Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Limits for Buildings

Online comments: 127

• Laura Bram

  I urge the City not to weaken enforcement of Local Law 97. The law is a vital part of the City’s response to the climate crisis, but it is only as meaningful as its enforcement. We can’t rely on the use of renewable energy credits, which will allow buildings to continue to emit greenhouse gases. We can’t allow the Good Faith Effort pathways to be overused, because there is no time to wait for buildings to implement this law. Local Law 97 could not be more important for our future, and I hope the necessity of the changes it requires, and the urgency of the crisis it addresses, is foremost in everyone’s mind during the rulemaking process.

  Comment added October 3, 2023 12:32pm

• Monica Weiss

  I emphatically request that you uphold the integrity and intention of this landmark law at a time of such extraordinary climate crisis. Pretending we have time on our side belies the urgency of the crisis and the very limited window of opportunity to avoid the most catastrophic impacts in NYC and globally. There are many opportunities for support from Accelerator and low cost financing. Ultimately the Davi gs will outweigh the cost. Thank you.

  Comment added October 15, 2023 1:42pm

• Emma Matarasso

  I am writing in as the urgency in responding to the climate crisis cannot be underestimated and NYC’s role cannot be understated. Local Law 97 is a landmark climate law and we must be an example to other mega cities. We cannot slow down implementation at this late date. The dirty buildings not in compliance for 2024 account for 30% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. The loopholes will make it difficult to avert these emissions in time to meet the 2030 mandate. Delaying compliance breaks the momentum we have established on implementation of this law. Thank you! Emma

  Comment added October 15, 2023 2:45pm

• Nicholas Piccora

  I am writing to call on the City for an equitable implementation of Local Law 97 that prioritizes health benefits, investments, and job creation and development in the communities who have historically suffered from air pollution. The above can be accomplished through a wide array of initiatives including, but not limited to: prioritizing tenant protections and ensuring costs of retrofits are not passed to the tenant; job creation and workforce development to ensure roughly 141,000 jobs are created and ensuring workers have protections, career-track employment, and union-linked apprenticeships; and funding incentives and support for residential buildings, as the City must provide robust financing tools and funding while supplementing the ones that already exist for building owners, especially smaller, independent, and affordable housing property owners, without heavily relying on federal funding programs that are not sustainable nor guaranteed.

  The city must also work to ensure that the Department of Buildings is adequately funded. It is critical that the DOB has the resources necessary to fully implement and enforce this law.

  New York City is in a unique position to emerge as a true climate leader with Local Law 97; not only in this country, but around the world. We must not lose momentum and we must continue to do what is right for future generations who will call this City home. All possible loopholes must be closed and Local Law 97 must be fully implemented.

  Comment added October 16, 2023 12:34pm

• Dana Matarasso

  I am writing to ask that the city not weaken enforcement of Local Law 97. RECs will allow buildings to continue to emit greenhouse gases and will discourage buildings performing energy updates to comply and reduce the number of new green jobs that the law predicted. This law is integral to the city’s decarbonization efforts. Thank you, Dana

  Comment added October 16, 2023 1:16pm

• Fiona Cousins

  I have reviewed the rules carefully as a member of the LL97 advisory board and co-chair of the carbon accounting working group.
  The new rules address a few of the unresolved issues that we were unable to conclude in the working groups and at the advisory board, and that are more properly dealt with through the DoB.
  Specifically, these are around how good faith efforts might be recognized without weakening the provisions of the law. I am particularly pleased to see the possibility of collecting back fines as a part of this. This helps to differentiate effective good faith efforts from ineffective efforts, reducing the opportunity for finding excuses not to act.
  The new rules also provide some new pathways to ease enforcement: the purpose of the law is to reduce carbon emissions, not to collect fines, so these seem to me to be consistent with the overall purpose.
  The decarbonization plan is an important step in both of these activities, helping owners to engage with the long-term planning needed to renovate their buildings and building systems to put them on a pathway to reducing carbon emissions as quickly as possible, and permanently.
  I am also pleased to see the additional limitation of RECs as a part of decarbonization plans and note that this is a strong step in the permanent reduction of emissions. Coupled with the good-faith work, this recognizes that renovations take time to plan and execute.
  The rules also promote and encourage the replacement of fossil fuel equipment on the earliest schedule. Electrification is a key part of achieving carbon reductions, improving health and safety in buildings as well. We debated the beneficial electrification credit at length in the AB working groups and specifically how large it should be to encourage early action, and the rule finishes off this work.

  Comment added October 17, 2023 1:52pm

• Mary Kohl

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,

  My name is Mary Kohl and I am a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice. I am testifying on the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. Due to the worsening climate crisis, the City must do everything it can to reduce emissions and decarbonize our buildings. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.

  Buildings across New York city contribute to over 70% of the city’s Greenhouse Gas emissions which causes health issues such as respiratory and cardiovascular illness. Both climate change and air pollution disproportionately harm low income communities and communities of color.

  I have the following concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):

  There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.

  “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.

  There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.

  I want this administration to show that the City can adequately enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.

  Thank you for your time.

  Sincerely,
  Mary Kohl

  Comment added October 17, 2023 8:02pm

• Nan Faessler

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,
  My name is Nan Faessler and I am a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice, a committed volunteer with NY Renews and Steering Committee member of Indivisible Harlem.I am writing this testimony on the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.
  I have the following concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):
  There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.
  “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.
  There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.
  I want this administration to show that the City can adequately enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.
  Thank you for your time.
  Sincerely,
  Nan Faessler

  Comment added October 18, 2023 7:48am

• Cameron Clarke

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,

  My name is Cameron, and I am a medical student and a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice, Columbia University White Coats for Black Lives, and NY Docs. I am testifying on the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.

  I have the following concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):

  There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.

  “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.

  There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.

  I want this administration to show that the City can adequately enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.

  Thank you for your time.

  Sincerely,

  Cameron

  Comment added October 18, 2023 2:11pm

• DR THOMAS CAFFREY

  My name is Doctor Thomas Caffrey. I am a psychologist, and specialize in preventing suicide. I have retired from working with individual patients. I have done this in order to confront our massive, and suicidal, climate apathy here in the United States, and specifically in New York City. Every time someone drives when he or she could walk or take a bus. . .every time a politician – an elected official representing a whole population – subverts his or her duty to implement a law framed to confront climate breakdown – he or she is joining in – actively and assertively – in the mass suicide that we Americans, yes, we educated New Yorkers, have been committing for the past 40 years.
  As a fellow vegan, I know how critically important your teeth are for you. Please! Refrain from removing the teeth created for and embedded in Local Law 97. They were placed there to protect us all from the suicidal delays sought by the Real Estate Industry. (For instance, it looks like you are extracting the carefully designed 30% cap on polluters’ Renewable Energy Credits. Leave that cap in place!)
  If psychology, nutrition, and dentistry fail to move you, let’s consider religion. I am a Roman Catholic, and am active in my large, midtown, Catholic parish. I take seriously the Pope’s chastisement of Americans (in his Laudate Deum of October 4th) for their 7-times-greater amount, per person, of carbon emissions than that of citizens of poorer countries, and I will be urging my fellow Catholics city-wide (e.g., through the Metro New York Catholic Climate Movement) to restrain you from enervating Local Law 97.

  Comment added October 18, 2023 9:09pm

• Wilson Slagle

  I urge the City not to weaken enforcement of Local Law 97. The law is a vital part of the City’s response to the climate crisis, but it is only as meaningful as its enforcement. We can’t rely on the use of renewable energy credits, which will allow buildings to continue to emit greenhouse gases. We can’t allow the Good Faith Effort pathways to be overused, because there is no time to wait for buildings to implement this law. Local Law 97 could not be more important for our future, and I hope the necessity of the changes it requires, and the urgency of the crisis it addresses, is foremost in everyone’s mind during the rulemaking process.

  Comment added October 19, 2023 10:01am

• Melissa Matarasso

  I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the enforcement of Local Law 97, which aims to reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. With the first round of caps scheduled to take effect in less than three months, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that 11 percent of the affected buildings are still falling short of meeting the required emissions standards.

  As we approach this crucial milestone, it is essential that we remain vigilant in enforcing these emission limits.
  The environment is a shared responsibility, and Local Law 97 represents a significant step towards achieving our emission reduction goals. As we work towards a more sustainable and greener future, it is imperative that we ensure strict adherence to these regulations. We cannot afford to compromise on the commitments we have made to reduce our carbon footprint.

  I urge you to take immediate and proactive steps to strengthen the enforcement of Local Law 97. This should include measures to support affected buildings in their efforts to meet the required emission standards, as well as robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms to identify and address non-compliance.

  Comment added October 20, 2023 11:11am

• Lillian Dalke

  To whom it may concern:

  I am writing to express my concern that the DOB’s proposed rules expand the meaning of “good faith efforts” and give the DOB authority to allow building owners to avoid penalties, which exceed DOB’s authority under LL97. DOB also failed to promulgate rules limiting the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased, as required by LL97.

  DOB must amend these rules to comply with the law before finalizing them. This includes setting a minimum penalty amount that will actually deter noncompliance, and working to ensure that the fines collected from non-compliant building owners are used to fund decarbonization in environmental justice and other disadvantaged communities throughout the City. The DOB should also develop rules to limit the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased.

  Thank you.

  Comment added October 20, 2023 1:28pm

• Pete Klosterman

  Letter of Support for DOB’s Proposed Rules on Local Law 97

  I am writing to express support for the NYC Department of Buildings’s (DOB) proposed rules on Local Law 97.

  Passed in 2019, Local Law 97 set greenhouse gas emissions limits on buildings over 25,000 square feet starting in 2024. Given the fact that the vast majority of NYC’s greenhouse gas emissions come from our buildings, this law is intended to reduce emissions from buildings by 40% by 2030 and achieve an 80% reduction citywide by 2050.

  The proposed rules outline how building owners can demonstrate a “good faith effort” for the first compliance period, prohibits the use of RECs as part of a decarbonization plan to qualify for the “good faith effort” provision, establishes credit for early electrification work that can be applied towards compliance with emission reduction targets, and provides guidance on complying with the law for affordable housing buildings and houses of worship.

  I support DOB’s proposed rules because it is a major step toward full implementation of the law. It effectively strikes a balance between addressing challenges faced by buildings such as co-ops and condos and the urgency to reduce climate-warming emissions and achieve the long-term goals of Local Law 97. With the introduction of a new credit for early electrification work, it will encourage the installation of energy-efficient electric heating, cooling, and hot water systems before 2030.

  As our planet experienced record-breaking heat this summer, New York City must lead the way in moving us away from fossil fuels to fight climate change. I urge the DOB to adopt the proposed rules to take us one step closer toward a more sustainable city.

  Sincerely,

  Pete KIosterman

  Comment added October 20, 2023 1:38pm

• Mary Ellen Sullivan

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,

  My name is Mary Ellen Sullivan, and I am a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice, Swing Left Target Majority, and Kings County Committee. I am testifying to the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.

  Local Law 97 is a groundbreaking law which gives NYC an unparalleled opportunity to reduce our emissions by tackling the source of 70% of NYC emissions – the built environment. To dilute the power of this bill by allowing implementation rules to effectively eliminate penalties for non-compliance would be an affront to citizens, citizen’s children, and to their children’s children. You have an amazing opportunity to effectively implement this rule and change the trajectory of NYC’s pollution, I hope you seize it.

  I have the following specific concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):

  • There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.

  • “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.

  • There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.

  I want this administration to show its citizens the City can enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, achieve the intent of LL97 which is to quickly reduce emissions, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined.

  I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most. Affordability is already a crisis among many New Yorkers. My own children would love to call New York City their forever city, but do not believe that they will be able to afford buying a home or apartment here.

  Thank you for your time.

  Sincerely,

  Mary Ellen Sullivan
  Co-op President, 119 State Street Corp LLC
  119 State Street, Apt 4
  Brooklyn, NY 11201

  Comment attachment
  MESullivan_Written-Testimony-LL97_October2023.docx

  Comment added October 20, 2023 3:48pm

• Stephanie Yang

  I am a constituent of New York and have lived in this great city for over 8 years. I am writing to oppose extending the timeline for compliance with Local Law 97 by 2 years, as it relates to the new Dept of Buildings Regulations amending the Administrative Code requiring annual greenhouse gas emissions limits for buildings over 25,000 sq ft. AS stated in Local Law 97.

  In the past two years, we have seen our MTA transit system, including my own train line I use regularly, bombarded with floodwater. I have seen graffiti on sidewalks near my apartment saying that this spot will be at sea level within my lifetime. The Climate Clock in Union Square will hit zero before I reach my mid-30s. Two years is too long.

  Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings in NYC must be reduced by 40% by 2030. The proposed rule changes, especially the “good faith” loophole, lets dirty buildings off the hook, even though they account for 30% of emissions from large buildings in NYC. This loophole will make it even harder to reach our 40% reduction, why make the odds even worse?

  Local Law 97 is a landmark climate law, the first city in the world to enact a law that limits buildings emissions and New York must be an example to other cities worldwide. Diluting the effort of this local law is a cowardly step backward when our planet and our future is at risk. If we want people to continue calling New York home, I urge you to not backtrack on this law for the benefit of the real estate industry, at the cost of your constituents..

  Comment added October 20, 2023 5:26pm

• Helen Hood

  Please do not take any action that would weaken the impact of Local Law 97. We have made so few of the necessary steps to curb climate change in a meaningful way — let’s not roll back the wins we have made in this space, no matter what real estate & corporate interests are pushing for. Thank you for the good work you are doing!

  Comment added October 20, 2023 8:01pm

• Annalena La Porte

  Please do not weaken Local Law 97 in any way. This is a landmark ruling and if we go back on this, we will not be able to reduce the 2/3 of total emissions caused by the city’s infrastructure. Just, what the hell everyone. I’m so annoyed that you keep pretending we can mess with nature like this. I’m a scientist and I’ve had it. It’s like children playing SIM city. This is real life. There’s no goddamn reset button. Please stop trying to doom humanity for shits sake.
  Sincerely,
  -Annalena La Porte, Ph. D.,
  SCIENTIST REBELLION

  Comment added October 21, 2023 12:50am

• Clifton Smith

  end the flanked gas pipeline.

  Comment attachment
  inbound7031154224411143208.pdf

  Comment added October 21, 2023 1:02am

• Jessie Mathisen

  As a New Yorker who sees our climate changing in concerning ways, I want NYC to be a leader in the fight for a livable future.

  Surely we have all noticed:
  -Frequent, intense (dare I say, tropical?) rainstorms
  -Flooding that was unheard of even 20 years ago
  -Winters with microscopic amounts of snow, lots of warm days, and a small number of intensely cold days

  We can only mitigate the worst effects of climate change if we take action as a society. Local Law 97 does this. Is it convenient? No. But neither is losing huge swathes of NYC to flooding. Let’s implement and enforce this law fully.

  Oh, and sure- we’re just one city. We can’t fight climate change alone. But we’re big and we’re influential. Let’s show the world how it’s done

  Comment added October 21, 2023 7:48am

• Ames

  I’m a Brooklyn resident and I’m writing to express my opposition to the proposed rule changes to Local Law 97 regarding annual greenhouse gas emission limits for buildings over 25,000sf.

  The proposed changes weaken enforcement and create loopholes that will hasten the devastation of climate disaster on New York City. The climate crisis and our city’s need to adapt and respond in the face of unprecedented catastrophes cannot be overstated. Climate disaster is happening NOW, not in some distant future. Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings in NYC must be reduced by 40% by 2030, yet the proposed rule changes create loopholes based on so-called “good faith” efforts by landlords. Don’t weaken LL97!

  Comment added October 21, 2023 8:22am

• Heather Foster

  The city needs to do more, not less, in the face of the Realestate lobby and landlords. We all also must do more as this climate crisis is here, now. It’s imperative that the city not weaken enforcement of Local Law 97.

  Comment added October 21, 2023 10:17am

• Morgan Kee

  I oppose extending the timeline for compliance with Local Law 97 by 2 years.

  The climate crisis is happening now, and we can’t delay taking action. The owners of these buildings will have had 5 years to make alterations to comply with the law by the time it kicks in. Although the buildings not in compliance with this law represent a relatively small percentage of all buildings (roughly 11%), combined they account for about 30% of emissions from large buildings.

  Why should the worst offenders get a free pass? It’s like if everyone else in the class studied hard so they could do well on the test but a few people didn’t study and failed. Is it fair to let only the people who failed take the test again to improve their scores? Landlords who have not complied deserve consequences. That’s the point of laws.

  Comment added October 21, 2023 11:07am

• Stephanie Hanson

  My name is Stephanie Hanson and I live in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, with my partner and 5-year old son. As a parent and someone who has worked on climate issues internationally for over a decade of my career, I care deeply about climate issues and I’m a strong supporter of Local Law 97. I think LL97 is incredibly important because it puts NYC on a clear path to large emissions reductions (70% of NYC emissions come from buildings!).

  First, I want to thank DOB for coming up with proposed rules to shape the implementation of LL97. I served on the board of the Clinton Hill Co-ops (a 12-building cooperative of 1,200 units in Brooklyn) for five years (2016-2021), and we were working to make emissions reductions in our complex prior to LL97 regulatory clarity from DOB, which was not easy to do. Even without DOB guidelines, we were able to implement heating improvement projects that reduced our fuel consumption by 40%.

  I have three points of feedback on the new proposed guidelines from DOB:
  1. DOB’s proposed rules expand the definition of “good faith efforts” without requiring building owners to make any meaningful or substantive efforts to reduce emissions ahead of the effective date of emissions limits (a “decarbonization plan” is not enough). Having tackled this issue personally as a board member of a 12-building co-op complex, it is 100% possible to achieve these emissions reductions by the deadlines and building owners should not be given any excuses to delay compliance. The rules also allow DOB to exceed its statutory authority as specified in LL97.
  2. DOB should amend these rules to set a minimum penalty amount that will actually incentivize buildings to take action to avoid the penalties. DOB should also ensure that the fines collected from non-compliant building owners are used to fund decarbonization in disadvantaged communities throughout NYC.
  3. DOB should revise the proposed rules to limit the purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs) ahead of the 2024 compliance period (as per LL97).

  Comment added October 21, 2023 3:36pm

• Amy Greenhouse

  I am a NYCDOE teacher and a mom of an 11 year old. I live in Southbridge Towers, and I am excited that my building will have to make modifications to meet with the DOB rules to make the buildings greener. There can be no delay in the implantation of these rules nor no watering down of penalties.

  DOB’s proposed rules expand the meaning of “good faith efforts” and give the DOB authority to allow building owners to avoid penalties, which exceed DOB’s authority under LL97. DOB also failed to promulgate rules limiting the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased, as required by LL97.

  Keep the rules strong.

  Comment added October 21, 2023 4:21pm

• John Ingram

  The impacts of climate change are accelerating and are approaching tipping points that will end our ability to mitigate emissions in time to avoid a social and ecological catastrophe. Cities have the capacity to make significant reductions in emissions by regulating and upscaling buildings. New York’s Local Law 97 is a leading legislation that can have a global impact on cities around the world if implemented as planned. We must lead now, however difficult. Avoiding climate extremes will save a huge amount of money for the city, and will keep our fragile social/political/economic network intact.
  Enforce 97 as is. Respectfully John Ingram. E 10th st. 10009

  Comment added October 21, 2023 5:31pm

• Eileen Leonard

  I believe that LL97 is an important step in addressing climate change and protecting New York City. I am also a coop owner in Washington Heights and our board has taken steps to prepare for the law’s penalties. The process has left us feeling confused and a little foolish. We were told by the engineer we hired ($40,000) that it would be better for us to pay penalties than to do actual improvements. This is not the answer we or the City wants. Our building will be able to show a Good Faith Effort (GFE) but there is no language in the bill limiting the use of Renewable Energy Credits (REC) for building owners who are not using GFE. The law needs to limit RECs to 10% over a building’s pollution limit. Rich people can avoid making any improvements if it suits them. The bill should also prohibit using RECs if a building is taking the GFE pathway. If a building like mine takes the GFE pathway and then it doesn’t make improvements, it should be fined even more.

  One thing we learned is that the Department of Buildings needs to staff up and fast. Jobs, yes! The monitoring of LL97 will need to be transparent. I appreciate the City’s Climate Dashboard and its data on individual buildings. There’s going to be a lot of “keeping up with the Joneses” as LL97 rolls out and improvements should increase a coop’s resale value. Let’s make sure New Yorkers feel they are being treated fairly as they participate in this important climate project. Let’s also make sure LL97 is robust enough to actually make a difference. Lord knows, we need it.

