3 DISTINCT COMMENTS COMBINED:” and one by “Anynymous” was submitted because only the first comment was approved upon submission, and the remaining comments were posted after I emailed multiple city officials. This is not an attempt to spam this is to make sure that all 3 comments are heard. also noted that the time shown on “Comment Added” is my submission, not posting time of dob. attached is the email showing that the first comment was approved on 10:59am whereas the remaining were sent at 12:14pm.

  Comment attachment
  Gmail-NYC-Rules-Your-comment-has-been-approved.pdf

  Comment added July 28, 2026 12:42pm

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Comment on Proposed Rule 26 RG 028 — Progress Inspection Frequency Reclassification (Table I, Items IA2, IA3, IA4, IA6)

  Disclaimer: This comment is neither in support of nor in opposition to the proposed reclassification. It is a request for the technical information needed to evaluate the change on its engineering merits, submitted in that spirit rather than as an objection.

  Legal basis for this rule: Local Law 47 of 2026, §5, authorizes DOB to promulgate rules implementing the City’s conformance to the 2025 New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code. I did not find a provision in Local Law 47 of 2026, or elsewhere in the record for this rulemaking, that specifically mandates a supporting technical study or report for changes of this kind — unlike, for comparison, statutes that do impose such a requirement directly on DOB. If such a report or study exists and was simply not included in the public rule package, please identify it.

  The specific request: Table I reclassifies progress inspection items IA2 (envelope insulation placement/R-values), IA3 (fenestration U-factor/product ratings), IA4 (fenestration air leakage), and IA6 (air barrier visual inspection) from open-ended “as required” language to a defined PERIODIC standard. Before commenting further, I would ask DOB to clarify:

  Are these PERIODIC/CONTINUOUS designations adopted directly from the 2024 IECC or 2025 ECCCNYS model code text, or are they NYC-specific determinations? If the former, please cite the corresponding model-code section; if the latter, please identify the basis for the specific frequency chosen for each item.
  The Statement of Basis and Purpose describes these changes collectively as a terminology clarification. For the four items above specifically, please confirm whether this is intended as a substantive frequency determination or purely a terminology update, since the prior bracketed language (“as required… while open,” “as required during installation”) does not obviously map to a single defined category under the existing Special Inspection framework.

  This information is needed to make a complete, technically grounded comment on the substance of the rule — not to allege a specific failure, but because the answer changes what a substantive comment on this provision should say.

  Sincerely,
  107881

  Comment added July 30, 2026 9:22am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Statutory Citation Error — Local Law 47 vs. Local Law 48 of 2026 (Statement of Basis and Purpose)

  Current Proposed Language: The Statement of Basis and Purpose states that “Section 5 of Local Law 47” authorizes this rule, but separately states that “Section 3 of Local Law 48” repeals and replaces Administrative Code § 28-1001.2 — attributing the same repeal-and-replace action within this rulemaking to two different local laws.

  Objective Issue: Local Law 48 of 2026 is an unrelated law concerning the naming of thoroughfares and public places and has no connection to the Energy Conservation Code. It is Local Law 47 of 2026, § 3 — not Local Law 48 — that repeals and replaces § 28-1001.2. An incorrect statutory citation in the Statement of Basis and Purpose undermines the stated legal authority for this specific provision and creates an avoidable defect in the rulemaking record.

  Proposed Text Amendment: Amend the Statement of Basis and Purpose to replace each incorrect reference to “Local Law 48” or “Section 3 of Local Law 48” with “Local Law 47” or “Section 3 of Local Law 47,” respectively, wherever it appears in connection with the repeal and replacement of § 28-1001.2.

  Technical Rationale: Confirmed directly against the enacted text of both laws: Local Law 47 of 2026 conforms the NYC Energy Conservation Code to the 2025 New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code, and its own § 3 performs the repeal-and-replace of § 28-1001.2 described in the rule. Local Law 48 of 2026 is a separate, unrelated law naming public thoroughfares. Correcting the citation ensures the rule’s stated legal basis accurately reflects the enabling legislation and avoids ambiguity for anyone relying on the Statement of Basis and Purpose to verify DOB’s rulemaking authority.

  Sincerely,
  107881

  Comment added July 30, 2026 11:24am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Deferred Submittals: Deletion of Mandatory Pre-Installation Approval (§ 5000-01(g)(7))

  Existing rule. 1 RCNY § 5000-01(g)(6) provides that deferred submittal drawings may serve as supporting documentation “provided that, in accordance with § 28-104.2.6 of the Administrative Code, the applicant lists such deferred submittals in the construction drawings and submits them for approval prior to installation or construction.”