  Comment added October 21, 2023 6:29pm

• Ruthie Dreyer

  By allowing all 2024 non-compliant buildings year delay send the wrong message and what happens in 2030 when it is predicted 15,000 buildings will be in non-compliance. As many here have stated, the highly polluting buildings, which account for 30% of emissions from buildings, have had 5 years to study the law, apply for the finances and start the work. It is in their interests to start early. In my building we have received very generous grants from Con-Ed for charging stations and lighting.

  Comment added October 22, 2023 9:16am

• Elliot Firestone

  The proposed rules governing RECs that don’t require additionality amount to subsidies for ConEd’s existing renewable energy commitments. We need to do better to actually enable energy transition in NYC.

  https://medium.com/@elliot.firestone/icfraud-1052dfa5db94

  Comment added October 23, 2023 4:05am

• Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso

  See attached

  Comment attachment
  BP-Reynoso_LL97-rules-hearing-10.24.23.pdf

  Comment added October 23, 2023 10:08am

• Grace Pyun

  The climate mission is important and imperative, but the implementation of this mission through Local Law 97 is highly flawed. The Local Law 97 rules are onerous and inequitable, while placing incredible burdens on condominiums like us—small buildings that are managed under the same condominium association are being penalized while millionaire homeowners and city-owned buildings are exempt from these incredibly technical and onerous regulations.

  The efforts to implement and conduct outreach on Local Law 97 (2019) has been almost non-existent because they have been rushed and as a consequence, have caught many everyday New Yorkers with short notice (even finding this promulgated rulemaking on the DOB website was not easy). Although LL97 was first passed in 2019, it has taken over three years for any sort of rulemaking. The DOB Rules were first promulgated in December 2022 to take into effect January 2023, which established brand new carbon emission limitations and requirements that buildings must take to completely change their infrastructure, such as our condominium. There has been so little outreach and education on these technical and complex rules.

  No lay person can understand the standards to which their building’s carbon emissions will be tested and we are at the mercy of environmental/sustainability industries that stand to profit enormously from these laws. And now the DOB is requiring compliance to begin in less than one year from when the first rules were promulgated and now these second proposed rules are coming out at the end of 2023, when the law goes into effect in 2024. Public outreach and education has been virtually zero—the Brooklyn Borough President held one climate fair in September 2023. With such technical rules and many, many steps of planning that are being imposed on condominiums, to hold condominium unitowners responsible as soon as 2025 for implementing these rules that can cost potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions, is rushed and unconscionable.

  I do not think the DOB or City Council has considered the costs—both monetary and implementation-wise –that is being imposed on everyday New Yorkers who fall under this local law. And while there are many agencies and organizations that tout government subsidies or incentives, there is no central and easy resource where everyday New Yorkers can understand what is or is not available to their buildings.

  Finally, the DOB threatens to impose daily fines that would additionally bankrupt the condominium, unless multiple requirements are met to establish “good faith” efforts, which references other two other local laws and puts additional burdens for the condominiums to make an application with the DOB. The rules as currently written provide very little relief for condominium associations to even meet the “good faith” standards by 2025. How are modest/middle income condominium associations and smaller management companies, supposed to meet all these burdens, when (1) board members are all volunteers with full time day jobs trying to maintain the myriad of issues that come with condominium management; and (2) the resources that are being provided to understand our obligations are complete decentralized agency-wise and dependent on different individual third-party vendors?

  In sum:
  1) The preliminary Local Law 97 deadlines, including the assessment report, need to be postponed until there is sufficient outreach and education provided to building owners and affected populations as well as affordable resources provided for achieving the assessment;
  2) Provide wider exemptions for buildings whose operating income are under $ 1 million per year; or residents who make under a certain level of income;
  3) The technical standards and testing requirements must be transparent and understandable to those who are paying the price (e.g. middle income/income restricted homeowners) and hold vendors accountable for costs charged in implementing LL97; and
  4) The City must provide subsidies or grants for buildings are forced to unfairly bear the economic burden of compliance.

  The alternative is that you will effectively bankrupt condominiums like us and push residents out of the city. I ask that you reconsider the reporting deadlines for LL97 as well as provide for more flexible rules for condominiums with severely restrained budgets.

  Comment added October 23, 2023 12:00pm

• Edith Kantrowitz

  Hi, my name is Edith Kantrowitz, I’m a retired civil service employee living in Kensington, Brooklyn. I’m a member of the climate group United for Action, and also NYC Friends of Clearwater. But I’m speaking today on my own behalf as a concerned citizen.

  Throughout the world, climate change is creating havoc and turning people into climate refugees. Climate change is already impacting our city with heat waves, floods, and smoke from wildfires. We are having to spend vast amounts of money and disrupt our waterfront parklands in order to protect our shorelines from storm surge and sea level rise. I’m very concerned about what will happen to NYC in the future if we don’t do everything possible now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  We worked long and hard to get Local Law 97 passed. This is supposed to be one of the best climate laws in the country, setting an example for other cities. Mayor Adams, we don’t want to see this law weakened in order to make things easier for building owners and the real estate industry.

  If a delay program is established, landlords should be required to make deeper cuts to more than compensate for the years of delay. If they are given more time, they shouldn’t also be given the opportunity to pollute. They should be required to reduce emissions even further in return for more time to achieve the 2024 limits.

  Also, the Local Law 97 Advisory Council’s Consensus Recommendation regarding RECs should be followed. RECs should be limited to not more than 30% over a building’s pollution limit. The Council was unanimous in making this recommendation, but Mayor Adams, you’ve ignored their advice. Please don’t allow landlords to get off the hook. We must do everything possible to reduce NYC’s building emissions now. We must not weaken Local Law 97. Thank you for hearing my request.

  Edith Kantrowitz
  333 McDonald Avenue – #5D
  Brooklyn, NY 11218
  [email protected]
  718-854-8545

  Comment added October 23, 2023 12:40pm

• Rita Jules

  Dear Mayor Adams, Commissioner Oddo, and the NYC Department of Buildings,

  My name is Rita Jules and I am a working parent living in Brooklyn. I urge you to fully enforce Local Law 97. The law is a great stride forward in providing jobs while addressing the climate crisis in a meaningful way. It is a historic opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the future health and safety of all New Yorkers. However that is only true if you close the proposed loopholes.

  I advocate for tight limits on the number of Renewable Energy Credits and full enforcement of the penalties for building owners who surpass the established caps.

  Real estate companies who would like to weaken the law are trying to safeguard their profit margins, but everyone will only pay more and suffer more in the future if we do not act to reduce our carbon footprint now. Please stand up for everyday New Yorkers in prioritizing our best interests by fully enforcing Local Law 97.

  Thank you,
  Rita Jules

  Comment added October 23, 2023 1:23pm

• Autumn Tarleton

  My name is Autumn Tarleton and I am a Brooklyn mother, climate activist with Climate Families NYC, as well as an alternative health practitioner. I have been spending most of my free time over the past few years engaged in action around bringing awareness to the climate catastrophe we are currently living in and its effect on our health, our homes–and most importantly–our children and elders.

  First, I want to thank the DOB for their time and labor on crafting the draft rules. I see you and acknowledge your hard work.

  Personally I think LL97 is incredibly important to New Yorkers because nearly 70% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in NYC are from buildings, primarily from their heating and cooling mechanisms. Greenhouse gas emissions are injurious to human health, which in our communities means that the buildings we call home and the places we work are hurting us. In a city of nearly eight and a half million people, the impact on our collective health is sky-high.

  I’m writing to you today specifically to urge the DOB to amend the proposed rules that expand the meaning of “good faith efforts” and give the DOB authority to allow building owners to avoid penalties–which exceed DOB’s authority under LL97.

  The DOB also failed to promulgate rules limiting the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased–as required by LL97. It’s important to let building owners know you cannot buy your way out of climate collapse. We can do this by developing rules that limit the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased.

  From a 2021 S&P Global article:

  “But a huge chunk of the wind, solar or hydro power that companies purchase isn’t actual physical electricity, but tradable instruments called “unbundled” certificates. Under this system, a solar farm is allowed to sell its power to the grid and separately sell credits against that power to corporations and other buyers. A corporate buyer of these standalone credits may claim to have hit its clean energy goal. But the transaction has little real-world impact: it doesn’t necessarily help to displace fossil-based electricity, and it doesn’t help much to decarbonize the grid.” https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/problematic-corporate-purchases-of-clean-energy-credits-threaten-net-zero-goals

  We actually need to reduce emissions in NYC–which means buildings must decarbonize. We need to immediately lower our GHG in NYC:

  From a 2022 article by Sarah Naiyer and Syed Safdar Abbas titled “Effect of Greenhouse Gases on Human Health,” they write:

  “Although the human body has the capacity to cope with short-term exposure of these [Greenhouse] gasses, long-term high concentration exposure becomes detrimental. The chronic exposure slowly affects multiple different organs primarily including the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, the central nervous system (CNS), the immune system, the digestive system and often the reproductive system.” https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-4482-5_5#:~:text=Many%20greenhouse%20gases%20directly%20target,5.1).

  We’re urging that the DOB amend these rules so that they can comply with the law before finalizing them. This includes setting a minimum penalty amount that will actually deter noncompliance. The fines collected from non-compliant building owners should then be used to fund decarbonization in environmental justice and other disadvantaged communities throughout NYC.

  Thank you for your time and committed efforts in keeping our city healthy.

  In gratitude,
  Autumn Tarleton

  Comment added October 23, 2023 2:44pm

• Ken Schles

  Testimony to Mayor Adams and the New York City Department of Buildings
  October 24, 2023

  [this testimony will be condensed into 3 minutes of verbal testimony for the hearing, as directed]

  Summary & Introduction
  My name is Ken Schles, I volunteer with Food and Water Watch, an environmental advocacy group with over 100,000 supporters in New York. My family has made NYC its home for over a century.

  I suffered from asthma as a child. As an adult I struggle with cardiovascular disease: both co-morbidities of fossil fuel pollution. I’m vulnerable to the increased extreme weather events and air pollution we see with climate change, such as increased heat island effects, which prematurely kills elderly in their homes and the wildfire smoke that sent children in droves to overwhelmed hospital emergency rooms this summer. Hurricane Ida drowned New Yorkers in their beds and caused NYC over $65B in damages. It flooded my cellar — the first time a flash flood inundated my home of 26 years. September’s Ophelia flash floods dumped 8” of rainfall in NYC, exceeding storm drain capacity—inundating thousands of businesses, homes and crippling subways. My home flooded for a second time.

  This is no time to weaken Local Law 97, a law written explicitly to address these harms. The Mayor’s rule changes will prevent the city from meeting its climate goals, lead to billions of dollars in infrastructure and health losses and destroy lives already at risk.

  Strikingly, Local Law 97 has had 90% compliance ahead of 2024, evidence that the proposed two-year extension is unwarranted. The delay introduces a burdensome monitoring schemes simultaneous to the slashing of departmental budgets and a hiring freeze. It sets a bad precedent on meeting future compliance goals. The two-year extension is, in fact, illegal, a fundamental breach of the law, which set specific timelines for decarbonization.

  Most ruinous is the plan for unlimited RECs. It guts the law and is a giveaway to the Mayor’s REBNY cronies.

  Close the REC loophole: require the Local Law 97 Advisory Council’s Consensus Recommendation of only up to 30% of pollution over the limit and amend the two-year delay program to require deeper future pollution cuts to compensate for any delay. If landlords want more time, they can’t be allowed to pollute more, though the law explicitly provides for strict timelines and it appears illegal for the Mayor to introduce extensions. These proposed rules changes are a wish list provided to the Mayor by REBNY. The self-interested demands of REBNY and do not reflect or serve the interests of New Yorkers.

  Seventy percent of NYC’s polluting GHG emissions come from buildings. New Yorkers are dying because of those emissions, with asthma and cardiovascular death rates higher in poor and black and brown communities. Extreme weather events, driven by climate pollution, like wildfire smoke, higher temperatures, heat island effects and catastrophic flooding from record breaking rainfalls are increasingly common and puts us all at risk, levying an economic toll on the city and a psychological and material burden on all of us—especially for those who are least able to afford it.

  The real estate lobby, REBNY, has taken a page from fossil fuel industry playbook: they deny responsibility for the climate pollution they create while profiting greatly from their compromised buildings. As they’ve delay the transition to clean energy they’ve run a fear mongering disinformation campaign about transition costs and successes. The Mayor should be shutting down REBNY’s fear mongering crusade against Local Law 97. Instead he’s proposed these rules gutting NYC’s green new deal at REBNY’s behest. Local Law 97 fights climate pollution at the scale and speed science demands. It provides good jobs, modernizing our city’s polluting infrastructure while lowering utility costs. New Yorkers know this—and they came out in droves today demanding the Mayor enforce and implement Local Law 97 as the law requires and as the Local Law 97 Advisory Board recommended.

  Advocates are criticizing Mayor Adams’ proposed rules for two key issues that jeopardize its intent: a two year delay and an unlimited corporate “buyout” loophole that trades renewable energy credits for actual emissions reductions. If adopted and unchanged, NYC will be unable to meet its climate and pollution commitments. These proposed rules changes reflect the self-interested demands of a well-financed real estate industry campaign seeking to gut the law and not the aims of the Local Law 97 Advisory Committee, who, after considered input from building owners, architects, engineers, scientists, public advocates and stakeholders, crafted a law to serve all New Yorkers.

  As a volunteer with Food and Water Watch, I have been deeply involved in the campaign to fully enforce Local Law 97, which the real estate lobby and its allies have bitterly resisted. After passage of the law in 2019, the real estate lobby shifted its focus to weakening the law through lax enforcement and implementation. For our part, along with other organizations, we have continued to educate and mobilize New Yorkers to push for full implementation and enforcement.

  Local Law 97 is the world’s most-important city-level climate and jobs law. Energy efficiency leads to lower utility bills, which particularly benefits our membership. Local Law 97 is on track to create tens of thousands of jobs this decade in design, renovation and construction.

  Already, the energy efficiency industry is booming. Firms in the design, assessment and engineering field that are market leaders in New York are getting a flood of work. New products and services, such as software and advanced building controls, are coming onto the market. In large part due to Local Law 97, New York City reportedly leads the nation in new clean energy jobs. Simply googling the law or a quick scan of social media gives a sense of the major economic activity that is beginning to ramp up. As increased renovation and hands-on upgrade work begins, our members will disproportionately benefit because the city’s unemployment and underemployment rates are higher in our members’ communities; more hiring helps counter the disemployment generated by ongoing and historic discrimination, and pushes up wages and benefits.

  The law is also exceeding the city’s expectations. As of 2022 data, half the buildings that were above the 2024-2029 limits when the law passed in 2019 have reduced their pollution below the cap. Two years before the 2024 limits go into effect, only 10% of buildings were still above the initial limit. Local Law 97 is on its way to a spectacular success. It is great to see.

  Now, just as it is becoming clear the law is on track to achieving far-reaching success, Mayor Adams has proposed to take New York City backwards at the behest of the real estate lobby.

  Mayor Adams’ proposed rule would create two large loopholes in the law that landlords could choose to exploit to avoid cutting pollution, which in turn would mean less job creation and higher utility bills. It is outrageous and irresponsible.

  The letter, spirit and intent of the law is to reduce climate-heating pollution, which in turn creates jobs and lowers utility bills through energy efficiency. The loopholes introduced in these draft rules improperly stretch the regulatory discretion granted to Mayor Adams for rule-making by allowing building owners to pollute far beyond the pollution limits set in the law.

  The real estate industry are Mayor Adams’ top campaign donors. We know he personally takes calls from their CEOs. His top former staff and other associates are currently or have been employed by them.

  Now, Mayor Adams has embraced the Real Estate Board of New York’s (REBNY) agenda to roll back Local Law 97, New York City’s landmark climate and jobs law. They wanted a 2 year delay? They got it. They wanted the option to buy Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) instead of cutting pollution? They got it.

  In particular, these rules contain two enormous proposed giveaways:

  Two Year Delay Program – Building owners have had five years since the law’s enactment in April 2019 to reduce their properties’ pollution below initially loose emissions caps. Under these rules, they would be allowed 2 more years. They would not be responsible for the pollution cuts they were mandated to make in 2024 and 2025. As a condition of receiving their two year delay, these owners would have to promise to follow the law in the future and submit a plan to do so. The Administration has touted the submission of a plan as a valuable “compliance path” or “glide path”. Yet this proposed delay program would simply reward owners who stuck their heads in the sand and refused to clean up their highly-polluting buildings. The owners whose buildings are still so polluting that they are over the 2024-2029 limits would never be obligated to make the pollution cuts mandated under the law for 2024 and 2025. They’d get a free pass for two years. Ironically, these buildings tend to be exactly the types of buildings that can save the most money through simple, low-cost energy efficiency improvements. In total, these buildings pollute hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 equivalent yearly above the 2024-2029 pollution limits. It is most likely that the Department of Buildings, an understaffed, overwhelmed department, will be unable to effectively review compliance plans, resulting in rubber-stamp approvals. Indeed, the entire exercise would be an increase in the very sort of inefficient paperwork that the Mayor claims to oppose, with the major benefits going to consultants and lawyers doing business with the Department of Buildings. The Administration can easily fix this delay program by requiring landlords to cut more pollution after their delay to make up for the pollution cuts they did not make during the delay period. A lower pollution limit for 2026 – 2029 for buildings that get a delay for 2024 and 2025 would be easily achievable for those owners, since even if they’ve stalled so far, they could implement any projects needed in time. Owners should not be awarded for dragging their feet. Patching the delay program to require larger cuts to make up for the increased pollution during the delay period would ensure that pollution is reduced in the amounts that the law specifies, and therefore ensure job creation and lower utility bills. Owners could join such a delay program voluntarily, but would not simply be rewarded for failing to meet the law’s easy initial limits. They should not receive a free pass for polluting above the law’s pollution limits for two years.

  Renewable Energy Credit “Buy Out” Loophole – Under the law and previous rule, purchasing Renewable Energy Credits in place of pollution reductions is limited to covering pollution generated from electricity use and RECs only from projects that interconnect into the city’s electric grid. However, these limits are far too loose: the CHPE project alone, which is under construction and is projected to be operational in 2026, will generate a flood of RECs eligible for purchase as a substitute for pollution cuts. Indeed, there will be more RECs flooding the market than the total volume of pollution cuts required by the law before 2030. Landlords will be able to buy whatever amount of RECs they desire in place of pollution reductions from 2026-2029. Even after 2030, when the pollution limits greatly tighten, about 50% of the pollution cut under the law could be offset by REC purchases. While RECs are currently limited to offsetting pollution generated by electricity use, that is such a large part of almost any building’s pollution that REC purchases could cover all the pollution cuts required under the law for huge swathes of the city’s large buildings. Therefore, the Local Law 97 Advisory Council recommended RECs be further limited to offsetting only up to 30% of the pollution by which a building is over its pollution limit. With such a tight limit, no landlords could simply buy RECs and call it a day. Yet the Advisory Council’s consensus recommendation was rejected by the Mayor, who is only limiting RECs for buildings that opt for the delay program. While future REC prices are unknown, RECs are very likely to be attractive to landlords through the law’s 2030 limit. After 2030, RECs could be priced at a level that makes them an attractive substitute for investments in energy efficiency to cut pollution, as well. If building owners choose to buy RECs instead of energy efficiency upgrades, New York will lose tens of thousands of jobs and utility bill reductions across the city. If landlords buy RECs in substantial quantities in place of pollution cuts the city and state will not meet the pollution reductions of the state’s climate law, NYC’s own law that sets overall GHG pollution reduction targets, or the Paris Climate Agreement. The city (and state) would not achieve the minimal pollution reductions needed to stave off global catastrophe. It is not acceptable to gamble in such a manner on unknown future REC prices. Under these rules, at a minimum landlords will know that it will be possible that RECs could be a complete “buy out” option in place of investment in their buildings in the future. Therefore, they will be less likely to upgrade to high energy efficiency, knowing that it will be likely that before 2030 they could purchase RECs and that post-2030 there would also be a large chance that RECs could be available. The Advisory Council’s consensus recommendation should be adopted to ensure that landlords can’t buy out of their obligations to cut pollution from their properties.

  If these rules stand, building owners could choose one of two large loopholes: a two year delay or REC purchases in place of pollution reductions. They can use one of two options to evade their social and legal responsibility to cut pollution. The law would be severely weakened.

  The Mayor and the Administration try to use the law’s complexity to confuse New Yorkers. And there’s already plenty of fear and confusion thanks to the real estate lobby and its various front groups scaremongering and outright lies about the law. Mayor Adams could have countered this effort, but it turns out that he appears to agree with it. Local Law 97 is a complicated law with many regulations, so the Administration’s representatives use misleading talk points to try and divert attention from the very basic problems with the Mayor’s proposed rules. Yet no amount of double-talk can cover up plain reality: this rule would grant landlords an option of either a two year delay or a buy-out loophole.