  Proposed change. Section 7 of the proposal renumbers this paragraph as (g)(7), strikes the emphasized clause, and substitutes: “The Applicant of Record may request review and approval from the Department.”

  Objective issue. Two consequences follow.

  Substantive relaxation. Under the proposed text, energy-code-regulated assemblies and equipment covered by a deferred submittal could be installed with no Department review of conformance to the approved energy analysis. Verification would shift entirely to post-installation progress inspection under subdivision (h), by which point nonconforming work is in place.

  Apparent conflict with the Administrative Code. AC § 28-104.2.6 provides that deferred submittal items “shall not be constructed or installed until the design and submittal documents for the item have been approved by the department.” AC § 28-105.12.6 provides that such items “shall not be installed until the construction and submittal documents for such portions have been approved by the department and, where applicable, new or amended permits have been issued.” A rule stating that an applicant “may request” approval is inconsistent with statutory language stating that installation shall not occur until approval is obtained.

  This bears directly on the Law Department certification of July 2, 2026, which attests under Charter § 1043(d)(ii) that the proposed rule “is not in conflict with other applicable rules.”

  The Statement of Basis and Purpose does not identify this change.

  Proposed text amendment.

  “Drawings showing design intent and performance criteria, matching those in the energy analysis, may be submitted as supporting documentation provided that, in accordance with § 28-104.2.6 of the Administrative Code, the applicant clearly lists such deferred submittals in the construction drawings and submits them to the Department for review and approval prior to installation or construction. Deferred submittal items shall not be installed until approved by the Department in accordance with §§ 28-104.2.6 and 28-105.12.6 of the Administrative Code. The energy analysis must be updated when deferred submittals are reviewed for approval.”

  Technical rationale. Deferred submittals routinely encompass curtain wall and fenestration assemblies, HVAC equipment packages, and lighting and control systems — the components that most directly determine whether as-built performance matches the sealed energy analysis. Pre-installation review is the only stage at which a discrepancy can be corrected on paper rather than in the field.

  If the Department’s position is that AC §§ 28-104.2.6 and 28-105.12.6 already impose the requirement and the rule language was therefore redundant, I ask that the final Statement of Basis and Purpose say so expressly and that a cross-reference be retained in the rule text, so the obligation remains legible to applicants, plan examiners, and progress inspectors working from the rule.

  Comment added July 31, 2026 8:21am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Thermal Bridging: Removal of Quantitative Identification Threshold and Clear-Field De-Rating (§ 5000-01(g)(1)(iii))

  Existing rule. 1 RCNY § 5000-01(g)(1)(iii) currently requires:

  Construction documents to include information on clear field, point, and linear thermal bridges;
  Clear field thermal bridges (brick ties, cladding, studs) to be de-rated using Appendix A of ASHRAE 90.1, and, where an assembly is not identified in Appendix A — the rule names Z-girts as the example — to be noted on the drawings with supporting documentation indicating the de-rated value; and
  Individual point thermal bridges, such as structural beam penetration through insulation, larger than 12 in² in commercial buildings and larger than 8 in² in residential buildings, to be identified on the construction documents.

  Proposed change. Section 6 strikes the subparagraph in its entirety. The replacement at (A) enumerates six categories of intersection that must be evaluated and detailed; (B) prescribes ψ/χ documentation by compliance path.

  Objective issue. The replacement criterion is categorical where the existing criterion was quantitative and typological. As drafted:

  No numeric threshold triggers identification of an individual point thermal bridge. A discrete structural penetration not occurring at one of the six enumerated intersections may not require identification at any size.
  The obligation to document a de-rated value for clear-field assemblies not addressed in the referenced tables is not carried forward. Discontinuous cladding support systems are the principal case affected.
  The words “clear field” and “point” no longer appear in the operative documentation requirement, though χ factors — the point thermal bridge metric — remain referenced at (B).

  The Statement of Basis and Purpose describes this section only as adding “information on how to present supporting documentation for thermal bridge provisions.” That description does not disclose the removal of existing thresholds.

  Proposed text amendment. Add to § 5000-01(g)(1)(iii)(A):

  “4. Individual point thermal bridges penetrating the building thermal envelope with a cross-sectional area greater than 12 square inches in commercial buildings or greater than 8 square inches in residential buildings, whether or not such penetration occurs at an intersection listed in paragraphs 1 through 3 of this clause.