  If this rule is adopted as proposed, the city could lose hundreds of thousands of tons of pollution cuts; thousands of jobs; and lower utility bills under the delay program. Moreover, these proposed rules signal that the Mayor will also weaken the 2030 pollution limits. We do not know when further rules for 2030 will be promulgated, but if this rule is not amended as proposed above, it would be logical for landlords to assume that a re-elected Mayor Adams would opt, at a minimum, to allow a similar two year delay in the law’s 2030 requirements.

  If the city delays the 2030 requirements, then New York would lose millions of tons of pollution reductions and many more jobs, as well as utility bill savings. Depending on future REC prices under the proposed rule, we could also lose up to about half of the law’s pollution reductions, and therefore, about half of the jobs.

  Tens of thousands of jobs are now at serious risk, along with lower utility bills and cleaner air. We urge the Administration to reconsider these rules, and detail our objections below.

  Further, Detailed Testimony

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Program Would Permit Hundreds of Thousands of Tons More Pollution Per Year

  Building owners are obligated to cut a total of about 800,000 tons of CO2 equivalent pollution per year under the 2024-2029 caps, according to the Urban Green Council. The law’s pollution limit tightens in 2030 and aggregate pollution reductions grow to about 5 million tons per year (or about 40% cuts overall). These are the minimum pace and depth of pollution cuts by 2030 needed to avoid global catastrophe. These pollution reduction targets are reflected in city and state law, as well as the Paris Climate Agreement. The city and state are obligated by their laws to achieve these pollution reductions. Local Law 97 makes it real for NYC’s top source of pollution.

  As of the most recent public data, which covers 2022, the percent of buildings that were over the initial limit dropped from 20% when the law was passed in 2019 to about 10%. That is major progress. However, a substantial number of owners remaining are ignoring the law. Now, those owners will see a two year delay as their path, and many will hope or even reasonably assume that the city will grant them further delays in the future. Thus, we estimate that hundreds of thousands of tons of pollution cuts per year in 2024 and 2025 that should be made would be waived away if this rule is adopted.

  A two year delay on cuts may not sound to some like a long period of time, but the plain fact is that after decades of failure to reduce pollution, society is now on the verge of global catastrophe. We can’t rely on a “glide path” anymore, like we could have if cuts had begun in the 1980s when the science and threat became crystal clear. Now, rapid pollution cuts are necessary.

  Local Law 97 closely follows the path of pollution cuts needed in aggregate to give the world a 50/50 shot at avoiding a grim fate. A two year delay costs two out of the seven full years remaining to 2030. There is no room left for delay. All of our time has already slipped away as politicians and corporate leaders, influenced by profit motivations and large campaign donations, failed to act.

  As a result, we have no margin left. New York City must rapidly stop polluting, now. And in the process, we can build a more-fair society with many more good, union jobs and lower energy bills. Mayor de Blasio and the previous Council deserve enormous credit for enacting the law and beginning its implementation.

  Buildings over the 2024 limits (as of the most recent public data) run from massive Class A Manhattan skyscrapers to poorly-managed and poorly-maintained outer borough co-ops and condos. Most of these properties are barely over the 2024 limit. They would not need to do a lot of work to get under it. And since many of them haven’t done basic energy efficiency work, they stand to save money doing so. While these very polluting buildings are a small percentage of the buildings covered by Local Law 97 overall, they are the city’s most-energy wasteful, most polluting properties. Absent unusual circumstances that do occur but are outliers, none of these owners should get a free pass as this proposal would hand to them.

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Would Cause Landlords to Reduce Energy Efficiency Work

  On its face, the proposed two-year delay program contradicts the purpose, letter and spirit of Local Law 97 by arbitrarily allowing these landlords and owners to receive an exemption from pollution reduction requirements in 2024 and 2025. Promising to follow the law and other laws in the future and submitting some sort of plan on paper is not a reasonable use of the Administration’s discretion in implementing the law.

  Commissioner and Chief Climate Officer Aggarwala insists on the Administration’s behalf that the delay program imposes a “legally binding contract” on owners to follow the law. But the law is… law. Building owners are already obligated to follow the law. By allowing landlords to get a two-year delay in return for promising to follow law and submitting a plan, the Administration simply concedes that Local Law 97 does not, in practice, apply for 2024 and 2025 for any building owner that chooses to enter the delay program.

  The Administration anticipates that a large number of owners will choose this proposed delay. We agree: if an owner has not taken action to this point, they are heaving a sigh of relief, because Mayor Adams is proposing to hand them a get out of jail free card. There will surely be at least several hundred applications to such a program from the owners of the city’s top polluters. Perhaps multiple thousands of applications.

  Working people and people of color – NYCC’s membership – do not get this sort of gentle treatment. Our members do not get an option to decide that any given law does not apply to them. The Mayor is quite eager to break up homeless encampments, arrest mango-selling immigrants and punish turnstile jumpers. He enforces laws against poor people who have less political and economic power. But when it comes to property owners – some of them billionaires like Douglas Durst whose buildings are over the 2024-2029 pollution limits – our big-talking “tough on crime” Mayor becomes a meek kitten.

  Many of the owners who are going to opt for this program are not properly managing their buildings. They are the types of owners who shove everything the city obligates them to do to the side as much as possible. They are not capable, responsible owners. Giving them two more years and making them submit a plan is unlikely to make them modify their behavior for the positive. They will simply tell their lawyers to just submit whatever they think will mollify the department. This program, if adopted with no modifications, would send them a clear message: keep delaying and the city will look the other way.

  The city’s proposed rules don’t even clarify that if these owners don’t cut pollution in the future, then they will be penalized, either retrospectively for the delay period of 2024 and 2025 or in the future. Rather, it simply punts on these decisions. It does not even commit that if these owners do not achieve pollution reductions, then they will be penalized. Instead, they can enter into a mediation program. While there are owners who strive to follow laws, these sorts of landlords and owners only respond to enforcement action. They will see the city’s unwillingness to penalize them as a validation of their resistance. Why wouldn’t these owners assume they’ll get more free passes?

  The Administration’s Core Argument in Support of Its Proposed Delay Program Does Not Make Sense

  The main arguments justifying this delay program offered by the Administration’s staff do not add up. The Mayor’s contention is that owners should not be assessed penalties because any fines paid would or could take away from funds that would go to upgrading buildings. The Mayor and his representatives also darkly hint, but do not outright state, that penalties could endanger the affordability of the affected buildings.

  It is nonsense.

  In fact, the 2024-2029 fines would be small. Most of the buildings who are so polluting that they are over this high limit are only over it by a small amount. It is easy to plug buildings into available public data. For example, NYCC uses the nifty Building Energy Exchange Penalty Calculator. If a building chooses to do nothing to comply with the law, which is quite unreasonable, and it does not reduce its potential fines at all, the typical fine in residential ranges around $150 per unit. These are not hefty penalties. They are akin to a parking ticket. The city should not dissemble and mislead that these fines are in some manner crippling or unreasonable. Paying a penalty in the range of $150 per unit will not alter a large building’s finances or affordability. It would not take away from any funds that might otherwise be devoted to energy efficiency projects.

  Absent unusual circumstances that are being taken into account by the good faith definitions in the uncontroversial parts of these rules and/or the later rule-making on adjustments, any owner making a good faith effort would achieve the 2024-2029 limits. Over the years, we have asked several reliable experts and practitioners whether an owner making a good faith effort could achieve these limits. The answer is clear: it can take 2-3 years to implement these sorts of projects, but no owner making a good faith effort even a year after the law passed could or should have missed the upcoming 2024 deadline (barring some unusual, case-specific circumstances).

  COVID is not a legitimate excuse, either, as the Administration has asserted. The city did not shutter the real estate and construction industry. Most of the city kept working through the emergency. Even if owners lost a full year or even two years to COVID – which they should not have – then they still had most of 2019 through 2024 to implement. The law was enacted by the Council in April of 2019. The 2024-2029 limit is precisely defined in the statute.

  Absent unusual circumstances, there is no excuse for a building to have failed to cut its pollution to achieve the 2024 – 2029 pollution limits. This delay program is arbitrary and simply rewards a powerful constituency that donated large sums to the Mayor’s election campaign and is now similarly donating large sums to his re-election.

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Program Will Devolve Into a Paperwork Exercise

  The administrative challenge of this complex program is also too steep given the Mayor’s budget cuts, mismanagement and turmoil in the Department of Buildings. The Department overall is massively understaffed. Approximately 23% of positions were unfilled at the end of 2023. The Mayor has already implemented budget cuts and is imposing 15% more cuts. He has also imposed a hiring freeze.

  The Mayor clearly wants landlords treated leniently, so staff will feel pressure to sweep concerns under the rug. This program will almost certainly not be able to effectively evaluate the proposed plans. It will likely devolve into an exercise session of wielding a rubber-stamp as overwhelmed staffers have no option but to approve anything other than blatantly, obviously incorrect paperwork that landlords put in front of them.

  We are also deeply concerned by the ongoing culture of corruption that Adams is furthering. Mayor Adams’ first Building Department commissioner is indicted for bribery. The Department has long had problems with corruption. It is the type of corruption that can seep deep into a city’s infrastructure and induce fear within the most diligent workforce. We are concerned that any program that has overworked staff tasked, at least in theory, with evaluating complex plans is a recipe for disaster.

  The law itself is premised on results. It is very simple in that respect. Building owners are obligated to report their pollution. Their compliance or non-compliance is based on a long-standing reporting system that almost all buildings follow. Experts view the reporting system as fundamentally sound. But under this proposed program, the law’s results-oriented metrics will be thrown out the window for two years. In their place will come large numbers of proposed plans from owners submitted to avoid paying penalties and receive official dispensation for failing to cut pollution for two years.

  In this proposed rule, the administration has defined a series of good faith conditions over which there is no controversy under which a building owner should – very reasonably – be granted some or full consideration. The law included discretion for the Administration to take account for unusual situations, which exist. The delay program, however, simply allows for delay, in practice giving a waiver over 2 years of pollution as an option. It subverts the law’s metrics and penalty formula of $268 per ton over a building’s limit.

  The core of the delay program requires landlords to submit a plan for their building to achieve the law’s future metrics. Even if intentions are noble to make this a serious process, in practice the Adams Administration has struggled to meet deadlines and issue rules in a timely manner already.

  While the Department’s staff devoted to this area was able to impressively manage a complex Advisory Council process and subsequently issue regulations required by the law to be issued at the end of 2022, these superhuman civil servants are seriously overstrained. For example, this set of rules could and should have been proposed shortly after the last major set of rules, issued in December 2022. The Department promised repeatedly these rules would be issued in the Summer. In fact, they were proposed in September. We suspect there was considerable internal debate over some of these provisions before the Mayor made a final call on the proposal. Other complex rule making on several topics looms.

  These proposed rules also task the Department with creating a mediation program for potential penalties, which itself could become another vehicle for lower or delayed penalties as overwhelmed staff can’t oversee or manage the processes they are tasked with. In theory, such a mediation program could be a reasonable method for working out whether a landlord should be assessed full penalties, but in practice, the Department will be overwhelmed and landlords will know consultants and lawyers who can get them more favorable results. As a result, they will be less concerned that they will face penalties, and therefore less inclined to make the energy efficiency upgrades necessary to slash pollution, create jobs and cut utility bills.

  Adding a review of potentially thousands of complex plans while continuing to implement the laws and issue further complex and necessary rules and stand up a mediation program are bridges too far. The plans will be a paperwork exercise, not a serious evaluation. If this proposal goes through, this part of the law will unfortunately become like the auditing requirements under previous law: owners will simply hire someone to do as minimal paperwork as possible to jump through the bureaucratic hoops that this delay program would set into place.

  It is quite difficult to see how this process will deliver the increased compliance that the Administration argues will result from a two year delay. In fact, landlords will see a two year delay as a harbinger of more delays to come. It will encourage them in a belief that the law will never be applied to them. New York City landlords tend to listen only to financial incentives or penalties. To get them to take the law seriously, the city needs to enforce it seriously. That means issuing financial penalties, on time.

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Program Can Be Fixed With a Simple Patch

  If the Mayor amends the rules with the simple fix we are proposing as a patch on the delay program, New Yorkers would get the law’s intended benefits: lower pollution, economic development and jobs from energy efficiency upgrades, and lower utility bills. Or, if landlords failed to follow the law, they would properly pay penalties. This would be a meaningful change in the delay program, and convert it into an optional path that would be an unwarranted giveaway. Rather it would simply shift some cuts into a new time period. The city would get the same level of pollution reductions overall.

  Importantly, such a change would signal to landlords that even if a future delay program is put into place for 2030, it would not let them off the hook. As a result, they couldn’t reasonably assume – as these rules encourage – that the city’s future policy for 2030 will mirror this 2 year delay in 2024 requirements. We urge Mayor Adams to amend the rule in such a manner.

  The Administration has slow-walked Local Law 97 and has repeatedly made clear that issuing fines – that is, enforcing the law – is deeply unpalatable. After years of telling landlords it didn’t want to assess any fines, now the Mayor is formally proposing a two year delay. Instead of this giveaway, he should amend his proposal to ensure that the city does not arbitrarily give up the benefits of the law for effectively nothing in return.

  The REC Loophole Is Very Large

  The Champlain Hudson Power Express and other projects will generate a flood of RECs starting in 2026. To be more precise: CHPE is currently under construction and on track to be in service in the Spring of 2026, bringing hydropower from Canada. This transmission project will lead to about 10.4 million RECs interconnecting into Zone J, as estimated by NYSERDA.

  Clean Path is another large transmission project. It will bring renewable power from Upstate New York into Zone J. While it is less advanced in the process than CHPE, Clean Path has also secured state approval. The project will deliver about 7.9 million RECs interconnecting into Zone J. Clean Path is slated to be in service in the late 2020s. Together, those two projects will deliver about 18.3 million RECs interconnected into Zone J.

  These are enough RECs to cover all the pollution reductions required from all buildings prior to 2030. In other words, once CHPE is on-line, building owners could buy enough RECs to entirely offset the need to reduce pollution from their properties.

  Under the proposed rule, if building owners buy RECs in place of upgrading their buildings, then according to analysis from the Urban Green Council after 2030, when pollution limits greatly tighten:

  Half of the climate-heating pollution that building owners are obligated to eliminate under the law could be offset by REC purchases.
  One-quarter of multi-family buildings would not need to do anything to cut their pollution through 2035. They could buy RECs instead.
  Two-third of commercial buildings would not need to do anything to cut their pollution through 2035. They could buy RECs instead.
  40% of the climate-heating pollution from multi-family buildings could be offset through REC purchases.
  85% of the climate-heating pollution from commercial buildings could be offset by REC purchases.

  Note: commercial buildings use more electricity as opposed to residential buildings, in large part since people don’t use so much hot water in office buildings. As a result, the REC loophole the Mayor is seeking in these rules benefits office building owners especially, since RECs would be allowed to be applied to all of the buildings pollution generated from its use of electricity from the grid. But also RECs could swallow up a very large proportion of pollution reductions from residential buildings.

  The Tight REC Limit As Recommended by the Advisory Council Must Be Adopted Or The Law Could Be Gutted

  Unless a tight, additional REC limit is put into place, many landlords will buy out of making pollution reductions, which will lead to less energy efficiency investments and therefore fewer jobs and higher utility bills. Future REC prices, which are unknown at this time, are the critical variable that will drive buildings owners’ decisions. It is quite likely that RECs will be very attractive as a compliance mechanism between 2026, when CHPE comes online, and 2030. If buildings over the pollution choose not to enter the delay program, it is likely that a large proportion will purchase RECs in place of pollution reductions if this rule is not amended.

  In 2030, the law’s formula makes RECs less attractive as an option for landlords instead of investments in their buildings. However, pollution reductions required under the law are far greater. If REC prices are low enough to make them an attractive alternative to upgrades, then a large proportion of owners will buy RECs instead of making upgrades. While NYC does not hold the power to set REC prices, it does hold the power to limit their use to meet this law. Under the proposed rule about 50% of the pollution reductions that are required by the law post-2030 could be satisfied by purchasing RECs. In raw terms, it could cost millions of tons of CO2 equivalent pollution cuts per year. (half of the law’s roughly 5 million tons per year of cuts in 2030). That would be a disaster.

  The Local Law 97 Advisory Council reached consensus on recommendations for many regulations for the law. The Council included experts and practitioners, unions, and advocacy groups, including NYCC. The Advisory Council proposed that REC purchases be limited to offsetting only up to 30% of the pollution by which a building is over its pollution limit. That proposed limit was recommended in addition to limiting RECs to only those from projects interconnecting into the city’s electric grid, as in the law’s text, and only to pollution generated by a buildings pollution limit, as set by rule and then also set into the law. 26 Councilmembers also wrote to Mayor Adams to urge adoption of this limit.

  Mayor Adams’ Administration promised repeatedly to set a further REC limit into place. Many of us recall the last administrative hearing, where hundreds of New Yorkers urged the Administration forward. In multiple media outlets and in verbal and social media statements, representatives agreed that further limits would be set in this particular rule-making. It is highly unfortunate that the only further limit proposed to be set in this rule-making is that buildings entering voluntarily into the two year delay program would be prohibited from making REC purchases in place of pollution reductions.

  The Administration’s own one pager illuminates the problem, even as it tries to minimize it. Previous to this rule-making, the Administration repeatedly explained that it was conducting a study of the potential impact of RECs. And that the city would consult with NYSERDA on this question. If some sort of real study or analysis was conducted, it has not been made public. Regardless, every professional in this area knows that assuming CHPE is built – and it is currently under construction – there will be a flood of RECs. REC prices are unclear and won’t be set until such time. In the Administration’s one-pager, it presents various possibilities for REC prices, which confirms that 2024-2029 REC prices appear likely to be low enough to be attractive to landlords as a substitute for either pollution reduction projects or paying penalties. And after 2030, REC prices may also be low enough.

  DEC Commissioner and Chief Climate Officer Aggarwala has repeatedly dismissed the importance of RECs. He minimizes their importance to Councilmembers, advocates and the media. The Mayor’s communications staff also take a similar approach. They imply that RECs are so marginal, the issue is almost beneath serious consideration.

  That is not the case.

  However, if that were the case, then why not simply follow the Advisory Council’s recommended limit, which would eliminate any worry that RECs could swallow any proportion of the law’s pollution reductions?

  Of course, in fact how to limit RECs is not a marginal question: RECs are potentially a loophole that could swallow much or most of the law. In these proposed rules, failing to set a REC limit gives landlords an option other than the delay program if their buildings are such high polluters that they are over the 2024 limit: they can buy RECs as soon as they are available in 2026.
  The signal post-2030 is also dangerous: landlords will know there will be a chance that they could purchase RECs in place of pollution reductions. As a result, building owners will be less likely to undertake the large-scale energy efficiency improvements the law seeks to induce.

  The REC Loophole Is An Especially Large Giveaway to Billionaire Commercial Building Owners

  When the Council finalized its legislation with the Mayor’s office, NYCC was – like many deeply involved groups – given a final 24 hour period to offer comments on the near-final draft. We strongly urged the Council to set a tight REC limit if it was to allow their use at all. Our proposed REC limit was functionally equivalent to the REC limit the Advisory Council recommended, years later. REBNY and various REBNY affiliates wanted a loose limit. The final law effectively kicked everything to rule-making. And here we are.

  Since the law passed, REBNY’s position has been that RECs ought to be limited to projects interconnecting into Zone J, the city’s electrical grid and only to pollution generated by electricity. Now, this rule gives them exactly what they’ve advocated for, with the exception that buildings in the delay program cannot use RECs.

  As a result, a building such as One Bryant Park, currently owned by Durst, will be able to buy RECs instead of reducing its pollution or paying a financial penalty for violating the law’s 2024-2029 limits. (Durst is also angling for other giveaways in future rule-making on cogeneration, density and other topics).

  The Durst Organization’s owner, billionaire Robert Durst, is the Chairman of REBNY. He also employs the Mayor’s former Chief of Staff and political fixer, Frank Carone. (The organization denies that Carone works on this topic and instead is limited to “business development”. But of course, someone like Carone knows how to exert his influence on City Hall in a manner that evades the spirit and perhaps also the letter of the city’s laws. Moreover, Durst himself can and presumably has picked up the phone to talk to the Mayor directly, and the Mayor himself is very well aware of Carone’s latest venture and who he works for, which was also reported in The New York Times and other outlets.

  The real estate industry also has many other influence channels to the Mayor and his top staff. The Mayor’s first Buildings Department Commissioner, Eric Ulrich, is now under indictment for bribery. Federal, state and local law enforcement should put this issue area and its nexus of power, money, corruption and a revolving door as well as favors to the real estate lobby under a microscope.

  We urge Mayor Adams to adopt the Advisory Council’s proposed Renewable Energy Credit (REC) limit of only up to 30% of the pollution by which any given building is over its pollution cap. A tight limit would foreclose the likelihood that a substantial proportion of buildings breaking the 2024-2029 limit exclusively buy RECs to comply with the law and the lower likelihood, but even more problematic situation post 2030 where if REC prices are low enough, a huge swathe of energy efficiency investments would be canceled.