  Clear-field thermal bridges, including but not limited to brick ties, cladding attachments, and framing members. Where the assembly is not addressed by Table C402.1.4, Table A10.1, or Appendix A of 2025 NYC ASHRAE 90.1, the de-rated assembly value must be shown on the construction documents together with the supporting calculation or thermal simulation.”

  Technical rationale. Clear-field de-rating and discrete point penetrations govern failure modes distinct from linear assembly intersections. Discontinuous cladding support and isolated structural penetrations degrade assembly U-factor in ways not captured by evaluating the enumerated intersections alone, and they are also the locations where interior surface temperature depression drives condensation risk. An explicit dimensional trigger gives plan examiners and progress inspectors an objective criterion that does not depend on case-by-case judgment. Nothing in the proposed ψ/χ framework at (B) is inconsistent with retaining these provisions.

  Comment added July 31, 2026 8:22am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Removal of Envelope Backstops for Buildings 25,000 ft² and Greater on the Performance Path (§§ 5000-01(d)(3)(iii) and (f))

  Existing rule. Two provisions currently constrain envelope performance for large buildings using whole-building energy modeling:

  § 5000-01(d)(3)(iii): “Additional requirements in Section 11 and Appendix G. For new buildings 25,000 square feet and greater in area, and which follow Section 11 or Appendix G, additional requirements must be satisfied to demonstrate compliance with Section 5.2.3. The building envelope must comply with either Section 5.5 of ASHRAE 90.1 (‘Prescriptive Building Envelope’) or the applicant must calculate an envelope performance factor in accordance with Appendix C of ASHRAE 90.1 that meets certain thresholds dependent on the occupancy of the building.”
  § 5000-01(f)(1)(iv), final sentences: “Additional envelope requirements for buildings 25,000 square feet and greater. Additionally, for applications 25,000 square feet and greater, a ComCheck Envelope Compliance Certificate, using ASHRAE 90.1, must be submitted along with the energy modeling reporting to ensure compliance with additional envelope provisions.”

  Proposed change. Section 3 of the proposal strikes (d)(3)(iii) in its entirety. Section 5 strikes the additional envelope requirements block from the energy modeling paragraph. Neither deletion appears in the Statement of Basis and Purpose, and the proposal retains the Building Envelope Trade-off Option at (d)(3)(ii) referencing Section 5.6 of 2025 NYC ASHRAE 90.1.

  Objective issue. These two provisions together operate as the envelope backstop on the performance path. Their function is to prevent a project from modeling its way to compliance while delivering an envelope materially worse than prescriptive, offsetting the deficit with high-efficiency mechanical, lighting, or on-site generation measures. With both deleted and the trade-off option retained, the rule as proposed does not, on its face, require any independent demonstration that the envelope of a 25,000 ft²-or-greater performance-path building meets a floor.

  Requested action. I am not asking the Department to reinstate text that the 2025 standard has superseded. I am asking it to state, in the final Statement of Basis and Purpose, which of the following is the case:

  (a) The backstop is preserved within 2025 NYC ASHRAE 90.1 itself — in which case please cite the specific section, and add a cross-reference at (d)(3)(ii) so applicants and plan examiners can find it;

  (b) The backstop is preserved elsewhere in the 2025 NYCECC — same request; or

  (c) The backstop is not preserved — in which case please state the technical basis for removing it, and identify whether that determination was reviewed by licensed professional staff.

  If the answer is (c), I request that the following be added to § 5000-01(d)(3)(ii):

  “For new buildings 25,000 square feet and greater in area following Section 12 or Appendix G of 2025 NYC ASHRAE 90.1, the building thermal envelope must additionally comply with either Section 5.5 of 2025 NYC ASHRAE 90.1 or an envelope performance factor calculated in accordance with Appendix C of 2025 NYC ASHRAE 90.1 meeting the threshold applicable to the occupancy.”

  Technical rationale. Envelope and equipment have asymmetric service lives. Mechanical plant, lighting, and controls are replaced on 15-to-25-year cycles; the thermal envelope of a high-rise is effectively permanent. A trade-off that is energy-neutral at time of modeling becomes a permanent deficit at first equipment replacement, because the compensating measure is renewed against a code baseline while the envelope is not.

  Envelope performance also carries consequences the energy model does not price. Interior surface temperature governs condensation risk and the associated moisture, mold, and durability exposure. Envelope-driven peak load governs equipment sizing and therefore part-load behavior across the life of the system. And during a heating-season outage, envelope performance alone determines interior temperature decay — a passive survivability question that the Department has treated as material in other contexts.

  These are precisely the considerations a documented technical basis would address. My request is that the basis exist and be stated, not that the Department reach any particular conclusion.