  Conclusion: Local Law 97’s Requirements Are Fair and Achievable. Mayor Adams Must Drop His Proposed Rules Giveaways to the Real Estate Lobby

  Local Law 97 is a monumental achievement. It was enacted over the bitter objections of the real estate lobby, which continues to attempt to gut the law. Mayor Adams was elected with extensive financial support from developers, owners, large real estate entities, and others. REBNY and some of its largest members continue to fill the Mayor’s campaign coffers.

  Mayor Adams must fully implement and enforce Local Law 97, not defer to the real estate lobby. The law’s limits are fair and achievable. In unusual circumstances, there is proper discretion to adjust a building owner’s requirements to ensure that whatever cuts they are obligated to make are fair and achievable.

  In fact, many building owners will save money net of their financing costs through the energy efficiency projects the law induces. NYCC and allies have documented many specific examples of buildings covered by Local Law 97 that have already been upgraded to meet the law’s post 2035 standards. The law’s limits are not some liberal, greenie fantasy gone wrong, as some of its most lurid and fact-challenged opponents such as Vickie Palladino assert. In reality, buildings are already complying and the law is succeeding beyond expectations. Rather the lies and deceptions from the real estate lobby’s well-funded disinformation efforts about Local Law 97 are meant to panic building owners. New York City is covered in buildings wasting staggering sums on energy waste, which could be eliminated. Local Law 97 induces buildings to do just that. It will further affordability by reducing energy bills.

  The stakes are high in the regulatory decisions over Local Law 97. New York City is far ahead of New York state. New York City is also the national leader and a global leader. It is no exaggeration: the world is watching. Tens of thousands of jobs, massive pollution cuts and lower utility bills throughout the city are at stake. These positive benefits are especially important to working people in communities of color, who get hurt substantially worse by job cuts, pollution increases, and higher utility bills. Mayor Adams must take New York City forward, not backwards. I urge the Administration to heed the recommendations in this testimony.

  Comment added October 23, 2023 3:05pm

• Lisa Goldberg

  Hi I’m in New Yorker and a mom to a baby New Yorker. This matter so much to me because LL 97 will really allow us to protect the climate for our kids. New York leads the country in climate.

  Thank the DOB for coming up with the draft rules.

  We want to make sure that LL 97 is implemented in accordance to the meaning of the law and we don’t want loopholes to weaken it!

  The DOB’s proposed rules expand the meaning of “good faith efforts” and give the DOB authority to allow building owners to avoid penalties, which exceed DOB’s authority under LL97. DOB also failed to promulgate rules limiting the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased, as required by LL97.

  DOB must amend these rules to comply with the law before finalizing them. This includes setting a minimum penalty amount that will actually deter noncompliance, and working to ensure that the fines collected from non-compliant building owners are used to fund decarbonization in environmental justice and other disadvantaged communities throughout the City. The DOB should also develop rules to limit the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased.

  Comment added October 23, 2023 3:29pm

• Janet Bering

  I am submitting comments on behalf of the Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy & Land Use Law at New York University School of Law. See attached.

  Comment attachment
  NYU-Guarini-Center-LL97-Article320-Comments-10.23.23.pdf

  Comment added October 23, 2023 3:35pm

• Elizabeth Crowley

  Testimony attached.

  Comment attachment
  LL-97-Rulemaking-Testimony-10.24.23.pdf

  Comment added October 23, 2023 3:40pm

• Bill Murray

  The American Council of Engineering Companies of New York (ACEC New York) is an association representing nearly 300 engineering and affiliate firms with 30,000 employees across New York, with a concentrated presence in New York City. Founded in 1921, our association is one of the oldest continuing organizations of professional consulting engineers in the United States. Our members are the professionals who plan and design the structural, mechanical, electrical, energy performance, plumbing, civil, environmental, fire protection, and technology systems for buildings and infrastructure across New York and the world.

  Comments: Our Energy Code Committee reviewed the proposed rule regarding Local Law 97 implementation and Article 320. We offer the following comments:

  – The Beneficial Electrification credit will provide building owners with an incentive to electrify their properties in a timely manner. We offer the following observations and recommendations which would serve to clarify and strengthen the credit.
  o We recommend that it be clarified in the Rule if Beneficial Electrification only applies to retrofits of existing systems or if it also applies to new construction.
  o The prescriptive minimum efficiency requirement for the equipment eligible for Beneficial Electrification is indicated as a COP greater than 1.5 at 5 deg F. There is not an AHRI standard rating at 5 deg F. Therefore, for certain equipment the efficiency at this temperature may not be available or consistent. Our recommendation is to simply not allow any heat pumps that include electric resistance supplemental heat to qualify for the credit.
  o More clarification is required regarding how to apply the Beneficial Electrification to water source heat pump systems, as follows:
   There does not appear to be a feasible path for ground source heat pumps to qualify for the Beneficial Electrification credit. They are not included in the equipment listed for the Deemed Electric Use path. For a system with individual ground source heat pumps in each apartment it is not economical to separately meter each heat pump to take advantage of the metered option for Beneficial Electrification. We recommend including ground source heat pumps in the Equipment Table for Beneficial Electrification Deemed Electric Use with the caveat that fossil fuel is not allowed as a backup heat source.
   Furthermore, for systems that utilize central air-to-water heat pumps for heat injection into a condenser water loop that serve terminal water source heat pumps, further clarification is needed as to how the credit should be applied. Would only the central heat pump qualify under the metered option?
   In addition, in cases where there is a balanced load in the building and the majority of heat into the condenser water loop is from heat recovery, could the terminal water source heat pumps be applicable for the metered credit even if there is a supplemental fossil-fuel boiler?
   We also recommend clarifying if under the metered option, the credit only applies to the compressor energy or the whole system, including the pumping energy. We recommend simplifying the approach by only allowing the compressor energy to qualify.
  o The Rule states that equipment must have been installed and operating after January 1, 2021 to be eligible for the Beneficial Electrification credit. Local Law 97 was enacted in April of 2019. The current date in the Rule would not allow very early adopters of electrification to take advantage of the credit. We recommend modifying this date so it better aligns with the enactment of Local Law 97.
  o For Deemed Electric Use, it is unclear if the 1,200,000 Btu/hr limit applies to individual pieces of equipment or a total equipment capacity for the building. The capacity is fairly large to apply to a single piece of equipment but may not be sufficient if meant to apply to a whole building. We recommend clarifying the intent of the limitation and considering decreasing if it is meant to be for a single piece of equipment or including a capacity/SF limit instead of a firm number if applicable for a whole building.
  o In equation 103-14.14, we recommend clarifying the square footage that is to be used. If the building is only partially electrified should the square footage only apply to the portion of the building that is provided with electrified heating?
  o We understand that the intent of Beneficial Electrification is to promote electrification of heating and domestic hot water. We want to confirm that for the Metered Option the electricity associated with operating the HVAC equipment, in both the heating and the cooling modes, will be eligible for the credit. It is not feasible to meter only the heating usage in a heat pump system that serves both heating and cooling loads. Similarly for the Deemed Electric Use option, only the heating capacity is used in equation 103-14.14 but the full load hours definition appears to allow for both heating and cooling hours to be used.
  o We also recommend that the annual metered data is submitted including a breakdown by month. This will help monitor that the installed equipment is being used for heating and not just cooling.

  – For the ESPM property types, understanding that “Other” and “Mixed Use” are not allowable property types, we request that more guidance be provided by the Department in cases where a space does not easily fall into a property type category.
  – Under Good Faith Efforts, more clarification is needed as to the compliance of adjustments that have been granted. It is unclear from the Rule if an adjustment is required to show Good Faith Effort.
  – For the Decarbonization Plan under Good Faith Efforts, is it required to have completed work that resulted in a 10% emissions reduction? How would that reduction be calculated? Through utility bills or modeling? It is also not clear which GHG coefficients should be used for work completed prior to 2024.

  Comment attachment
  ACEC-New-York-comments-on-Local-Law-97-Article-320-rule.pdf

  Comment added October 23, 2023 3:57pm

• Rachel Coyle

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,

  My name is Rachel Coyle and I am a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice. I am testifying on the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.

  I have the following concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):

  There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.

  “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.

  There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.

  I want this administration to show that the City can adequately enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.

  Thank you for your time.

  Sincerely,
  Rachel

  Comment added October 23, 2023 4:16pm

• Courtney DeLong

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,

  I am writing to ask that you uphold and implement Local Law 97 in order to reduce emissions from the city’s largest buildings.

  I also want to flag the following concerns:

  As of now, many buildings will delay their compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, since the there are currently too many chances of building owners to delay retrofits and avoid penalties. Plus, there is no adequate enforcement plan in the “Good Faith Efforts” outlines in the new set of proposed rules. There should be compliance exemptions for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it, not for buildings simply trying to delay implementation. Also, Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit. As it now stands, there is no language limiting RECs, meaning the law does not comply with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of Renewable Energy Credits.

  Growing up in New York, I’ve seen how increasingly severe hurricanes threaten both New Yorkers’ livelihoods and our very lives. Mitigating climate change is one of the ways we can protect each other from the dangers presented by extreme weather.

  Still, we must understand that emissions reductions alone will not protect us from extreme weather events or gentrification. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.

  Thank you for your time.

  Sincerely,

  Courtney DeLong

  Comment added October 23, 2023 5:01pm

• Betty Winkler

  No matter who is in elective office, New York is really led by visionaries, people in multiple fields who propel the city forward with their ideas. Some visions become icons. This city has had many visionaries. Olmstead and Vaux with their grand parks, Roebling and his Brooklyn Bridge, the many who designed our water supply.

  Propelling New York forward with a healthy, safe vision is what Local Law 97 does. The City Council of 2019 had visionaries who wrote this law. In its original wording, it will be an icon. Mayor Adams is not a visionary. His changing of the intent of LL97 – a 2 year implementation delay and unlimited RECs – is not a loophole, it is a sinkhole. A sinkhole large enough to take down the entire city. I urge the Department to stop thinking about costs and start thinking about investments – in building stock, in water and air quality.

  In colonial times, amidst a Yellow Fever outbreak, the City Council legislatively altered business practices for the greater good, barring certain manufacturing that had been dumping toxins into the water supply. Local Law 97 does similarly by reducing greenhouse gasses while increasing energy efficiency. These are regulations that will increase buildings’ values, thereby financially benefiting the owners. That means investing now, in today’s dollars, not delaying for two years.

  Much like the HighLine visionaries who transitioned an abandoned rail-line into an iconic park, is a community garden I belong to. Forty years ago it was a pair of empty lots into which trash bags were thrown over the fences and where the sidewalk was littered with drug paraphernalia. Local visionaries worked hard to turn these two lots into a community garden. It is now an official NYC Park. Concurrently, the neighborhood blossomed, became safer, more desirable. And realtors, who again had not had the vision nor did the work, have ever since been benefiting by listing the garden as an “amenity”.

  This vibrant city that thinks outside the box with eyes on the future, attracted me here all those years ago. It continues to attract people for these qualities. We do not live here to stand still. Delay is stagnation. To favor Mayor Adams’ proposed changes to Local Law 97 is to be complicit in stagnation. To propel us all forward, New York City needs the investment of a strong Local Law 97 as originally written and intended, without delay and without RECs.

  Thank you.
  Betty Winkler
  New York, NY 10025

  Comment attachment
  LL97-Written-testimony_Oct24.pdf

  Comment added October 23, 2023 5:33pm

• JEWEL JONES

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,
  My name is Jewel Jones, born and raised in New York City, and a long-time resident of East Harlem, as well as a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice, Manhattan Community Board 11, Metropolitan Hospital Center’s Community Advisory Board, and the Mid-Manhattan Branch of the NAACP.
  I am testifying on the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.
  Based on my knowledge of this issue
  I have the following concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):
  There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.
  “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.
  There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.
  I want this administration to show that the City can adequately enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.
  Thank you for your time.
  Sincerely,
  Jewel Jones

  Comment added October 23, 2023 5:56pm

• Iben Falconer

  I’m an NYC parent and someone who works in the architecture industry. LL97 needs to be robust and impactful. Our children deserve a cleaner, healthier future, and NY has the opportunity to lead the way with LL97!

  Thank you for putting together these draft rules. I believe it’s essential that DOB amend these rules to comply with the law before finalizing them. This includes setting a minimum penalty amount that will actually deter noncompliance, and working to ensure that the fines collected from non-compliant building owners are used to fund decarbonization in environmental justice and other disadvantaged communities throughout the City. The DOB should also develop rules to limit the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased.

  Comment added October 23, 2023 8:34pm

• Rev. Jeffrey Courter

  I cannot comment as an expert in climatology or a building engineer. I am a Christian pastor, not an expert in global warming and building design.

  However, while I do not have the expertise to comment on the science and engineering involved in LL97, I do know that climate change has had its severest impact on the poor and marginalized of our society. I know that LL97 was written to address mitigating the effects of our warming planet, and that this makes it a moral issue.

  Virtually all the science agrees that global warming is a threat to our planet and to human beings in many parts of the world, including our own city. Of course, science is always tentative, due to our ever-growing knowledge of the world, but if today’s science is to be believed, as I think it should be, then every day that we do not address the growing climate crisis creates another emergency tomorrow. Putting off aggressive enforcement of LL97 is the wrong direction, not only for our city, but for humanity.

  New York is one of the largest cities on the planet, and has a disproportionate effect on other parts of the world as far as climate change. We owe our sisters and brothers in other parts of the world a debt of accountability for our energy consumption and fossil fuel use. Their lives are affected by the choices we make here.

  In their name, I urge this administration NOT to rescind any part of LL97, or step back from any of its implementation. There is too much at stake, and others depend on us to do what is right.

  Thank you.

  Rev. Jeffrey Courter
  Justice Ministries Committee
  Presbytery of New York City (PCUSA)

  Comment added October 23, 2023 8:35pm

• Konstantine Tettonis

  Responding to request for NYU comments. Please see attached.

  Comment attachment
  NYU-Comments_LL97-Rulemaking_10.24.23.pdf

  Comment added October 23, 2023 8:56pm

• Lauren Phillips

  My name is Lauren Phillips and I live in Flatbush, Brooklyn. My son’s daycare flooded just weeks ago during storm Ophelia. As a mom who is deeply concerned about climate change, I urge you to avoid any loopholes in Local Law 97. We cannot afford to backslide New York City’s efforts to reduce building emissions.

  Local Law 97, as enacted, represents a significant step towards mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change and addressing our city’s carbon emissions. However, I am deeply concerned that the Department of Buildings’ recent actions are inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the law, including as follows:

  1. Mitigation of Penalties: The DOB has been granted the authority to mitigate penalties for non-compliant building owners under Local Law 97. However, this authority was intended to be exercised by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) and the Courts, not directly by DOB. Allowing DOB to mitigate penalties raises questions about the impartiality and fairness of the enforcement process.

  2. Mediated Resolutions: The provision allowing DOB to adjust building owners’ emissions limits without requiring them to demonstrate compliance with LL97’s requirements to the maximum extent practicable is concerning. This could potentially undermine the effectiveness of the law in achieving its emissions reduction goals.

  3. Crediting “Good Faith Efforts”: The DOB’s approach to crediting building owners for “good faith efforts” without substantive evidence of emissions reduction prior to the effective date of emissions limits is problematic. This includes the two-year compliance delay when filing a “decarbonization plan” and the application for adjustment without any review.

  To ensure that Local Law 97 achieves its intended goals and complies with statutory requirements, I respectfully urge the City Council to take the following actions:

  1. Set a Minimum Penalty Amount: DOB must establish a minimum penalty amount that is sufficient to deter future noncompliance by building owners and other regulated parties. Strong penalties are necessary to ensure that the law is taken seriously and its goals are met.

  2. Direct Fines to Decarbonization Efforts: Work collaboratively with the Mayor and City Council during the next budget process to ensure that fines collected from non-compliant building owners are directed towards decarbonization efforts. Prioritize environmental justice and disadvantaged communities, as defined in the statute, in the allocation of these funds.

  3. Identify Factors for Penalty Aggravation: Establish clear criteria for aggravating a building owner’s penalties, particularly in cases of “bad faith” efforts to hinder the implementation of Local Law 97.

  4. Promote Renewable Energy Credits (RECs): Ensure that DOB adheres to Local Law 97’s mandatory duty to promulgate rules limiting the purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs) ahead of the 2024 compliance period. This is essential to ensure that emissions reductions are real and not simply purchased on paper.

  As a concerned mom, I urge you to uphold the integrity and effectiveness of Local Law 97. Our children deserve a future with cleaner air, a stable climate, and a healthier environment. By addressing the issues raised concerning DOB’s actions, we can make Local Law 97 a powerful tool in the fight against climate change, protecting the future of New York City and its residents. Thank you for your time and your dedication to a sustainable and thriving city.

  Thank you,

  Lauren Phillips
  Brooklyn, NY 11226

  Comment added October 23, 2023 9:32pm

• Cameron Amstater

  Hi my name is Cameron and I’m the mother of two young kids. Thank you to the DOB for coming up with the draft rules.

  DOB’s proposed rules expand the meaning of “good faith efforts” and give the DOB authority to allow building owners to avoid penalties, which exceed DOB’s authority under LL97. DOB also failed to promulgate rules limiting the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased, as required by LL97.
  o DOB must amend these rules to comply with the law before finalizing them. This includes setting a minimum penalty amount that will actually deter noncompliance, and working to ensure that the fines collected from non-compliant building owners are used to fund decarbonization in environmental justice and other disadvantaged communities throughout the City. The DOB should also develop rules to limit the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased.

  Comment added October 23, 2023 9:41pm

• Felix Bouleau

  As a New Yorker, I’m proud of Local Law 97 as it is currently written. Please do not add a grace period for properties that present a Decarbonization Plan. Property owners have had 5 years to plan, finance and execute work to comply with Local Law 97. That’s plenty. As a citizen, moving forward with this change would tell me that my city government prioritizes big real estate developers over its citizen constituents. Please don’t do that.

  Thank you for reading.

  Comment added October 23, 2023 9:44pm

• Danielle J Healy

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,

  My name is Danielle and I am a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice and Sunrise Movement. I am testifying on the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely. A necessity during this climate crisis, given that buildings across New York city contribute to over 70% of the city’s Greenhouse Gas emissions.

  I have the following concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):

  There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.

  “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.

  There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.

  I want this administration to show that the City can adequately enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.

  Thank you for your time.

  All the best,
  Danielle Healy

  Comment added October 23, 2023 11:19pm

• Amit Shah (Green Potential)

  I hold the following concerns regarding the recently proposed rules by the Department of Buildings (DOB):

  Opportunities for Delay: The proposed rules offer too many avenues for building owners to avoid penalties and postpone essential deep retrofits. Many buildings may opt for paths that delay compliance instead of aligning with the 2030 target. The city lacks the necessary resources to hold these buildings accountable.

  Broad “Good Faith Efforts”: The concept of “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the proposed rules is overly broad and lacks comprehensive enforcement strategies. Compliance exemptions should be reserved for buildings and affordable housing residents who truly need them, not for those seeking to postpone implementation.

  Limiting Renewable Energy Credits (RECs): There is a lack of provisions limiting the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) for building owners not engaging in “Good Faith Efforts.” The DOB hasn’t adhered to the mandate of Local Law 77 (2023) to restrict REC usage. It’s crucial for the DOB to impose REC limits.

  Overall, there are avenues for those to implement cost effective measures lowering the carbon emissions and moving towards a greener NYC. Those who are slated to oversee the proposed rules to oversee these limits are already overwhelmed and do not have the necessary resources to implement the measures discussed in the new rules.

  Comment added October 23, 2023 11:49pm

• Jason Prechtel

  Please do not weaken Local Law 97 as originally intended or provide any “good faith” loopholes to delay enforcement. The long-term benefits to all New Yorkers, and even to all NYC property owners who presumably also enjoy spending time in this city, will outweigh the costs and help ensure a more livable, vibrant future.

  Maintaining the law as written now will reduce the volatility of extreme weather and probability of catastrophic sea level rise to come from climate change, so it is in the best interests of the city, large building owners, and this particular administration’s legacy to get on board. Thank you.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 8:11am

• Ian Korn

  I’m writing to urge you to not implement the revised rules. The majority of buildings (some estimates say 89%) are already compliant with the enforcement requirements for next year. Many of the remaining buildings could comply with very little effort – things like changing to LED bulbs or insulating pipes. The “good faith effort” would be actually making an effort, not paying the way out of it. As an architect, I am confident that the stricter level of requirements coming in 2030 is achievable as well, with effort. This law, as originally passed, puts us closer to being in line with the rest of the world in combating climate change. As the proud city we are, we should be leading that charge, not trying to catch up. These proposed rules put us farther and farther behind. I urge you not to weaken enforcement.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 9:24am

• Danielle Manley

  Attached please find the joint comments of Urban Green Council, Association for Energy Affordability (AEA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), New York League of Conservation Voters (NYLCV) and the Regional Plan Association (RPA) in support the Department’s proposed rules for Local Law 97.

  Comment attachment
  UGC-AEA-NRDC-NYLCV-RPA-LL97-Proposed-Rules-Comments-10.24.2023.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 9:38am

• Marc Zuluaga

  I want the record to note that the NYC policy discussion around an existing building performance mandate has gone on for nearly 6 years. In this timeframe, many other cities and states have enacted similar or more aggressive mandates. Across NYC, many stakeholders have provided input over these last 6 years. The most recent Rulemaking strikes a reasonable balance between competing interests that allows for a pragmatic way forward.

  As a mechanical engineer that has provided input on Local Law 97 to both building owners and policy makers, my North Star has always been finding the most cost effective pathway to decarbonize NYC buildings. Simply put, waiting longer to provide the market with clear guidance will ultimately cost New Yorkers more and delay the positive impacts of this legislation. This most recent Rules package provides the necessary clarity that will allow the market to move forward on the implementation of LL97 as cost effectively as possible to meet both 2024 and 2030 requirements.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 9:48am

• Lorraine Damerau

  I am a brand new homeowner in NYC, having recently purchased a modest coop in Astoria. I am also a staunch defender of climate justice, actively work to bring down my own greenhouse gas emissions, and fully support laws that reduce our collective carbon footprint.
  However, I believe that the penalties for non-compliance place an undue burden on the working and middle class coop and condo communities in the city. Large developer backed condos on Park Avenue cannot be treated the same as coops like Queensview in Astoria, where most residents are either elderly on fixed income or first-time homeowners. We are not made of money! My coop community is thoughtfully considering the over $50M investment required to fully electrify our complex and we are taking steps to secure the funds and make the changes. But the planned penalties for noncompliance, levied without concern for the good-faith efforts we’re engaging in or the average assessed value of the building, risk bankrupting us as we try to make our corner of NYC more environmentally sound. What happens then? In an attempt to improve climate justice, we risk bringing out housing injustice and making it so that only the wealthiest of New Yorkers can afford to own property in our city.

  I support the new requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but I also support Intro97 that seeks to more fairly levy penalties for noncompliance.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:17am

• Rewiring America

  Summary of our comments:
  1. DOB’s proposed two-year delay should only move forward if noncompliant properties are required to sign a legally binding agreement to push them past the 2024 limits and towards meeting the 2030 limits without the use of RECs.
  2. DOB should remove the pathway to meet the emissions limits through RECs. In the alternative, RECs should be limited to offset only 30 percent of a property’s overage.
  3. DOB should allow Article 321 properties the flexibility to perform prescriptive measures in 2024 and meet the 2030 requirements in 2030.

  Comment attachment
  Rewiring-America-LL97-proposed-rule-comments.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:26am

• Pete Sikora

  Testimony and Comments of New York Communities for Change to Mayor Adams and the New York City Department of Buildings
  October 24, 2023

  [this testimony will be condensed into 3 minutes of verbal testimony for the hearing, as directed]

  Summary & Introduction

  My name is Pete Sikora and I am the Climate & Inequality Campaigns Director for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). NYCC is a community-based group organizing in predominantly middle and lower income Black and Latino communities in New York City and on Long Island for economic, social and climate justice. I was a member of the City’s Advisory Council for Local Law 97, appointed by the City Council.

  NYCC was deeply involved in the campaign to win enactment of Local Law 97, which the real estate lobby and its allies bitterly resisted. Since 2019, the real estate lobby shifted its focus to weakening the law through lax enforcement and implementation. For our part, along with other organizations, we have continued to educate and mobilize New Yorkers to push for full implementation and enforcement.

  Local Law 97 is the world’s most-important city-level climate and jobs law. Energy efficiency leads to lower utility bills, which particularly benefits our membership. Local Law 97 is on track to create tens of thousands of jobs this decade in design, renovation and construction.

  Already, the energy efficiency industry is booming. Firms in the design, assessment and engineering field that are market leaders in New York are getting a flood of work. New products and services, such as software and advanced building controls, are coming onto the market. In large part due to Local Law 97, New York City reportedly leads the nation in new clean energy jobs. Simply googling the law or a quick scan of social media gives a sense of the major economic activity that is beginning to ramp up. As increased renovation and hands-on upgrade work begins, our members will disproportionately benefit because the city’s unemployment and underemployment rates are higher in our members’ communities; more hiring helps counter the disemployment generated by ongoing and historic discrimination, and pushes up wages and benefits.

  The law is also exceeding the city’s expectations. As of 2022 data, half the buildings that were above the 2024-2029 limits when the law passed in 2019 have reduced their pollution below the cap. Two years before the 2024 limits go into effect, only 10% of buildings were still above the initial limit. Local Law 97 is on its way to a spectacular success. It is great to see.

  Now, just as it is becoming clear the law is on track to achieving far-reaching success, Mayor Adams has proposed to take New York City backwards at the behest of the real estate lobby.

  Mayor Adams’ proposed rule would create two large loopholes in the law that landlords could choose to exploit to avoid cutting pollution, which in turn would mean less job creation and higher utility bills. It is outrageous and irresponsible.

  The letter, spirit and intent of the law is to reduce climate-heating pollution, which in turn creates jobs and lowers utility bills through energy efficiency. The loopholes introduced in these draft rules improperly stretch the regulatory discretion granted to Mayor Adams for rule-making by allowing building owners to pollute far beyond the pollution limits set in the law.

  The real estate industry are Mayor Adams’ top campaign donors. We know he personally takes calls from their CEOs. His top former staff and other associates are currently or have been employed by them.

  Now, Mayor Adams has embraced the Real Estate Board of New York’s (REBNY) agenda to roll back Local Law 97, New York City’s landmark climate and jobs law. They wanted a 2 year delay? They got it. They wanted the option to buy Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) instead of cutting pollution? They got it.

  In particular, these rules contain two enormous proposed giveaways:

  Two Year Delay Program – Building owners have had five years since the law’s enactment in April 2019 to reduce their properties’ pollution below initially loose emissions caps. Under these rules, they would be allowed 2 more years (or possibly more depending on when they submit an application). They would not be responsible for the pollution cuts they were mandated to make in 2024 and 2025. As a condition of receiving their two year delay, these owners would have to promise to follow the law in the future and submit a plan to do so. The Administration has touted the submission of a plan as a valuable “compliance path” or “glide path”. Yet this proposed delay program would simply reward owners who stuck their heads in the sand and refused to clean up their highly-polluting buildings. The owners whose buildings are still so polluting that they are over the 2024-2029 limits would never be obligated to make the pollution cuts mandated under the law for 2024 and 2025. They’d get a free pass for at least two years. These initial limits are not hard to meet (absent truly unusual circumstances for which the law’s adjustment or other defined make sense). Indeed, these buildings tend to be exactly the types of buildings that can save the most money through simple, low-cost energy efficiency improvements. Many haven’t implemented even the most basic low cost/high payoff energy efficiency upgrades. In total, these buildings pollute hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 equivalent yearly above the 2024-2029 pollution limits. It is most likely that the Department of Buildings, an understaffed, overwhelmed department, will be unable to effectively review compliance plans, resulting in rubber-stamp approvals. Indeed, the entire exercise would be an increase in the very sort of inefficient paperwork the Mayor claims to oppose. The Administration can easily fix this delay program by requiring landlords to cut more pollution after their delay to make up for the pollution cuts they did not make during the delay period. For example, a lower pollution limit for 2026 – 2029 for buildings that get a delay for 2024 and 2025 would be easily achievable for those owners, since even if they’ve stalled so far, they could implement any projects needed in time. Owners should not be rewarded for dragging their feet. Patching the delay program to require larger cuts to make up for the increased pollution during the delay period would ensure that pollution is reduced in the amounts that the law specifies, and therefore ensure job creation and lower utility bills. Owners could join such a delay program voluntarily, but would not simply be rewarded for failing to meet the law’s easy initial limits. They should not receive a free pass for polluting above the law’s pollution limits for two or more years.

  Renewable Energy Credit “Buy Out” Loophole – Under the law and previous rule, purchasing Renewable Energy Credits in place of pollution reductions is limited to covering pollution generated from electricity use and RECs only from projects that interconnect into the city’s electric grid. However, these limits are far too loose: the CHPE project alone, which is under construction and is projected to be operational in 2026, will generate a flood of RECs eligible for purchase as a substitute for pollution cuts. Indeed, there will be more RECs flooding the market than the total volume of pollution cuts required by the law before 2030. Landlords will be able to buy whatever amount of RECs they desire in place of pollution reductions from 2026-2029. Even after 2030, when the pollution limits greatly tighten, about 50% of the pollution cut under the law could be offset by REC purchases. While RECs are currently limited to offsetting pollution generated by electricity use, that is such a large part of almost any building’s pollution that REC purchases could cover all the pollution cuts required under the law for huge swathes of large buildings. Local Law 97’s Advisory Council recommended RECs be further limited to offsetting only up to 30% of the pollution by which a building is over its pollution limit. With such a tight limit, no landlords could simply buy RECs and call it a day. Yet the Advisory Council’s consensus recommendation was rejected by the Mayor, who is only limiting RECs for buildings that opt for the delay program. While future REC prices are unknown, RECs are very likely to be attractive to landlords through the law’s 2030 limit. After 2030, RECs could also be priced at a level that makes them an attractive substitute for investments in energy efficiency to cut pollution. If building owners chose to buy RECs instead of investing in energy efficiency upgrades, New York will lose tens of thousands of jobs and utility bill reductions across the city. If landlords buy RECs in substantial quantities in place of pollution cuts the city and state will not meet the pollution reductions of the state’s climate law, NYC’s own law that sets overall GHG pollution reduction targets, or the Paris Climate Agreement. The city (and state) would not achieve the minimal pollution reductions needed to stave off global catastrophe. It is not acceptable to gamble in such a manner on unknown future REC prices. Under these rules, at a minimum landlords will know that it will be possible that RECs could be a complete “buy out” option in place of investment in their buildings in the future. Therefore, they will be less likely to upgrade to high energy efficiency, knowing that it will be likely that before 2030 they could purchase RECs and that post-2030 there would also be a large chance that REC purchases would also be an attractive option for them. The Advisory Council’s consensus recommendation should be adopted to ensure that landlords can’t buy out of their obligations to cut pollution from their properties.

  If these rules stand, building owners could choose one of two large loopholes: a two year delay or REC purchases in place of pollution reductions. They can use one of two options to evade their social and legal responsibility to cut pollution. The law would be severely weakened.

  When they are challenged on these loopholes, the Mayor and the Administration try to use the law’s complexity to confuse New Yorkers. And there’s already plenty of fear and confusion among a subset of building owners thanks to the real estate lobby and its various front groups scaremongering and outright lies about the law. Mayor Adams could have countered this effort, but it now appears that he agrees with it. Local Law 97 is a complicated law. Many regulations are being set, as well. The Administration’s representatives hide behind this complexity with misleading talk points to divert attention from the basic problems with the Mayor’s proposed rules. Yet no amount of doubletalk can cover up plain reality: this rule would grant landlords an option of a two year delay or a buy-out loophole.

  If this rule is adopted as proposed, the city could lose hundreds of thousands of tons of pollution cuts; thousands of jobs; and lower utility bills under the delay program. Moreover, these proposed rules signal that the Mayor will also weaken the 2030 pollution limits. We do not know when further rules for 2030 will be promulgated, but if this rule is not amended as proposed above, it would be logical for landlords to assume that a re-elected Mayor Adams would opt, at a minimum, to allow a similar two year delay in the law’s 2030 requirements.

  If the city delays the 2030 requirements, then New York would lose millions of tons of pollution reductions and many more jobs, as well as utility bill savings. Depending on future REC prices under the proposed rule, we could also lose up to about half of the law’s pollution reductions, and therefore, about half of the jobs.

  Tens of thousands of jobs are now at serious risk, along with lower utility bills and cleaner air. We urge the Administration to reconsider these rules, and detail our objections below.

  Further, Detailed Comments

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Program Would Permit Hundreds of Thousands of Tons More Pollution Per Year

  Building owners are obligated to cut a total of about 800,000 tons of CO2 equivalent pollution per year under the 2024-2029 caps, according to the Urban Green Council. The law’s pollution limit tightens in 2030 and aggregate pollution reductions grow to about 5 million tons per year (or about 40% cuts overall). These are the minimum pace and depth of pollution cuts by 2030 needed to avoid global catastrophe. These pollution reduction targets are reflected in city and state law, as well as the Paris Climate Agreement. The city and state are obligated by their laws to achieve these pollution reductions. Local Law 97 makes it real for NYC’s top source of pollution by setting enforceable, specific limit building by building. It represents a paradigm shift: no longer can landlords treat the air as an open sewer for pollution from their building.

  As of the most recent public data, which covers 2022, the percent of buildings that were over the initial limit dropped from 20% when the law was passed in 2019 to about 10%. That is major progress. However, a substantial number of owners remaining are ignoring the law.

  Now, such owners will see a delay as their path, and many will hope or even reasonably assume that the city will grant them further delays in the future. Thus, we estimate that hundreds of thousands of tons of pollution cuts per year in 2024 and 2025 that should be made would be waived away if this rule is adopted. Delays may also extend into 2026 or later, depending on when landlords submit their proposed plans and the department’s implementation of this rule as proposed.

  A two year delay on cuts may not sound to some like a long period of time, but the plain fact is that after decades of failure to reduce pollution, society is now on the verge of global catastrophe. We can’t rely on a “glide path” anymore, like we could have if cuts had begun in the 1980s when the science and threat became crystal clear. Now, rapid pollution cuts are necessary.

  Local Law 97 closely follows the path of pollution cuts needed in aggregate to give the world a 50/50 shot at avoiding a grim fate. A two year delay – and possibly more – costs two out of the seven full years remaining to 2030. And there is no room left for delay. All of our time has already slipped away as politicians and corporate leaders, influenced by profit motivations and large campaign donations, failed to act.

  As a result, we have no margin left. New York City must rapidly stop polluting, now. Thankfully, in the process we can build a more-fair society with many more good, union jobs and lower energy bills. Mayor de Blasio and the previous Council deserve enormous credit for enacting the law and beginning its implementation.

  Buildings over the 2024 limits (as of the most recent public data) run from massive Class A Manhattan skyscrapers to poorly-managed and poorly-maintained outer borough co-ops and condos. Most of these properties are barely over the 2024 limit. They would not need to do a lot of work to get under it. And since many of them haven’t done basic energy efficiency work, they stand to save money doing so. While these very polluting buildings are a small percentage of the buildings covered by Local Law 97 overall, they are the city’s most-energy wasteful, most polluting properties. Absent unusual circumstances that do occur but are outliers, none of these owners should get a free pass as this proposal would hand to them.

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Would Cause Landlords to Reduce Energy Efficiency Work

  On its face, the proposed delay program contradicts the purpose, letter and spirit of Local Law 97 by arbitrarily allowing these landlords and owners to receive an exemption from pollution reduction requirements in 2024 and 2025, and possibly later. Promising to follow the law and other laws in the future and submitting some sort of plan on paper is not a reasonable use of the Administration’s discretion in implementing the law.

  Commissioner and Chief Climate Officer Aggarwala insists on the Administration’s behalf that the delay program imposes a “legally binding contract” on owners to follow the law. But the law is… law. Building owners are already obligated to follow the law. By allowing landlords to get a two-year delay in return for promising to follow law and submitting a plan, the Administration simply concedes that Local Law 97 does not, in practice, apply for at least 2024 and 2025 for any building owner that chooses to enter the delay program.

  The Administration anticipates that a large number of owners will choose this proposed delay. We agree: if an owner has not taken action to this point, they are heaving a sigh of relief, because Mayor Adams is proposing to hand them a get out of jail free card. There will surely be at least several hundred applications to such a program from the owners of the city’s top polluters. Perhaps thousands of applications.

  Working people and people of color – NYCC’s membership – do not get such gentle treatment. Our members do not get an option to decide that any given law does not apply to them. The Mayor is quite eager to break up homeless encampments, arrest mango-selling immigrants and punish turnstile jumpers. He enforces laws against poor people, who do not have the political and economic power of building owners. When it comes to property owners – some of them billionaires like Douglas Durst whose buildings are over the 2024-2029 pollution limits – our big-talking “tough on crime” Mayor becomes a meek kitten.

  Many of the owners who will opt for this program if it is adopted are not properly managing their buildings. They are the types of owners who shove everything the city obligates them to do to the side as much as possible. Giving them two more years and making them submit a plan is unlikely to modify their behavior for the positive. Rather, they will tell their lawyers to just submit whatever they think will mollify the department. This program, if adopted with no modifications, would send them a clear message: keep delaying and the city will look the other way.

  The city’s proposed rules don’t even clarify that if these owners don’t cut pollution in the future, then they will be penalized, either retrospectively for their two year or long delay period, or in the future. Rather, the rule punts on these decisions. It does not commit that if these owners do not achieve pollution reductions, then they will be penalized.

  Indeed, the rule creates a mediation program even before penalties are assessed. Yet owners are already able to challenge any penalties in the city’s administrative process. This rule proposes to add a wholly new program in DOB to reduce or eliminate (“mediate”) fines. Again, a mediated process with individual owners even before they are assessed penalties for breaking the law, and then they can challenge those penalties in the city’s administrative process, which itself includes protections for people’s rights, is not the loving treatment that poor people of color get from the city.

  Why is Mayor Adams giving building owners – including the billionaire owners with massive power spending big money to oppose the law – kid glove treatment? While there are many responsible owners who strive to follow laws, all too many landlords and owners only respond to enforcement action and financial pressure. They will see the city’s unwillingness to penalize them as a validation of their resistance. Why wouldn’t owners assume they’ll get more free passes?

  The Administration’s Core Argument in Support of Its Proposed Delay Program Does Not Make Sense

  The main arguments justifying this delay program offered by the Administration’s staff do not add up. The Mayor’s contention is that owners should not be assessed penalties because any fines paid would or could take away from funds that would go to upgrading buildings. The Mayor and his representatives also darkly hint, but do not outright state, that penalties could endanger the affordability of the affected buildings.

  It is nonsense.

  In fact, the 2024-2029 fines would be small even for buildings who did nothing at all to reduce their energy waste and comply with the law. If a building chooses to do nothing to comply with the law, which is quite unreasonable, and it does not reduce its potential fines at all, the typical fine in residential ranges around $150 per unit. These are not hefty or overly punitive penalties. They are akin to a parking ticket. The city should not mislead that these fines are in some manner crippling or unreasonable. Paying a penalty in the range of $150 per unit will not alter a large building’s finances or affordability. It would not take away from any funds that might otherwise be devoted to energy efficiency projects.

  Absent unusual circumstances that are being taken into account by the good faith definitions in the uncontroversial parts of these rules and/or the later rulemaking on adjustments, any owner making a good faith effort would achieve the 2024-2029 limits. Over the years, we have asked several reliable experts and practitioners whether an owner making a good faith effort could achieve these limits. The answer is clear: it can take 2-3 years to implement these sorts of projects at the outside, but no owner making a good faith effort even a year after the law passed could or should have missed the upcoming 2024 deadline (barring some unusual, case-specific circumstances).

  COVID is not a legitimate excuse, either, as the Administration has asserted. The city did not shutter the real estate and construction industry. Most of the city kept working through the emergency. Even if owners lost a full year or even two years to COVID – which they should not have – then they still had most of 2019 through 2024 to implement.

  The law was enacted by the Council in April of 2019. The 2024-2029 limit is precisely defined in the statute. We have heard some landlords complain that their pollution limit was unclear to them, but in fact the 2024-2029 limits were written into the statute (and did not depend on rule-making or the DOB) Building owners were required to follow very clear and precise limits. By the time it is 2024, they will have had five years to achieve these loose limits, which are so high that at the time of the law’s passage only 20% of owners were over them (and in the most recent data for 2022, half of owners who were over their limit have come into compliance “early”).

  Absent unusual circumstances which are accounted for through the law, there is no excuse for a building to have failed to cut its pollution to achieve the 2024 – 2029 pollution limits. This delay program is arbitrary and unjustified. In fact, penalties are specified in the statute and the Mayor neither should nor does have the power to decide to waive them. This proposal simply rewards a powerful constituency that donated large sums to the Mayor’s election campaign and is now similarly donating large sums to his re-election.

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Program Will Devolve Into a Paperwork Exercise

  The administrative challenge of this complex program is also too steep given the Mayor’s budget cuts, mismanagement and turmoil in the Department of Buildings. The Department overall is massively understaffed. Approximately 23% of positions were unfilled at the end of 2023. The Mayor has already implemented budget cuts and is imposing 15% more cuts. He has also imposed a hiring freeze.