  Comment added July 31, 2026 8:22am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Completeness of the Statement of Basis and Purpose (Charter § 1043(b), (d))

  The notice. The Statement of Basis and Purpose identifies six categories of change: updated references to the 2025 NYCECC; addition of TSPR as a compliance path; supporting documentation for thermal bridge provisions; presentation of additional efficiency credits; clarification of “continuous” and “periodic” progress inspections; and plain language revisions.

  Objective issue. The proposed rule text contains substantive changes outside all six categories, in both directions of stringency. I set out examples of each, because my concern is disclosure rather than direction.

  Reductions in stringency not disclosed:

  Provision Change
  (g)(7) Deferred submittals Mandatory pre-installation approval struck; permissive “may request” substituted
  (g)(1)(iii) Thermal bridging Point thermal bridge thresholds (12 in² / 8 in²) and clear-field de-rating requirement struck
  (d)(3)(iii) ASHRAE envelope backstop Struck in full for buildings ≥ 25,000 ft² on the performance path
  (f) COMcheck Envelope Compliance Certificate Struck for applications ≥ 25,000 ft²
  (g)(3) Electrical filing Electrical engineer “must file in a form and manner prescribed by the commissioner” changed to “may file”

  Increases in stringency not disclosed:

  (g)(6)(ii)(B) Air barrier “one of the following three air barrier requirements” changed to “all of the following three”; the 10,000 ft², 50,000 ft², and 75 ft thresholds that assigned method by building size are struck. All three requirements now apply to all commercial buildings.

  (e)(2)(i) Historic buildings Blanket exemption for alterations to historic buildings struck; replaced with partial exemption requiring a Historic Building Report demonstrating adverse effect on identified character-defining features

  (g)(1)(ii) Spandrel assemblies U-factor “must be that which is defined in the Energy Code” changed to “must be lower than or equal to” — a correction of an ambiguity in the existing rule
  Tables I and II Numerous inspection frequencies changed from “as required” to defined PERIODIC or CONTINUOUS triggers tied to construction stage; third-party air barrier testing now expressly witnessed; lighting control verification expanded to include dimming and demand responsive controls

  Requested action. Revise the final Statement of Basis and Purpose to enumerate each substantive change, state whether it increases, decreases, or maintains the existing requirement, and give the basis. Where a change reduces an inspection, testing, or documentation requirement, state the technical or administrative analysis supporting the reduction and identify whether it was reviewed by licensed professional staff.

  Rationale. Charter § 1043(b) requires the published notice to include a draft statement of the basis and purpose of the proposed rule. Charter § 1043(d)(iv) requires that the statement provide a clear explanation of the rule and the requirements it imposes, and the Law Department certification of July 2, 2026 attests to that. Charter § 1043(e) requires the agency to consider relevant comments before adopting a final rule.

  Where a substantive change is not identified in the notice, the regulated community cannot direct comment to it, and the consideration contemplated by § 1043(e) cannot occur as to that change. The defect is in the notice, not in any subsequent revision, and it is therefore not cured by the provision in § 1043(e) permitting revisions without further notice and comment.

  I note separately that the Mayor’s Office of Operations certification of the same date attests that the rule “minimizes compliance costs for the discrete regulated community.” The undisclosed air barrier expansion identified above carries direct cost and schedule consequences that the Statement of Basis and Purpose does not address. That the omission runs in both directions suggests the issue is the completeness of the disclosure rather than its slant.

  Several of the changes in this rule appear to me to be sound improvements, and I have identified them above as such. My objection is not to the rule’s direction. It is that a reader cannot presently tell what the rule’s direction is on the provisions that were not described.

  Comment added July 31, 2026 8:24am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Incorrect Statutory Citation and Omitted Effective Date

  The notice. Two errors:

  The section headed “What authorizes DOB to make this rule?” states that “Section 3 of Local Law 47 repeals and replaces section 28-1001.2.” The Statement of Basis and Purpose states that “Section 3 of Local Law 48 repeals and replaces section 28-1001.2.” Local Law 48 of 2026 is a local law in relation to the naming of 77 thoroughfares and public places. It has no bearing on the Energy Code. The Statement of Basis and Purpose citation is incorrect.
  The Statement of Basis and Purpose states that Local Law 47 of 2026 “was enacted on December 18, 2025, and went into effect on, 2026.” The effective date is blank.

  Objective issue. Charter § 1043(b) requires the published notice to state the statutory authority, including the particular sections and subdivisions on which the action is based. The notice gives two mutually exclusive citations for the same operative provision, one of which is a street-naming law.