  The Mayor clearly wants landlords treated leniently, so staff will feel pressure to sweep concerns under the rug. This program will almost certainly not be able to effectively evaluate the proposed plans. It will likely devolve into an exercise session of wielding a rubber-stamp as overwhelmed staffers have no option but to approve anything other than blatantly, obviously incorrect paperwork landlords put in front of them. The mediation program for potentially reduced penalties will face similar pressures.

  We are also deeply concerned by the ongoing culture of corruption that Adams is furthering. Mayor Adams’ first Building Department commissioner is indicted for bribery. The Department has long had problems with corruption. It is the type of corruption that can seep deep into a city’s infrastructure and induce fear within the most diligent workforce. We are concerned that any program that has overworked staff tasked, at least in theory, with evaluating complex plans is a recipe for disaster.

  The law itself is premised on results. It is very simple in that respect. Building owners are obligated to report their pollution. Their compliance or non-compliance is based on a long-standing reporting system that almost all buildings follow. Experts view the reporting system as fundamentally sound. But under this proposed program, the law’s results-oriented metrics will be thrown out the window for at least two years. In their place will come large numbers of proposed plans from owners submitted to avoid paying penalties and receive official dispensation for failing to cut pollution for two years or more.

  In this proposed rule, the administration has defined a series of good faith conditions over which there is no controversy under which a building owner should reasonably be granted some or full consideration. The law included discretion for the Administration to take account for unusual situations, which exist. (“adjustments” to a building’s pollution limit and other guidance) The delay program, however, simply allows for delay, in practice giving a waiver over 2 years of pollution, or more, as an option. It subverts the law’s metrics and penalty formula of $268 per ton over a building’s limit.

  The core of the delay program requires landlords to submit a plan for their building to achieve the law’s future metrics. Even if intentions are noble to make this a serious process, in practice the Adams Administration has struggled to meet deadlines and issue rules in a timely manner.

  While the Department’s staff devoted to this area was able to impressively manage a complex Advisory Council process and subsequently issue regulations required by the law to be issued at the end of 2022, these superhuman civil servants are seriously overstrained. For example, this set of rules could and should have been proposed shortly after the last major set of rules, issued in December 2022. The Department promised repeatedly that these rules would be issued in the Summer. (and they could and should have been issued earlier) In fact, they were proposed in September. We suspect there was considerable internal debate over some of these provisions before the Mayor and/or his top staff made a final call on the proposal. Other complex rule making on several topics looms.

  These proposed rules also task the Department with creating a mediation program for potential penalties, which itself could become another vehicle for lower or delayed penalties as overwhelmed staff can’t oversee or manage the processes they are tasked with. In theory, such a mediation program could work out whether a landlord should be assessed full penalties, but in practice, the Department will be overwhelmed and landlords will know consultants and lawyers who can get them more favorable results.

  The mediation program adds an additional step in penalty determination that is favorable to landlords. The straightforward procedure in the law is penalty assessment followed by the usual process: landlords facing a penalty could challenge it in OATH, the city’s system for resolving administrative disputes. Instead, an understaffed and overstrained Department proposes to conjure up a mediation program. And these mediations could then be challenged. The result of this two step process, if implemented, would be that landlords would be less concerned that they will ever face penalties, and therefore less inclined to make the energy efficiency upgrades necessary to slash pollution, create jobs and cut utility bills. We do not believe this mediation program follows the law. It creates a new, unnecessary procedure that will be exploited by building owners that subverts enforcement.

  Adding a review of potentially thousands of complex plans while continuing to implement the laws and issue further complex and necessary rules and stand up a mediation program are bridges too far. The plans will be a paperwork exercise, not a serious evaluation. If this proposal goes through, this part of the law will unfortunately become like the auditing requirements under previous law: owners who chose to do so will hire someone to submit paperwork to jump through the bureaucratic hoops that the delay and mediation programs would set into place.

  It is quite difficult to see how this process will deliver the increased compliance that the Administration argues will result from granting delays. In fact, landlords will see a two year or more delay as a harbinger of more delays to come. It will encourage them in a belief that the law will never be applied to them. New York City landlords tend to listen only to financial incentives or penalties. To get them to take the law seriously, the city needs to enforce it seriously. That means issuing financial penalties, on time.

  The Proposed Two Year Delay Program Can Be Fixed With a Simple Patch

  If the Mayor amends the rules with the simple fix we are proposing as a patch on the delay program, New Yorkers would get the law’s intended benefits: lower pollution, economic development and jobs from energy efficiency upgrades, as well as lower utility bills. Or, if landlords failed to follow the law, they would properly pay penalties. Our proposed amendment would be a meaningful change in the delay program, and convert it into an optional path that would be an unwarranted giveaway. It would simply shift some cuts into a new time period. The city would get the same level of pollution reductions overall.

  Importantly, such a change would signal to landlords that even if a future delay program is put into place for 2030, it would not let them off the hook. As a result, they couldn’t reasonably assume – as these rules encourage – that the city’s future policy for 2030 will mirror this 2 or more year delay in 2024 requirements. We urge Mayor Adams to amend the rule in such a manner.

  The Administration has slow-walked Local Law 97 and has repeatedly made clear that issuing fines – that is, enforcing the law – is deeply unpalatable. After years of telling landlords it didn’t want to assess any fines, now the Mayor is formally proposing at least an optional two year delay. Instead of this giveaway, he should amend his proposal to ensure that the city does not arbitrarily give up the benefits of the law for effectively nothing in return.

  The REC Loophole Is Very Large

  The Champlain Hudson Power Express and other projects will generate a flood of RECs starting in 2026. To be more precise: CHPE is currently under construction and on track to be in service in the Spring of 2026, bringing hydropower from Canada. This transmission project will lead to about 10.4 million RECs interconnecting into Zone J, as estimated by NYSERDA.

  Clean Path is another large transmission project. It will bring renewable power from Upstate New York into Zone J. While it is less advanced in the process than CHPE, Clean Path has also secured state approval. The project will deliver about 7.9 million RECs interconnecting into Zone J. Clean Path is slated to be in service in the late 2020s. Together, those two projects will deliver about 18.3 million RECs interconnected into Zone J.

  These are enough RECs to cover all the pollution reductions required from all buildings prior to 2030. In other words, once CHPE is on-line, building owners could buy enough RECs to entirely offset the need to reduce pollution from their properties.

  After 2030, under the proposed rule, if building owners buy RECs in place of upgrading their buildings, then according to analysis from the Urban Green Council when pollution limits greatly tighten, building owners could use RECs to substitute for about 50% of the pollution reductions required under the law.

  Half of the climate-heating pollution that building owners are obligated to eliminate under the law could be offset by REC purchases.
  One-quarter of multi-family buildings would not need to do anything to cut their pollution through 2035. They could buy RECs instead.
  Two-third of commercial buildings would not need to do anything to cut their pollution through 2035. They could buy RECs instead.
  40% of the climate-heating pollution from multi-family buildings could be offset through REC purchases.
  85% of the climate-heating pollution from commercial buildings could be offset by REC purchases.

  Note: commercial buildings use more electricity as opposed to residential buildings, in large part since people don’t use so much hot water in office buildings. As a result, the REC loophole the Mayor is seeking in these rules benefits office building owners especially, since RECs would be allowed to be applied to all of the buildings pollution generated from its use of electricity from the grid. But also RECs could swallow up a very large proportion of pollution reductions from residential buildings.

  The Tight REC Limit As Recommended by the Advisory Council Must Be Adopted Or The Law Could Be Gutted

  Unless a tight, additional REC limit is put into place, many landlords will buy out of making pollution reductions, which will lead to less energy efficiency investments and therefore fewer jobs and higher utility bills. Under this proposed rule, future REC prices, which are unknown at this time and the city does not control, are the critical variable that will drive buildings owners’ decisions. It is quite likely that RECs will be very attractive as a compliance mechanism between 2026, when CHPE comes online, and 2030. If this rule is not amended, buildings over the pollution limit whose owners choose not to enter the delay program, will have a strong incentive to buy RECs in place of cutting pollution. A very substantial proportion of those owners will purchase RECs in place of pollution reductions, if this rule is not amended.

  In 2030, the law’s limits tighten and its formula changes. As a result, RECs become less attractive as an option for landlords instead of investments in their buildings for the post-2030 limit. However, if REC prices are low enough to make them an attractive alternative to upgrades, then a large proportion of owners will buy RECs instead of making upgrades for the 2030-2034 limit. Those limits are where the rubber hits the road. Thus, if RECs become a potent substitute, the negative effects of REC purchases by large numbers of landlords would be much larger.

  While NYC does not hold the power to set REC prices, it does hold the power to limit their use to meet this law. Under the proposed rule about 50% of the pollution reductions that are required by the law post-2030 could be satisfied by purchasing RECs. In raw terms, it could cost millions of tons of CO2 equivalent pollution cuts per year. (half of the law’s roughly 5 million tons per year of cuts in 2030). That would be a disaster.

  The Local Law 97 Advisory Council reached consensus on recommendations for many regulations for the law. The Council included experts and practitioners, unions, and advocacy groups, including NYCC. The Advisory Council proposed that REC purchases be limited to offsetting only up to 30% of the pollution by which a building is over its pollution limit. That proposed limit was recommended in addition to limiting RECs to only those from projects interconnecting into the city’s electric grid, as in the law’s text, and only to pollution generated by a buildings pollution limit, as set by rule and then also set into the law. 26 Councilmembers also wrote to Mayor Adams to urge adoption of this limit.

  Mayor Adams’ Administration promised repeatedly to set a further REC limit into place. Many of us recall the last administrative hearing on the previous major set of rules. Hundreds of New Yorkers urged the Administration to fully implement and enforce the law. In multiple media outlets and in verbal and social media statements, representatives agreed that further REC limits would be set in this particular rule-making. It is highly unfortunate that the only further limit proposed to be set in this rule-making is for buildings entering voluntarily into the two year delay program. Only those owners would be prohibited from making REC purchases in place of pollution reductions.

  The Administration’s own one pager illuminates the problem, even as it tries to minimize it. Previous to this rule-making, the Administration repeatedly explained that it was conducting a study of the potential impact of RECs. If some sort of serious study or analysis was conducted, beyond this cursory one-pager, it has not been made public. Regardless, every professional in this area knows that assuming CHPE is built – and it is currently under construction – there will be a flood of RECs. REC prices are unclear and won’t be set until such time (and are not under the city’s control). In the Administration’s one-pager, it presents various possibilities for REC prices, which confirms that 2024-2029 REC prices appear likely to be low enough to be attractive to landlords as a substitute for either pollution reduction projects or paying penalties. And after 2030, REC prices may also be low enough.

  DEC Commissioner and Chief Climate Officer Aggarwala has repeatedly dismissed the importance of RECs. He minimizes their importance to Councilmembers, advocates and the media. The Mayor’s communications staff also take a similar approach. They imply that RECs are so marginal, the issue is almost beneath serious consideration.

  That is not the case.

  However, if that were the case, then why not simply follow the Advisory Council’s recommended limit, which would eliminate any worry that RECs could swallow any proportion of the law’s pollution reductions?

  How to limit RECs is not a marginal question: RECs are potentially a loophole that could swallow much or most of the law. In these proposed rules, failing to set a REC limit gives landlords an option other than the delay program if their buildings are such high polluters that they are over the 2024 limit: they can buy RECs as soon as they are available in 2026.

  The signal post-2030 is also dangerous: landlords will know there will be a chance that they could purchase RECs in place of pollution reductions. As a result, building owners will be less likely to undertake the large-scale energy efficiency improvements the law seeks to induce with the 2030-2034 pollution limits.

  The REC Loophole Is An Especially Large Giveaway to Billionaire Commercial Building Owners

  When the Council finalized its legislation with the Mayor’s office, NYCC was – like many deeply involved groups – given a final 24 hour period to offer comments on the near-final draft. We strongly urged the Council to set a tight REC limit if it was to allow their use at all. Our proposed REC limit was functionally equivalent to the REC limit the Advisory Council recommended, years later. REBNY and various REBNY affiliates wanted a loose limit. The final law effectively kicked everything to rule-making. And here we are.

  Since the law passed, REBNY’s position has been that RECs ought to be limited to projects interconnecting into Zone J, the city’s electrical grid and only to pollution generated by electricity. Now, this rule gives them exactly what they’ve pushed for, with the exception that buildings in the delay program cannot use RECs.

  As a result, a building such as One Bryant Park, currently owned by Durst, will be able to buy RECs instead of reducing its pollution or paying a financial penalty for violating the law’s 2024-2029 limits. (Durst is also angling for other giveaways in future rule-making on cogeneration, density and other topics).

  The Durst Organization’s owner, billionaire Douglas Durst, is the Chairman of REBNY. The Durst Organization also employs the Mayor’s former Chief of Staff and political fixer, Frank Carone. The Durst Organization denies that Carone works on this topic and instead is limited to “business strategy”. But of course, someone like Carone knows how to exert his influence on City Hall in a manner that evades the spirit and perhaps also the letter of the city’s laws. Moreover, Durst himself can and presumably has picked up the phone to talk to the Mayor directly. Most of all, the Mayor himself is very well aware of Carone’s latest venture and who he works for, which was also reported in The New York Times and other outlets. He is extremely close with Carone, a longtime ally and advisor.

  The real estate industry also has many other influence channels to the Mayor and his top staff. Carone working for Durst is just one of many. The Mayor’s first Buildings Department Commissioner, Eric Ulrich, is now under indictment for bribery. Federal, state and local law enforcement should put this issue area and its nexus of power, money, corruption and a revolving door as well as favors to the real estate lobby under a microscope.

  We urge Mayor Adams to adopt the Advisory Council’s proposed Renewable Energy Credit (REC) limit of only up to 30% of the pollution by which any given building is over its pollution cap. A tight limit would foreclose the likelihood that a substantial proportion of buildings breaking the 2024-2029 limit exclusively buy RECs to comply with the law and the lower likelihood, but even more problematic situation post 2030 where if REC prices are low enough, a huge swathe of energy efficiency investments would be canceled.

  Conclusion: Local Law 97’s Requirements Are Fair and Achievable. Mayor Adams Must Drop His Proposed Rules Giveaways to the Real Estate Lobby

  Local Law 97 is a monumental achievement. It was enacted over the bitter objections of the real estate lobby, which continues to attempt to gut the law. Mayor Adams was elected with extensive financial support from developers, owners, large real estate entities, and others. REBNY and some of its largest members continue to fill the Mayor’s campaign coffers.

  Mayor Adams must fully implement and enforce Local Law 97, not defer to the real estate lobby. The law’s limits are fair and achievable. In unusual circumstances, there is proper discretion to adjust a building owner’s requirements to ensure that whatever cuts they are obligated to make are fair and achievable.

  In fact, many building owners will save money net of their financing costs through the energy efficiency projects the law induces. NYCC and allies have documented many specific examples of buildings covered by Local Law 97 that have already been upgraded to meet the law’s post 2035 standards. They are all saving money.

  The law’s limits are not some liberal, greenie fantasy gone wrong, as some of its most lurid and fact-challenged opponents such as Vickie Palladino suggest. In reality, buildings are already complying with the 2024-2029 limits. The law is succeeding beyond expectations. The lies and deceptions from the real estate lobby’s well-funded disinfo efforts about Local Law 97 are meant to panic building owners. On close inspection, they fall apart. New York City is covered in buildings wasting staggering sums on energy waste, which could be eliminated. Local Law 97 induces buildings to do just that. It will further affordability by reducing energy bills.

  The stakes are high in the regulatory decisions over Local Law 97. New York City is far ahead of New York state. New York City is also the national leader and a global leader. It is no exaggeration: the world is watching.

  Tens of thousands of jobs, massive pollution cuts and lower utility bills throughout the city are at stake. These positive benefits are especially important to working people in communities of color, who get hurt substantially worse by job cuts, pollution increases, and higher utility bills. Mayor Adams must take New York City forward, not backwards. We urge the Administration to heed the recommendations in this and other comments and side with working New Yorkers, not real estate interests.

  Note: We have also signed onto comments in this proceeding submitted by Earthjustice and other organizations.

  Comment attachment
  NYCC-Testimony-10.24.22-to-DOB-Hearing-on-Local-Law-97-Rules-GreenNewDeal4NYC.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:34am

• Warren Berger

  My name is Warren Berger and I am testifying for Food and Water Watch, an organization that fights for safe food, clean water, and a livable climate for all of us. We protect people from the corporations and other destructive economic interests that put profit ahead of everything else.
  I am testifying to support the of strengthening the rules to fully enforce Local Law 97, New York City’s landmark climate law.

  Local Law 97, a part of New York City’s Green New Deal for buildings, is already fulfilling its potential to cut energy bills, create thousands of jobs, and slash air pollution while helping New York meet its essential climate goals.

  The Adams administration’s draft rules would severely undercut the law’s ability to achieve the goals established by the Council in the two following ways:

  *Create a two-year delay in meeting the 2024 emission caps

  *Places no further limits on the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)

  The Adams Administration should strengthen the rules to fully enforce Local Law 97 and to continue New York City’s Green New Deal instead of continuing to favor wealthy real estate interests whose aim is to weaken and gut Local Law 97 at the expense of New Yorkers environment.

  Thank you.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:35am

• Emily Klein

  This comment (attached) is submitted on behalf of the Community Preservation Corporation.

  Comment attachment
  CPC_LL97-DOB-Rules-Public-Hearing_10.24.23_final.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:55am

• Christine James-McKenzie

  before the
  Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Limits for Buildings
  Hearing on 10/24

  Thank you for allowing JobsFirstNYC to provide testimony on behalf of the Green Economy Network today regarding Local Law 97.
  My name is Christine James-McKenzie, and I’m the Communications and Policy Manager at JobsFirstNYC, which provides research and develops systems that impact how philanthropy and government invest in workforce development. We create systems that focus on making NYC more inclusive and advancing economic mobility for all young adults and the communities they call home.
  The Green Economy Network, launched by JobsFirstNYC, is a dynamic partnership between workforce development agencies, community-based organizations, and employers shaping New York City’s green economy. The Network establishes effective practices and aligns current systems to create green jobs and career paths, prioritizing access and sustainability to achieve a just and sustainable economy where quality green jobs are accessible to everyone.
  More than 150 people representing over 100 different workforce development organizations, private businesses, educational institutions, and more have contributed to building the Network. The Network leverages its collective voice to advocate for policies that overlap workforce development and environmental priorities.
  We are here to testify on behalf of the Green Economy Network because we believe (beyond the positive impact on our environment) that Local Law 97 will help to grow new industries and create jobs. By embracing it as smart legislation, we can begin to transform New York City and its green economy while also making significant strides in the fight against climate change.
  Recent financial analysis conducted by the City highlights a pivotal point – an estimated $12-15 billion investment is needed in approximately 15,000 buildings in order to comply with Local Law 97’s emission limits by 2030. Of that, only $5-6 billion would pay for itself through energy savings. Roughly 25% of buildings that have to make investments will find their costs fully covered by energy savings. If undertaken, this work would generate up to 140,000 jobs.
  The Adams Administration’s approach to LL97 mobilization proposes specific achievable actions that the City and State and Federal partners can take to enable buildings to achieve ambitious emissions reductions. At the same time, these actions will generate well-needed local jobs and support the overall growth of New York City.
  JobsFirstNYC and the Green Economy Network stand ready to support LL97, particularly the good jobs it can create.

  Comment attachment
  Testimony-of-JobsFirstNYC-at-Greenhouse-Gas-GHG-Emissions-Limits-for-Buildings-Hearing.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:55am

• Kate Frucher

  As the Managing Director of a not-for-profit focused on running high-impact programs to accelerate the adoption of climate tech solutions in New York State, I am writing to express my support for NYC Department of Buildings’s (DOB) proposed rules on Local Law 97.

  New York City has made the biggest, boldest commitment to decarbonization of any U.S. city by creating this regulatory framework for our transition to a clean energy economy. Our progress towards these commitments needs to be certain and definite.

  As is always the case, rules need to factor in conditions on the ground – e.g. market readiness, financing availability, and clear, broadly understood pathways toward compliance etc. Collecting fines from these buildings won’t reduce emissions; it makes it harder for them to invest in their buildings. Therefore, we see value in the “Good Faith Effort” as defined, which will mobilize buildings to do the actual work necessary to reduce emissions and drive investment into NYC companies, workforce, and new technology. We appreciate the inclusion of back fines, to minimize the ability for this to become a delaying tactic, rather than providing building owners with the time to decarbonize effectively.