  The omitted effective date is not cosmetic. Subdivision (d)(1) provides that applications must comply with the Energy Code version and edition in effect when the application is filed, continuing through construction and sign-off. The rule separately uses March 30, 2026 as the filing-date boundary for REScheck and COMcheck version requirements at (f)(1)(ii)(D) and (f)(1)(iii)(D). That date does not derive from Local Law 47; it is the enforcement date the Department set administratively in its Service Notice of December 29, 2025 and Buildings Bulletin 2026-005 of February 17, 2026, deferring enforcement of the adopted 2025 NYCECC until compliance software became publicly available.

  A reader of this notice alone cannot determine the relationship between the enactment date, the effective date, and the enforcement date, and those three dates govern which requirements attach to a filing in progress.

  Requested action.

  Correct the citation so a single consistent reference to Local Law 47 of 2026 appears throughout.
  State the effective date of Local Law 47 of 2026.
  State in the final rule or Statement of Basis and Purpose that March 30, 2026 is the enforcement date established by Buildings Bulletin 2026-005, and how it relates to the effective date of Local Law 47.
  Section 3 of Local Law 47 as published reads as a repealer of AC § 28-1001.2. The notice describes it as repealing and replacing that section, and asserts that it “includes authority for DOB to issue this proposed rule.” Please identify the specific provision relied upon.

  Comment added July 31, 2026 8:25am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Software Availability as a Precondition to the TSPR Compliance Path (§ 5000-01(f)(1)(iv)(A))

  This supplements my comment of July 28, 2026 on vendor neutrality in TSPR software, and does not repeat it.

  Proposed language. § 5000-01(f)(1)(iv)(A) requires that simulation programs used to calculate HVAC TSPR “use NYC-specific TSPR software… and be approved by the building official.”

  Objective issue. The Department has already encountered this dependency in this code cycle. Its Service Notice of December 29, 2025 stated that the 2025 NYCECC “has been adopted but will not be enforced until updated compliance software platforms are publicly available,” and Buildings Bulletin 2026-005 carried that forward, deferring enforcement to an anticipated date of March 30, 2026 and reserving the right to change it by Service Update. Enforcement of an adopted code was thus contingent on software availability for approximately three months.

  The proposed rule introduces a new compliance path whose availability depends on a single category of Department-approved, NYC-specific software, without stating any criterion for when that software will be available, how approval is granted, or what applicants should do in the interval. The Department’s own recent experience indicates this is a foreseeable operational risk rather than a hypothetical one.

  Requested action. Add to § 5000-01(f)(1)(iv)(A):

  “The Department must publish and maintain on its website a current list of TSPR simulation programs approved under this clause, together with the version, approval date, and the criteria applied in granting approval. Where no approved program is available for a project type, the TSPR compliance path is unavailable for that project type, and the Department must so state by Service Update.”

  Technical rationale. A compliance path that exists in rule but not in practice creates filing risk that falls entirely on the registered design professional, who must select and commit to a compliance path at the time of design. Publishing the approved list and approval criteria costs the Department little and allows the sealing professional to make that election on verifiable information. Stating expressly when the path is unavailable prevents the ambiguity the Department had to resolve by bulletin in February 2026.

  Comment added July 31, 2026 8:26am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Request for Supplemental Notice and Extension of Comment Period — 26 RG 028 / DOB-214

  I am a New York State licensed professional engineer (PE 107881) and have submitted comments on this proposed rule. I write to request that the Department take one of two actions before adopting a final rule.

  Primary request: supplemental notice and extension. The proposed rule contains substantive amendments not described in the published Statement of Basis and Purpose, including at least the following: deletion of the requirement that deferred submittals be approved prior to installation (§ (g)(7)); deletion of the quantitative point thermal bridge identification thresholds and the clear-field de-rating requirement (§ (g)(1)(iii)); deletion of the ASHRAE 90.1 envelope backstop for buildings 25,000 ft² and greater on the performance path (§ (d)(3)(iii)); deletion of the COMcheck Envelope Compliance Certificate requirement for applications 25,000 ft² and greater (§ (f)); and expansion of commercial air barrier requirements from one of three methods to all three, with the existing size and height thresholds removed (§ (g)(6)).

  Charter § 1043(b) requires that the published notice include a draft statement of the basis and purpose of the proposed rule, and § 1043(d)(iv) requires that the statement provide a clear explanation of the rule and the requirements it imposes. Because these amendments were not described, the regulated community has not had notice sufficient to direct comment to them, and the consideration required by § 1043(e) cannot meaningfully occur as to those provisions.