  We support the Mayor and Chief Climate Officer in their efforts to decarbonize our city. These rules attempt to provide a framework with a balance of flexibility and accountability, to try to provide an attainable pathway to realizing the City’s decarbonization objectives.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:57am

• Evan Carberry

  The proposed rules currently imply that an insulated radiator enclosure is required on every radiator in order to comply with number four in the prescriptive pathway. It is impractical and not beneficial to install covers on every radiator. The energy savings benefit and comfort benefit are achieved at 75% coverage, so requiring 100% coverage adds unnecessary cost. Data can be supplied to validate this claim.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 11:00am

• Urban Homesteading Assistance Board

  UHAB creates, preserves, and supports resident controlled housing, as we have done for more than 50 years. We work with low and moderate income residents in housing known as Housing Development Fund Corporations (HDFC) cooperatives, as well as tenant associations to build leadership, democratic participation, and community through cooperation. Most HDFCs are located in redlined neighborhoods that experience historic disinvestment, which has led to inefficient building systems and deferred maintenance.
  Our Climate and Resiliency (C&R) team works directly with building owners to navigate cost-saving and energy efficiency programs and incentive offerings. UHAB applauds the City for its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the DOB for releasing a set of detailed proposed guidelines to implement LL97. However, we are concerned about the timing of the release of these rules combined with the early reporting deadlines in 2025 for affordable housing, and want to share recommendations with DOB.
  We have observed delays in LL97 work due to uncertainty from building owners about penalties and reporting, as well as to the lack of access to incentives for buildings that use oil, which are the highest emitters. Some buildings that we work with have been going through programs like the Weatherization Assistance Program or securing loans through HPD for energy efficiency projects, both of which have timelines that can take multiple months or even years. Still others who have only connected with us recently had not even heard about the Prescriptive Pathway for Affordable Housing or had been given confusing information from contractors before the proposed rules had been released to the public.
  The recently released rules allow for buildings following the Performance Pathway to mitigate penalties for exceeding emissions limits based on “Good Faith Efforts.” We at UHAB know how much time and effort it can take for building owners to implement retrofits and energy efficiency projects. Considering the timing of these proposed rules, a pathway towards mitigated penalties for buildings that can prove they are working towards compliance makes sense. For buildings following Article 321, no such provision for Good Faith Effort has been proposed. Even though these proposed rules clarify a path towards compliance, the timing will make it difficult for many HDFCs to do the work on time. Affordable housing already faces financial barriers to enabling energy conservation measure projects; penalizing these buildings would exacerbate this problem.
  Our C&R team works with hundreds of building owners to navigate these projects and get on track towards saving money and making their buildings more energy efficient. From our experience, we expect many buildings to struggle to comply. The Good Faith Effort options should take into account experiences of building owners of affordable housing. We urge DOB to consult with CBOs and NYC Accelerator Affordable Housing team who are working on the ground with these building owners to make sure the indicators and timeline is realistic.
  We urge DOB to ensure a Good Faith Effort Pathway that gives affordable housing time to plan for these projects. We strongly support LL97, yet we must acknowledge that projects can take time and that many building owners have not yet started to do the work due to a lack of guidance and clarity. Additionally, some buildings in financial distress are struggling to pay for other local law projects, like façade work. We therefore urge the City to ramp up incentives to support LL97 work, especially for buildings using oil for heating, since these buildings do not currently have access to utility incentive funds, and buildings in financial distress.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 11:11am

• Elizabeth B. Clark

  Hello,
  I am a New Yorker and a mom. I was born here and now live here in Manhattan with my husband and three children. My background is in teaching.

  I am writing as a concerned citizen and parent. I am tremendously concerned about the climate crisis and its impact on our children’s lives and futures here in New York City and everywhere. I feel we all must act with great urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions however we can.

  To that end, I am a big supporter of NY’s Local Law 97 and I am submitting this comment because it is important to me that the law be implemented strictly and without loopholes. I thank the DOB for coming up with the draft rules, but see two important problems which need to be remedied before these rules are agreed on.

  First, the DOB’s proposed rules expand the meaning of “good faith efforts” and give the DOB authority to allow building owners to avoid penalties, which exceeds DOB’s authority under LL97.

  Second, the DOB also failed to set rules limiting the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased, as required by LL97.

  I believe that the DOB must amend these rules to comply with the law before finalizing them. There must be a minimum penalty amount that will actually deter noncompliance by building owners. The rules should also ensure that the fines collected from non-compliant building owners are used to fund decarbonization throughout the City. It’s also important that DOB develop rules to limit the amount of renewable energy credits that can be purchased otherwise no real decarbonization is taking place.

  Building owners in this city have tremendous wealth and they need to be pushed by the DOB to take these crucial steps. Also, by the way, unless the climate crisis is mitigated and quickly, all of NYC’s amazing buildings will lose their value as sea levels rise. We all know this to be true, and must do the hard work of facing the problem and taking action. NYC needs to be a leader on this issue for other cities to follow.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 11:31am

• Alice Hu

  My name is Alice Hu, I live in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn, and I’m the Senior Climate Campaigner at New York Communities for Change, a community-based organization of low-income people of color.

  I’m testifying today because I am extraordinarily concerned about climate change and the impacts it will have on our city, which will hit low income communities of color first and worst. In order to curb the worst of deadly storms, extreme heat, and rising sea levels, our city needs to slash climate-heating pollution from our biggest and dirtiest buildings and create good green jobs without loopholes for wealthy landlords.

  That’s why I’m calling upon Mayor Adams to require landlords to make additional pollution cuts if they are allowed a delay in penalties. After all, building owners have had years to prepare for these pollution rules. Additionally, the Mayor should implement the Local Law 97 Advisory Council’s recommendations that renewable energy credits be limited to 30 percent above a building’s pollution cap.

  Local Law 97 can and should be creating an enormous number of good jobs in design, renovation, and construction; lowering utility bills; and addressing the dire impacts of climate change. The Mayor has the opportunity now to modify his proposed Local Law 97 rules, close the loopholes, and ensure that our city and our planet can enjoy the full benefits of this law.

  Thank you.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 11:43am

• Anne Pernick

  Hello and thank you for the opportunity to give testimony.

  My name is Anne Pernick and I am with SAFE Cities at Stand.earth. SAFE Cities works with government leaders and advocates all over the U.S. and Canada on policies that phase out fossil fuels at the local level.

  I live in Portland, Oregon, and I was lucky enough to be in NYC in September for Climate Week. SAFE Cities and partners hosted an event that celebrated the leadership of local and state leaders in New York on building decarbonization.

  But that leadership position for NYC is in jeopardy with these draft rules and the delays and loopholes they contain. Also in jeopardy are many of the benefits of Local Law 97 in terms of improvements in local health and safety as well as climate and in terms of job increases and lower utility bills. 
  We urge you to make changes so that Local Law 97 will be fully implemented and enforced.

  Thank you.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 11:47am

• Kathy Malone

  Dear DOB,

  I am a mom of 3 kids living in Brooklyn.
  I am deeply concerned for their future and the future of our city.
  We have experienced flooding and flooding from our ceilings due to extreme water fall. Never before have I seen the proportion of these climate conditions in our city.
  That’s why I am advocating for a strong LL97 law.
  We have to make sure it isn’t weakened or that stake holders buy their way out of doing their share.
  1.) no 2 year delay and if so not without deeper cuts to make up for the extra carbon. Sorry but math is math.

  2.) no REC loopholes, like buying indulgences, we see you! Only up to 30% of pollution over the limit.

  We have all put a LOT of work into this law, please don’t let a few selfish interests win over the health and wealth of our city!

  Thanks,
  Kathy Malone

  Comment attachment
  LL97.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 11:49am

• Craig Gruber

  Please accept these comments of the New York Chapter of the Association of Energy Engineers. The comments are in the attached file named 23-1023 LL97 Rules-Comment Submission – working group final.pdf Thank you. Craig Gruber – Chapter President on behalf of NYAEE

  Comment attachment
  23-1023-LL97-Rules-Comment-Submission-working-group-final-1.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 12:11pm

• Dan Boscov-Ellen

  As a professor of climate ethics, I cannot overstate how important it is for the city not to weaken its enforcement of Local Law 97. As a low-lying coastal city with aging infrastructure, we literally cannot afford to let industry once again sabotage public efforts to curb climate change in order to line their pockets. It is far past time to treat this like the crisis that it is.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 12:23pm

• Awilda Diaz

  On behalf of National Grid, please find the attached comments.

  Comment attachment
  National-Grid-LL97-Comments-10-24-2023-vf.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 12:38pm

• Ciara Kosior

  I am writing to express support for the NYC
  Department of Buildings’s (DOB) proposed rules on Local Law 97.
  Passed in 2019, Local Law 97 set greenhouse gas emissions limits on buildings over
  25,000 square feet starting in 2024. Given the fact that the vast majority of NYC’s
  greenhouse gas emissions come from our buildings, this law is intended to reduce
  emissions from buildings by 40% by 2030 and achieve an 80% reduction citywide by
  2050.
  The proposed rules outline how building owners can demonstrate a “good faith effort”
  for the first compliance period, prohibits the use of RECs as part of a decarbonization
  plan to qualify for the “good faith effort” provision, establishes credit for early
  electrification work that can be applied towards compliance with emission reduction
  targets, and provides guidance on complying with the law for affordable housing
  buildings and houses of worship.
  I support DOB’s proposed rules because it is a major step
  toward full implementation of the law. It effectively strikes a balance between addressing
  challenges faced by buildings such as co-ops and condos and the urgency to reduce
  climate-warming emissions and achieve the long-term goals of Local Law 97. With the
  introduction of a new credit for early electrification work, it will encourage the installation
  of energy-efficient electric heating, cooling, and hot water systems before 2030.
  As our planet experienced record-breaking heat this summer, New York City must lead
  the way in moving us away from fossil fuels to fight climate change. I urge DOB to adopt the proposed rules to take us one step
  closer toward a more sustainable city.
  Sincerely,
  Ciara Kosior

  Comment added October 24, 2023 12:43pm

• Denise Patel

  It is imperative that Mayor Adams stand up for the New Yorkers who need it most. Instead, he has chosen to reward his real estate donors. Owners who have not taken action to reduce their emissions when the law takes effect next year should not be rewarded. They should be required to make additional cuts. The Local Law 97 Advisory Council recommended limiting renewable energy credits. Again, owners should not be allowed to buy their way out of pollution reductions. The goal of Local Law 97 is to reduce emissions. Mayor Adams must follow through to meet that goal. The proposed rules fail to do so and must be amended before they are finalized.

  Comment attachment
  Denise-Patel-LL97-Testimony-10.24.23.docx

  Comment added October 24, 2023 12:54pm

• David Rysdahl

  The proposed rules have me worried. I worry that the DOB does not have the proper manpower or resources to fully enforce the law. I worry that building owners will simply buy RECs to satisfy their emission limits and that this groundbreaking retrofit bill will end up being a greenwashing exercise. I worry that the city and state haven’t properly supported the growing of a workforce ready to construct these retrofits. I worry that the city hasn’t fully protected tenants from the financial burden of these upgrades. I worry that the city hasn’t created clear funding mechanisms to help legitimately burdened buildings comply with the law. I worry that the city hasn’t done enough to educate the public about this groundbreaking law. I’m worried because this bill has the promise to transform our city and country, and I don’t want it to fail.

  The proposed rules also have me excited. I love the new credit that incentivizes buildings to electrify early. We need more of these “carrot” type incentives. I also think the “good faith efforts” are clearly defined and robust and signal that the city is taking this law seriously. This law has the potential to transform New York into a greener, healthier, and happier place. If done right, it will stimulate hundreds of thousands of jobs and make us a leader in the desperately needed green transition. We need to implement this law properly to make sure our groundbreaking retrofit build actually leads to retrofits and not just corporate loopholes.

  – David Rysdahl, resident of Brooklyn

  Comment added October 24, 2023 1:15pm

• Cherie Acierno

  Here is the testimony I spoke aloud at the DOB LL97 meeting:

  My name is Cherie Acierno. I work with Rise and Resist. I am a lifelong New Yorker and a distraught mother. The climate crisis is going to fall hard on the shoulders of our children. It is already falling hard on all New Yorkers.

  I am speaking to you directly, Eric Adams: it is outrageous, shameful, and it reeks of cronyism that you, at the behest of your real estate donors, would gut Local Law 97.

  This climate law, crafted after NYC declared a climate emergency in 2019, fights climate pollution at the scale and speed science demands and is an example for the rest of the world.

  The law would provide thousands of jobs in design, renovation, and construction, upgrade our city’s polluting infrastructure, lower utility costs, and be especially beneficial to low-income communities most impacted by the floods, toxic air, and heatwaves we are all experiencing now.

  A grassroots multiracial coalition of New Yorkers fought for this law, and we are still here – now demanding that you enforce and implement LL97 as the law requires and as the LL97 advisory board recommended.

  The law is fair and achievable, despite what the real estate industry wants people to think. It would provide massive benefits to the health of New Yorkers, and to a city and world facing global catastrophe.

  You must cap Renewable Energy Credits at no more than 30% above a building’s cap. The unlimited RECs that REBNY wants are unacceptable. Further, if a landlord is allowed a delay, they should then be required to make additional pollution cuts. No free passes for more pollution! I expect you to enforce and implement Local Law 97 without unlimited REC loopholes and without delays.

  Thank you.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 1:17pm

• Bess

  Most building stock is due for upgrades, as maintenance has been minimal. Use this as an opportunity to step into a healthier future.

  Let’s try to keep NYC from the costlier alternative of succumbing to rising waters, by tackling the matter at its source.

  Thank you

  Comment added October 24, 2023 1:24pm

• Ben Orlove

  I am Ben Orlove. I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and I teach climate policy at Columbia University. I have seen in my own life how severe the climate change impacts already have become. I’ve seen that right here in New York. After Hurricane Sandy, my mother-in-law’s apartment in New Jersey had so much damage that she had to come stay with my wife and me for a week. Fortunately, our relationship was close and we all enjoyed the visit. Others in our city have suffered more We know that eleven people in Queens drowned because of flooding from Hurricane Ida in 2021. S So we cannot delay in doing our part to address the climate emergency.

  I teach courses on climate change, I do research on climate change adaptation and I participate in international climate conferences. But I also feel the strong need to join as a regular citizen, and that’s why I am testifying today, as a member of Jewish Climate Action Network. I want to make two points:

  We should entirely redo the Two Year Delay Program: Landlords can’t just use the extra time as an excuse to pollute more. It’s simple: if they get more time, they will have to commit to pollute even less to meet the 2024 targets.

  Close the Renewable Energy Credit Loophole: Stick to the Local Law 97 Advisory Council’s strong suggestion of capping excess emissions at 30% Local Law 97 set up an official advisory council, bringing together folks from all walks of life, including building owners, architects, engineers, advocates, and unions. The Advisory Council unanimously recommended that we put a cap on Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) at no more than 30% of emissions over the legal limit for buildings. It’s important to note that Mayor Adams completely ignored this advice When we combine this cap with the restriction that RECs can only cover electricity-generated emissions, we’re sending a clear message: property owners must seriously cut down on their pollution. We can’t give them an easy way out because we are already suffering the impacts of climate change.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 1:31pm

• Chris LaRoe - Brookfield Renewable

  Headquartered in New York City, Brookfield Renewable has a significant presence in New York State, including 74 hydroelectric facilities on 15 river systems, 711 MW of installed capacity, plus three recently integrated Terraform Power wind projects totaling 160 MW, resulting in over 300 employees and 240 indirect jobs in New York.

  Brookfield Renewable is a strong advocate in support of many of New York City’s and New York State’s clean energy policies and is eager to be a partner to help achieve their goals. More specifically, through Local Law 97, we have an opportunity to both reduce emissions emanating from buildings in New York City while also supporting clean energy resources throughout the state. To do so, we need clarity in the rules facilitating agreements between building owners and the state’s existing and forthcoming renewable energy resources to support compliance with the law. We supplement these brief comments with more detailed comments submitted and attached as a file.

  Renewable Energy Credits or RECs ubiquitously serve as a viable and vital component of clean energy and environmental laws and policies. Local Law 97 is no exception, as language in the law clearly outlines RECs as a tool that can be utilized, in part, by building owners to meet their requirements under the law. For a REC to be utilized by a building owner, the law requires only that the source of the REC be a renewable energy resource that is either located in or sinks its output into Zone J (New York City). This provision creates a tremendous opportunity to help building owners develop a comprehensive plan to reduce their emissions profile while also supporting the state’s aggressive renewable goals under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

  However, certain commentary from administrators of the law concerning what constitutes a compliant REC has created doubt amongst building owners as to which RECs can be utilized for compliance, and amongst owners of existing renewable resources as to their ability to represent their facility’s RECs as Local Law 97-compliant.

  More specifically, there have been instances where representatives from NYC Department of Buildings and other stakeholders have indicated that in the best-case scenario no RECs will be available for use by building owners until years from now – alluding to the potential in-service date(s) of the NYSERDA-contracted Tier 4 projects (Champlain Hudson Power Express and Clean Path New York) and/or the NYSERDA-contracted offshore wind projects. However, other stakeholder have rightfully pointed out that such a perspective takes much too narrow of a view of the REC provisions in the law, as project “additionality” is not a program requirement and therefore, building owners should be able to satisfy some compliance obligations through RECs available from renewable resources in existence today.

  Furthermore, it unnecessarily limits the tools available to building owners. While it is anticipated that a high percentage of buildings are already on a path to comply with Local Law L97 in its initial year of 2024, there are many others that simply are unable to do so purely through building retrofits. They need additional tools, which is exactly why RECs were included in the law. Waiting until Tier 4 or downstate offshore wind projects to start delivering their power needlessly hamstrings building owners who need to comply with the law well in advance of such delivery, likely denying many such owners any practical means of compliance. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that some of these new projects have substantial schedule risk and may be in jeopardy of never achieving operations, as the state Public Service Commission recently rejected petitions filed by developers seeking an inflation adder to their contracts that the developers stated were necessary to maintain economic viability of their projects.

  Brookfield Renewable agrees that RECs cannot and should not be the sole mechanism used for compliance. Rules have already determined that RECs can only be applied to emissions related to electric consumption. Additional proposals have been put forward to further limit the portion of compliance for which RECs can be used, and those discussions should continue. However, while the quantity of RECs used for compliance may be adjusted, the fact that existing renewables can be the source of those RECs is stated clearly in the law and should not be called into question. The successful compliance with the city’s efforts likely depends on this.

  We ask for DOB to issue clarifying rules that RECs from existing renewable resources that sink into New York City are in fact able to be utilized to comply with the law.

  Comment attachment
  Brookfield-Renewable-Comments-on-9-12-23-DOB-Rulemaking.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 1:31pm

• Louise Yeung, Chief Climate Officer, NYC Comptroller's Office

  Thank you to the Department of Buildings for convening this hearing and for providing the opportunity to submit testimony. New York City’s Local Law 97 (LL97), the most ambitious municipal building energy law in the country, will go into effect in two months. By making emissions reductions mandatory for buildings over 25,000 square feet, with ambitious but necessary and reasonable targets, LL97 will require property owners to invest in building sustainability improvements that reduce emissions, fundamentally transforming NYC’s building stock and taking significant action to reduce our city’s carbon footprint.

  As a member of City Council, Comptroller Lander was instrumental in the passage of LL97 and remains proud of the City’s efforts to manage emissions from buildings as the leading contributor to the City’s climate emissions. In his current role, the Comptroller is committed to overseeing strong implementation of LL97. As LL97 goes into effect, the City must ensure that the law’s implementation delivers real building decarbonization. The law will only be as good as its implementation.

  We appreciate that the proposed rulemaking offers clear pathways to bring buildings into compliance. Replacing old gas boilers, inefficient windows, cooking appliances, and lighting fixtures is neither easy nor cheap upfront – but they are essential; and many of these steps will save building owners money over the long term.

  We believe that the “good faith effort” provision outlined in the rulemaking provides a reasonable on-ramp to compliance for buildings that genuinely need more time or support to make these critical retrofits, while also establishing accountability mechanisms to ensure that those buildings follow through on their commitments. The requirements that buildings entering into “good faith” agreements must develop and carry out a DOB-approved decarbonization plan—placing them immediately within a legally-binding and clearly detailed compliance mandate–and meet their 2030 emissions limits early strikes the balance of flexibility and rigor to maximize compliance and achieve decarbonization. Many buildings have never undergone this kind of retrofit, and they need guidance to help them through it. The City must ensure funding and staffing resources to DOB and the NYC Accelerator program to enable proactive technical assistance, financing opportunities, and outreach for building owners. Our office supports the 100% limitation on the purchase of RECs for buildings that enter into “good faith” agreements with DOB.