  I therefore request that the Department publish a supplemental notice identifying each substantive amendment, stating whether it increases, decreases, or maintains the existing requirement and the basis for the change, and extend the comment period by not less than thirty days from the date of that supplemental publication.

  Alternative request: withdrawal and re-proposal. If the Department declines to supplement the notice, I request that the proposed rule be withdrawn and re-proposed with a complete statement of basis and purpose.

  I recognize that withdrawal would prolong the interval during which the codified rule references the 2020 Energy Conservation Code while the 2025 Code is enforced. That is why I request supplementation as the primary remedy. It cures the notice defect without that cost.

  I ask that a written response to this request be placed in the public comment record for this rulemaking.

  Comment added July 31, 2026 8:27am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Completeness of the Rulemaking Record: Concurrent Consultant Engagement Not Identified in the Notice (Charter § 1043(b), (d), (e))

  This supplements my comment of July 31, 2026 on the completeness of the Statement of Basis and Purpose. It concerns a different defect in the same notice, and does not repeat that comment.

  Disclaimer. This comment alleges no wrongdoing by any person or firm. It concerns what the rulemaking record does and does not contain. Where a question is open on the public record, I identify it as open rather than assert it as a finding. A single document, if it exists, would resolve most of what follows.

  The notice. The Statement of Basis and Purpose identifies the legal authority for this rule and describes six categories of change. It identifies no consultant engagement, no outside technical work product, and no study underlying any provision of the proposed rule.

  Objective issue. A Department contract for services described in the Department’s own procurement records as relating to Local Law 97 has been in performance throughout the period in which this rule was developed, certified, and noticed. No deliverable produced under it appears in this rulemaking record or anywhere in the public domain.

  Contract CT181020268807803, EPIN 81026O0001001, was awarded to 2050 Partners LLC in the amount of $1,600,000. The Comptroller’s Checkbook NYC record shows the purpose field as “LL97 STUDIES,” the award method as intergovernmental procurement, and one solicitation with one response. The award was made out of Buildings, Strategic Planning and Policy. As of this writing $270,320 has been spent and $285,380 encumbered under the expense category PROF SERV OTHER. The contract appears on the Comptroller’s Late Contracts Dashboard.

  The sequence, drawn entirely from published City documents:

  December 18, 2025 Local Law 47 of 2026 enacted
  December 29, 2025 Department Service Notice
  February 17, 2026 Buildings Bulletin 2026-005 defers enforcement of the
  2025 NYCECC until compliance software platforms are
  publicly available; anticipated enforcement March 30, 2026
  March 6, 2026 Contract CT181020268807803 begins performance
  March 30, 2026 Anticipated enforcement date per BB 2026-005
  May 2026 Regulatory Agenda for FY2027 published, announcing this
  rule as Item 6 for the first quarter of FY2027, with
  Local Law 97 and the Energy Conservation Code grouped
  together under Items 5 through 7
  June 8, 2026 Contract registered, 94 days after performance began
  June 15, 2026 Notice of award published in The City Record, p. 2534
  July 2, 2026 Law Department and Mayor’s Office of Operations
  certifications executed
  July 17, 2026 Proposed rule published for comment
  August 27, 2026 Comment period closes

  The certifications of July 2, 2026 were therefore executed 118 days after this contract began performance and 24 days after it was registered. The Mayor’s Office of Operations certification attests that the rule minimizes compliance costs for the discrete regulated community. The Law Department certification attests under Charter § 1043(d)(iv) that the Statement of Basis and Purpose provides a clear explanation of the rule and the requirements it imposes. I cited both in my comment of July 31.

  Two discrepancies appear on the face of the public record.

  Scope. The contract is titled “LL97 STUDIES.” The notice of award published in The City Record on June 15, 2026 describes the services as “Technical, Policy, and Program Design Support for Market Development Programs.” A study produces findings. Program design support for market development describes ongoing advisory work directed at shaping demand within a market, including for particular technologies, products, or measures. These are not the same undertaking, and the difference bears on whether the engagement touches the compliance pathways in this rule.

  Contracting entity. The City Record notice lists the vendor at 9 El Sueno, Orinda, California. Checkbook NYC lists the vendor at 700 South Flower Street, Suite 3000, Los Angeles, California. 2050 Partners LLC was acquired by West Monroe Partners LLC in a transaction announced September 17, 2025, approximately six months before the contract start date, and the Los Angeles address corresponds to a West Monroe office. The identity of the contracting entity as of March 6, 2026 is not determinable from the public record.

  I note, without drawing a conclusion from it, that the vendor’s principal line of business is utility-facing energy efficiency and codes-and-standards work, and that it holds a codes and standards advocacy contract with Pacific Gas and Electric Company arising from that utility’s Statewide Codes and Standards Advocacy Program, valued in excess of five million dollars. Utilities are not disinterested parties on building electrification, gas system planning, or which measures earn compliance credit. That does not establish that anything improper occurred. It establishes that a disclosure and organizational conflict screening analysis was called for, and that the public has not seen one.

  What I am not saying. I am not asserting that this contract produced work product bearing on this rule. I do not know whether it did. Local Law 97 and the Energy Conservation Code are related but distinct bodies of law, notwithstanding that the Department’s own FY2027 Regulatory Agenda groups them under a single portfolio at Items 5 through 7. That is precisely why I am asking rather than alleging.

  Requested action. I ask the Department to state, in the final rule or in the final Statement of Basis and Purpose, which of the following is the case:

  (a) No work performed under Contract CT181020268807803 informed any provision of this rule, in which case a simple statement to that effect resolves this comment entirely; or

  (b) Work performed under that contract did inform one or more provisions, in which case I ask that the relevant work product be placed in the rulemaking record and that the comment period be extended and the rule re-noticed so that the regulated community may direct comment to it.

  I ask separately that the Department:

  1. Identify the underlying governmental contract relied upon for the intergovernmental purchase, including the issuing government, agency, contract number, and the competitive method by which it was awarded. The notice of award cites no Procurement Policy Board Rule subsection and identifies no source contract, unlike other award notices published in the same issue of The City Record.

  2. Confirm whether any consultant, contractor, or outside party contributed to the drafting or technical basis of any provision of this proposed rule, and if so, identify them and the provisions concerned.

  3. Confirm where the public record of written comments required by Charter § 1043(e) for this rulemaking is maintained and how a member of the public may inspect it. As documented in my comment of July 28, 2026, three comments I submitted that morning were not posted until after I contacted Department staff. Section 1043(e) requires that comments be placed in a public record and made readily available as soon as practicable, and expressly provides that this shall not be delayed.

  Rationale. Charter § 1043(b) requires the published notice to include a draft statement of the basis and purpose of the rule. Charter § 1043(d)(iv) requires that the statement give a clear explanation of the rule and the requirements it imposes. Charter § 1043(e) requires the agency to provide an opportunity to comment, including outreach to the discrete regulated community, and to consider relevant comments before adopting a final rule.

  Where publicly funded technical or program design work informs a rule and is not identified in the notice, the regulated community cannot direct comment to it, and the consideration contemplated by § 1043(e) cannot occur as to that work. As with the omissions identified in my July 31 comment, the defect is in the notice rather than in any subsequent revision, and it is therefore not cured by the provision of § 1043(e) permitting revisions without further notice and comment.

  I want to be precise about the burden here. I am not asking the Department to justify a procurement decision in a rulemaking proceeding; that is the proper subject of other processes, and I am pursuing it there. I am asking only that the record of this rule disclose whether outside work product informed it. If the answer is no, this comment costs the Department one sentence.

  Supporting documentation is provided in Exhibit C of the technical exhibits submitted as an attachment to this comment, with a full source index.

  Sincerely,
  Yosep Blake Bak, P.E.
  New York State Professional Engineer, License No. 107881

  Comment attachment
  DOB_FY27_Technical_Exhibits.pdf

  Comment added August 3, 2026 11:41am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  Energy Modeler Qualifications: Authorization of a Non-Licensee to Sign and Seal, and Naming of a Single Private Certification (§ 5000-01(f)(4)(i)(B)(2))

  This supplements my comment of July 28, 2026 on physical site condition attestation and direct supervisory control under § 7209 of the Education Law, and does not repeat it.

  Proposed language. Section 5 of the proposal adds, at § 5000-01(f)(4)(i)(B)(2), “Energy Modeler Qualifications,” providing that the modeling documentation “must be signed and sealed by either: a. a registered design professional with a minimum of two years of experience performing energy modeling for buildings of similar size or complexity; or b. an individual holding an active ASHRAE Building Energy Modeling Professional (BEMP) certification.”

  FIRST ISSUE: THE PROVISION AUTHORIZES SEALING BY A PERSON WHO MAY NOT BE LICENSED.

  Objective issue. Subclause (a) requires a registered design professional. Subclause (b) does not. It requires only “an individual” holding a private certification. Because the two subclauses are joined by “either… or,” and because the governing verb for both is “must be signed and sealed,” the provision as drafted permits an individual who is not a licensed professional engineer or registered architect in New York State to sign and seal documentation submitted to the Department.

  Article 145 of the Education Law reserves the practice of engineering to those licensed and registered under that article, and § 7209 governs the use of the seal. A rule of this Department cannot authorize an unlicensed individual to seal documents that are part of a construction document submission. The Department has no authority to create an exception to State licensure law, and I do not believe it intends to.

  The ASHRAE BEMP credential is not a license. It is a certification issued by a private trade association. It carries no disciplinary jurisdiction under the Education Law, no practice privilege in New York, and no requirement of licensure as a prerequisite. A BEMP certificate holder may be an engineer, an architect, an energy analyst, or a person with no design credential at all.

  This bears directly on the Law Department certification of July 2, 2026, which attests under Charter § 1043(d)(ii) that the proposed rule “is not in conflict with other applicable rules.”

  It also cannot be reconciled with subdivision (f)(4) itself, which opens by providing that “The energy analysis must be signed and sealed by registered design professional(s),” or with subclause (B)(1), which provides that “The lead professional must be a registered design professional.” The proposed (B)(2)(b) contradicts both.

  Proposed text amendment. Amend § 5000-01(f)(4)(i)(B)(2) to read:

  “2. Energy Modeler Qualifications. The modeling documentation must identify the individual responsible for the model and include such individual’s name, affiliation, credentials, and contact information. The documentation must be signed and sealed by a registered design professional who either:

  a. has a minimum of two years of experience performing energy modeling for buildings of similar size or complexity; or

  b. holds an active ASHRAE Building Energy Modeling Professional (BEMP) certification or an equivalent credential accepted by the Department in accordance with published criteria; or

  c. demonstrates equivalent competence in accordance with criteria published by the Department.

  Where the individual responsible for preparing the model is not a registered design professional, the model must be prepared under the direct supervision of the registered design professional who signs and seals the documentation, and that professional shall so state.”

  Technical rationale. This preserves the Department’s evident intent, which is to require demonstrated modeling competence in addition to licensure, while restoring the requirement that a licensed professional take professional responsibility for sealed documents. Nothing in the amendment prevents a BEMP holder from performing the modeling work. It requires only that the person who seals the work be someone the State has licensed and can discipline.

  SECOND ISSUE: NAMING A SINGLE PRIVATE CERTIFICATION WITHOUT AN EQUIVALENCY PATHWAY.

  Objective issue. Separate from the licensure question, subclause (b) names one trade association’s product as a qualification pathway. ASHRAE sets the examination, the eligibility criteria, the fee, and the renewal cycle. Once named in a rule of this Department, that organization acquires the practical ability to determine who may perform regulated work in the City of New York, and to price that access, without any accountability to the Department, to the regulated community, or to the public.

  The rule offers no equivalency route. A licensed professional engineer with fifteen years of whole-building modeling practice who does not hold the certificate qualifies only under subclause (a); one with eighteen months of such experience and a current certificate qualifies under subclause (b). The provision therefore treats the certificate as a substitute for experience without stating a technical basis for that equivalence.

  This is the same structural concern I raised on July 28 regarding “NYC-specific TSPR software,” in a different form. There, a single software implementation becomes a precondition to a compliance path. Here, a single private credential becomes a precondition to professional participation. In both cases the Department delegates a gatekeeping function to an outside party without publishing the criteria under which that party’s judgment is accepted.

  Requested action. If the Department retains a certification pathway, I ask that it:

  1. State the technical basis for treating the BEMP certification as equivalent to two years of documented modeling experience.

  2. Publish objective criteria under which any certification demonstrating equivalent competence will be accepted, and accept any credential meeting those criteria, rather than naming one organization in the rule text.

  3. Confirm whether the Department has any agreement, arrangement, or communication with ASHRAE concerning this provision.

  4. Confirm whether the cost to a practitioner of obtaining and maintaining the named certification was considered in the Mayor’s Office of Operations certification of July 2, 2026 that the rule “minimizes compliance costs for the discrete regulated community.”

  I note that the first issue above is not a matter of preference or policy direction. If the provision is adopted as drafted, the Department will have published a rule stating that an unlicensed individual may seal engineering documentation. That should be corrected before adoption regardless of how the Department resolves the second issue.

  Sincerely,
  Yosep Blake Bak, P.E.
  New York State Professional Engineer, License No. 107881

  Comment added August 3, 2026 11:43am