  Beyond the “good faith” program, we believe that an overarching cap on RECs is still necessary to incentivize meaningful investments in emissions reduction. The Comptroller’s policy analysis of RECs in Cap the Credits (2022) recommended limiting the use of RECs to no more than 30% of a building’s electricity emissions overage as a reasonable limit to incentivize building owners to comply by implementing on-site retrofits. In addition to capping the use of RECs, we also encourage DOB to prohibit the use of carbon capture technology for compliance. Carbon capture systems do not improve building efficiency, or provide good green jobs made possible by building-wide retrofits. While we are open to rigorous, science-based approaches to carbon capture and other innovative climate solutions, these must be after building owners have complied with Local Law 97’s requirements to reduce their own emissions through retrofits.

  In addition to this important rulemaking process, we encourage the City to take additional important measures to set this law up for successful implementation. In order to avoid exacerbating housing affordability and facilitate a just transition, we encourage the City to strengthen protections that make sure tenants do not bear the brunt of the costs of the energy transition, and to establish a Green Affordable Housing Fund that offers robust, accessible financing for affordable multifamily buildings. The Inflation Reduction Act, the J51 tax incentive program, and other City and State resources can be used to establish this fund.

  LL97 has the potential to bring wide-ranging environmental, health, and economic benefits to New Yorkers. To reap these benefits, the rules must encourage emissions reductions through building retrofits. Our city must complement this rulemaking with accessible financing opportunities and technical assistance resources that support the needs of building owners in coming years. As the law comes into effect in 2024, we will pay sharp attention to the success of implementation to achieve a greener New York City.

  Thank you for this opportunity to testify – and for the hard work that lies ahead to implement the nation’s most ambitious municipal building decarbonization law.

  Comment attachment
  2023-10-24_DOB-Testimony_Louise-Yeung-NYC-Comptrollers-Office.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 1:41pm

• Ann Lane

  LL 97 works! We must fully enforce penalties and expand support so buildings like mine in the Bronx can fully comply expeditiously. Tax payers and voters are adamant about moving to clean energy so we can have reduced energy bills, healthier air for healthier families and green jobs throughout the state.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 1:49pm

• Matthew Isaacs

  My name is Matthew Isaacs and I’m a sustainability professional in New York City, providing comments on behalf of Kelvin (formerly Radiator Labs). While broadly in support of Local Law 97, I have some concerns with the proposed rules that should be addressed before being finalized:

  Item 4 in the prescriptive pathway requirements states that: “For one-pipe and two-pipe steam distribution systems, the RCx agent must confirm that either a TRV or an insulated radiator enclosure with temperature controls has been installed at each radiator and is in good working order.” It is not practical or necessary to install an insulated radiator cover at each radiator. Energy saving and comfort benefits are achieved at ~75% coverage of radiators. Additional installations increase cost without increased benefits. Data validating this claim can be provided. Furthermore, it is impractical to expect every radiator to be accessible, whether that is due to existing building conditions or to tenant access. This rule should be updated to require a minimum of 75% coverage.

  Item 4 in the prescriptive pathway requirements states that: “For one-pipe and two-pipe steam distribution systems, the RCx agent must confirm that either a TRV or an insulated radiator enclosure with temperature controls has been installed at each radiator and is in good working order.” It is widely accepted in the engineering community that TRVs have minimal efficacy in one-pipe steam buildings. As such, one-pipe steam buildings following the prescriptive pathway should not be instructed to install TRVs as a means of achieving energy savings and temperature control. These buildings will not benefit from this capital expenditure, either in energy savings or resident comfort. One-pipe steam buildings should be directed to install insulated radiator enclosures as means of meeting Item 4 because the efficacy in these applications has been demonstrated and validated.

  The beneficial electrification credit is a positive addition that encourages early electrification. The equipment specifications require cold climate heat pumps, however, partial electrification can provide multifamily buildings with 80% electric heat without relying on cold climate heat pumps. By using non cold climate heat pumps equipment costs are brought down significantly and electrical upgrades are not required. This low cost option will provide multifamily buildings with efficient electric heating, but under the proposed rules they will not be able to take advantage of the beneficial electrification credit.

  For buildings eligible for the prescriptive pathway the proposed rules read as a one-time fine of $10,000 for failing to implement the prescriptive pathway measures or meeting the 2030 cap by 2024. This fine is not proportionate to the financial investment necessary to achieve compliance. As such, many building owners and operators will be inclined to pay the fine and carbon emissions reductions will not be realized. The penalty for not meeting the prescriptive pathway or the 2030 target by 2024 should be adjusted. Failure to meet the requirements of this pathway should result in needing to comply with standard emissions caps.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:13pm

• Adriana Vink

  My name is Adriana Vink, I’m an 18-year-old student from Brooklyn. I am worried about our city’s future – my future. Action to combat the climate crisis cannot be delayed. My generation and future generations cannot afford it. Buildings are not only the greatest source of GHG emissions in the city and LL97 is essential to curb those emissions and ensure my future. LL97 must be fully enforced, with no loopholes to the big real estate interests that bankrolled Mayor Adams’ campaign. I’m writing to call on the Mayor and his administration to amend the rules they’ve proposed because in their current state they are completely unacceptable.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:14pm

• Rachel Landsberg

  My name is Rachel Landsberg. I am a mother, an educator and a member of Jewish Climate Action Network.

  I have lived in New York City for over 25 years; I have chosen to raise a family here; I love this city and call it my home.

  New York City is known for its skyscrapers – and there are about 1 million buildings of various sizes in our city. 70% of our green house gas emissions come from these buildings and we must address these emissions.

  I was proud, as a New Yorker, when Local Law 97 was passed in 2019 to do just that. The people of this city understood that we needed to do our part.

  Now, proposed regulatory rules threaten to weaken the law. As we feel the effects of climate change and severe weather in our communities here in NYC and across the globe it is more crucial than ever to demand a full enforcement of Local Law 97.

  Mayor Adams, please stand together with the people of this city, rather than giving in to the real estate industry.

  Ensure that the pollution limits are enforced and that penalties are imposed on building owners who do not comply.

  See to it that Renewable Energy Credits are limited to 30% above a building’s cap.

  A Jewish story tells of an elder planting a carob tree, which will only begin to bear fruit 70 years later. The elder is asked, “Do you think you will live another seventy years and eat the fruit of this tree?” She replies, “Perhaps not. But, when I was born, I found many carob trees planted by those who came before me. I am planting trees for my children and grandchildren so they will be able to eat the fruit of these trees.”

  Mayor Adams, let us act now, let us plant fruit trees and pave a future for our children, let us fully enforce LL97.

  Comment attachment
  LL97-Testimony-Oct-23-2023.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:15pm

• Ross Pinkerton

  Thank you for holding today’s hearing on the LL97 rules. I teach high school physics and climate science in Manhattan and a parent of young children living in East Harlem, where asthma rates are disproportionately high. I worked to get LL97 passed and am so proud to have played a small part in NYC’s claim to being a leader in emissions reductions. However, this claim is weakened by two parts of DOB’s proposed rules, the two-year delay and the unlimited use of RECs. Landlords and managers have cynically declined to use the 5 years of runway given by the law, which I know because my condo manager told me several years ago that he didn’t want us to act on LL97 because he expected that it wouldn’t be enforced. They should be fined as planned in the law. To make sure these are not purely punitive, these fines could be directed toward retrofitting as opposed to placed in city coffers, or placed in a fund to help buildings that show hardship raising funds.RECs have been shown to be ineffective at reducing emissions (https://www.volts.wtf/p/voluntary-carbon-offsets-are-headed#details, among other sources) and should be limited to 30% above the building cap as recommended by the LL97 Advisory Council. This will ensure that we actually reduce emissions in NYC, which also reduces associated air pollution that harms health in environmentally unjust ways. Furthermore, RECs are too amenable to a shell game in which offsets are claimed but don’t add up to the actual reduction of emissions that we need in order to avert further climate catastrophe.Thank you for reconsidering these two vital aspects of the law to comply with the intent of the legislators and mayor who passed it.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:16pm

• Lisa Dunn

  While I and my co-op neighbors all agree we all must do more to stop or at least slow the devastating effects of climate change, another way must be found for middle and lower income NYC residents. Local Law 97, as it is now written, will leave some renters and co-op owners homeless or require them to move away because compliance will bring huge expenses in a very short time for many older and pre-war buildings that house working New Yorkers. Newer high rise, more expensive buildings will be largely okay. Older buildings with lower and middle income residents will have huge expenses in a very short time, either to make necessary changes or pay fines. Please consider the many thousands of older buildings with co-op owners or renters who will be very negatively affected by this rule. NYC is already not affordable for half the residents. Another way can and must be found. Local Law 97 was written too quickly with too little analysis and intelligence.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:20pm

• Molly Ornati

  Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as a citizen deeply concerned about the climate crisis. I live at 746 Union Street in Brooklyn, near the Gowanus Canal an area prone to flooding where combined sewage overflow has been a problem for decades. During the storm on September 29th, people across the neighborhood spent the day bailing water out of their basements and apartments. I found out later that a friend had three feet of standing water sewage in the basement of her 60-unit building, and a disabled neighbor waited for days for help from her landlord, which resulted in significant damage and mold, making her feel she needs to move. While just a few examples, they offer a frightening vision of our city’s future.

  At a recent community meeting with Mayor Adams, a member of his staff remarked that quote: “The climate crisis is out ahead of us.” Given this acknowledgement why is he trying to weaken Local Law 97? While I recognize the complexities of compliance, if the the vast majority of buildings have been able to comply, why are we excusing the laggards, setting up a bad precedent on the urgency of legal compliance to meet our climate laws.

  The second point I would like to address is the Renewable Energy Credits, which could allow building owners to buy their way out of up to 70% of the requirement to cut emissions. This sets another dangerous precedent. I support the recommendation that RECs be limited to not more than 30% of a building’s pollution limit. Our planet is in crisis, these are not ordinary times, we must have the courage to demand fulfillment of this landmark law if we have any chance of reaching our climate goals.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:21pm

• Andres Chang

  I’m terrified for the future of this city under worsening climate catastrophe. Without transformative action, I fear that we will see:

  – Increasing polarization and tribalism, as the climate refugee crisis worsens
  – Inhabitability, as sea level rise leads to worsening storm surges and floods
  – Political and civic disengagement, after years of public policy failure: deeply unjust policies that favor real estate interests over the good of the whole.

  These proposed Local Law 97 Rules are a gift to wealthy real estate owners, the same interest group that donated $1.6 million to Mayor Adams’ 2025 election campaign over the last six month—roughly half of his warchest for the 2025 election, so far.

  Mayor Adams: your responsibility lies with the people of New York, not the real estate industry.

  Local Law 97 was clearly intended to push the building sector to reduce emissions. Building owners have had years to prepare for its implementation, and the City of New York has established programs that equip middle-class owners with tools to comply. The weakened rules will overwhelmingly benefit wealthy real estate interests that have zero excuse for non-compliance. In the process, it will throw disadvantaged New Yorkers—who suffer the most from air pollution—under the bus, and sacrifice important jobs.

  I am asking for two changes to the current rules.

  – Place a stringent cap on the usage of RECs, as unanimously recommended by the Local Law 97 advisory council. This will ensure that building decarbonization leads to actual emissions reductions, lower energy costs for building residents, and jobs associated with retrofitting; instead of “paper” reductions that never materialize.
  – Fix the 2-year delay program. There has been more than sufficient time for building owners to prepare for LL97. In it’s current form, the delay program is far too broad, constituting little more than a rubber stamp process (i.e., loophole).

  Do not sacrifice this opportunity. Do not betray the intent of this law, as passed years ago in 2019. Do not betray the residents of this city, who are depending on this administration to do what is right. Strong Local Law 97 rules and implementation now.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:25pm

• Kaitlyn Quach

  Hello, thank you for holding this hearing.

  My name is Kaitlyn Quach from Queens, and I am a member of Food & Water Watch.

  Profession-wise, I’m a cartoonist who just graduated from art school. My peers and I are now entering the workforce, and most of us are having trouble finding a job and functioning in general.

  Climate change is one of the largest issues that looms over our heads, as the weather becomes abnormal and unprecedented natural disasters hit our city at alarming rates.

  Mayor Adams, it’s really really hard to focus on any sort of job search or long-term career commitment in the midst of flooding and wildfires.

  It’s hard to focus when we know that our city is not putting forth all of its resources and effort to mitigate climate change. My everyday worries are weighed further down by the fact that it’s been an abnormally warm fall season, similar to last year’s abnormally warm winter. This sort of change in weather signifies more drastic changes to come and that thought is terrifying.

  It’s upsetting and stressful that we still have to fight for a piece of climate legislation that has already become law. Even now, the Republicans running in my area have the elimination of this law in their top three priorities. We must not let a small group of profiteering individuals override the needs of the population as a whole. The regulation of building emissions and conversion to sustainable heat pumps sets a good example for other regions and may cause a ripple effect.

  I see that some are arguing that this piece of legislation may not even be that effective against climate change, but as an activist representing younger populations, one thing is clear to me: we must move as quickly and rapidly as possible away from fossil fuels. Heat pumps and renewable energy are the future, and it’s about time we start moving faster. Thank you for your time.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:32pm

• Evan Carberry

  I am Evan Carberry, a sustainability professional in New York City, providing comments on behalf of Kelvin Systems. While broadly in support of Local Law 97, I have some concerns with the proposed rules that should be addressed before being finalized:

  Item 4 in the prescriptive pathway requirements states that: “For one-pipe and two-pipe steam distribution systems, the RCx agent must confirm that either a TRV or an insulated radiator enclosure with temperature controls has been installed at each radiator and is in good working order.” It is not practical or necessary to install an insulated radiator cover at each radiator. Energy saving and comfort benefits are achieved at ~75% coverage of radiators. Additional installations increase cost without increased benefits. Data validating this claim can be provided. Furthermore, it is impractical to expect every radiator to be accessible, whether that is due to existing building conditions or to tenant access. This rule should be updated to require a minimum of 75% coverage.

  Item 4 in the prescriptive pathway requirements states that: “For one-pipe and two-pipe steam distribution systems, the RCx agent must confirm that either a TRV or an insulated radiator enclosure with temperature controls has been installed at each radiator and is in good working order.” It is widely accepted in the engineering community that TRVs have minimal efficacy in one-pipe steam buildings. As such, one-pipe steam buildings following the prescriptive pathway should not be instructed to install TRVs as a means of achieving energy savings and temperature control. These buildings will not benefit from this capital expenditure, either in energy savings or resident comfort. One-pipe steam buildings should be directed to install insulated radiator enclosures as means of meeting Item 4 because the efficacy in these applications has been demonstrated and validated.

  The beneficial electrification credit is a positive addition that encourages early electrification. The equipment specifications require cold climate heat pumps, however, partial electrification can provide multifamily buildings with 80% electric heat without relying on cold climate heat pumps. By using non cold climate heat pumps equipment costs are brought down significantly and electrical upgrades are not required. This low cost option will provide multifamily buildings with efficient electric heating, but under the proposed rules they will not be able to take advantage of the beneficial electrification credit.

  For buildings eligible for the prescriptive pathway the proposed rules read as a one-time fine of $10,000 for failing to implement the prescriptive pathway measures or meeting the 2030 cap by 2024. This fine is not proportionate to the financial investment necessary to achieve compliance. As such, many building owners and operators will be inclined to pay the fine and carbon emissions reductions will not be realized. The penalty for not meeting the prescriptive pathway or the 2030 target by 2024 should be adjusted. Failure to meet the requirements of this pathway should result in needing to comply with standard

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:42pm

• Keanu Arpels-Josiah

  My name is Keanu Arpels-Josiah, I live in Manhattan, I help lead Fridays for the Future NYC and Sunrise Movement NYC, and I am an 18-year-old senior in High School, and a lead organizer of the March To End Fossil Fuels this September. The truth is I should be in class right now. I should be able to worry just about the stress of High School, of my grades, of now, applying to college, without having to worry about the stress of our disappearing human rights, my disappearing future. Without worrying whether our city will still exist in 30 years, in 10 years, in 5 years, next year.

  This summer, our skies turned orange, the air unbreathable. Our streets, without warning, were flooded, and we experienced record heat. Each week, each month hotter than the rest.

  In response to the record-breaking events of the summer, we organized. We turned tens of thousands of people onto the streets in the biggest post-pandemic march. 75,000 people marched onto our streets, and onto the cover of the New York Times calling for specifically an end to fossil fuels—climate justice.

  New York City is one of the world’s top greenhouse gas-emitting cities. This city is disproportionately responsible for the climate crisis.

  That needs to change, and Local Law 97 promised to be a first step forward, toward that change — toward action.

  Yet these regulations do not achieve that. The Administration must fully implement and enforce Local Law 97, without doing so you’re betraying the calls for action from all who marched, from the youth, from the movement, from the people of this city, without doing so, the death, the suffering of the climate crisis, are on your hands.

  That means building owners must have no free pass for more pollution! Landlords should be required to make additional pollution cuts if they are allowed a delay program – buildings have already had 5 years to make energy efficiency improvements, and emissions cuts cannot wait.

  Critically, also, buildings should not be allowed to avoid energy efficiency measures by simply purchasing renewable energy credits. The rules must follow the LL97 Advisory Council’s unanimous recommendation that RECs be limited to not more than 30% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit, and RECs must be limited to pollution generated from electricity.
  The city, this administration, and this DOB have no place undercutting our city’s climate law.

  The youth, the movements for climate justice, the people of the city, we’re watching. This is truly a matter of survival.

  Comment attachment
  LL97-Testimony-10_24.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 2:56pm

• Nicole Henao

  As a concerned high-school student of NYC I cannot stress enough the importance of strengthening and following through with LL97. Due to the damaging impacts of climate change there seems to be something new negatively affecting my safety and well-being, along with my family’s and friend’s everyday. For example, the storm that took place a couple weeks ago was not a typical pour, these treacherous weather conditions are being accelerated by our city’s poor decisions in regards to climate and sustainability. We need to actively be implementing deeper future pollution cuts, meaning If a delay program is established, landlords must be required to make deeper cuts to more than compensate for the years of delay. Along with requiring LL97 advisory council’s consensus recommendation of only up to 30% of pollution over the limit. The Advisory Council that was implemented through LL97 unanimously recommended that RECs be limited to not more than 30% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit. Mayor Adams blatantly ignored this recommendation.
  Combined with limiting RECs to pollution generated from electricity, this limit would be tight and would not let owners off the hook from cutting pollution.

  Thank you.
  -Nicole

  Comment added October 24, 2023 3:19pm

• Nathan King

  Thank you for holding this hearing. Please see It’s Electric’s comments on this proposed rule, attached.

  Comment attachment
  ItsElectric-Comments-DOB-LL97-Proposed-Rule-10.24.23.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 3:24pm

• Gina Stalica

  Dear Commissioner James Oddo and the New York City Department of Buildings,

  My name is Gina Stalica and I am a proud member of WEACT For Environmental Justice and graduate student studying Social Work. I am testifying on the importance of upholding and implementing Local Law 97. The proposed rules need strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.

  I have the following concerns about the rules outlined by the Department of Buildings (DOB):

  There are too many opportunities for building owners to avoid penalties and delay deep retrofits. Many buildings will choose a pathway that delays compliance timelines instead of hitting the 2030 target, and the City does not currently have adequate budget or staffing to hold these buildings accountable.

  “Good Faith Efforts” outlined in the new set of proposed rules is too broad and lacks adequate enforcement plans. Compliance exemptions should only be made for buildings and affordable housing residents who need it most, not for buildings that want to delay implementation.

  There is no language limiting the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) for building owners who are not using the “Good Faith Efforts”. DOB has not complied with Local Law 77’s (2023) mandate to limit the use of RECs. DOB must limit RECs and they should be limited to 10% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit.

  I want this administration to show that the City can adequately enforce the law to help facilitate Local Law 97 implementation, and to mitigate the delayed timelines currently outlined. I also urge the City to strengthen tenant and anti-displacement protections in the rules, to prevent the possible gentrification and displacement of New Yorkers from their homes, especially vulnerable New Yorkers who have done the least to cause the climate crisis and are exposed to the negative consequences the most.

  Thank you for your time.

  Sincerely,
  Gina Stalica

  Comment added October 24, 2023 3:30pm

• Sara Gronim

  See attached.

  Comment attachment
  TestimonyGronimLL97Oct2023.docx

  Comment added October 24, 2023 3:47pm

• Gautam Sisodia

  I live in Queens, have a young child (4 years old) and am very worried about the state of the world that his generation will face. Climate change will bring frequent and deadly natural disasters, mass migration, water wars and intense human suffering. But I believe we can mitigate some of that harm by aggressively cutting greenhouse gas emissions now.
  Most of NYC’s emissions come from its buildings, and local law 97 does well to address that, please don’t weaken its intent. I’m asking that you amend the proposed rules in two ways, first to fix the 2 year delay. If landlords get more time to implement then they should be required to make additional cuts. A reduction in emissions now is worth more than that same reduction in the future because greenhouse gases stick around in the atmosphere, that needs to be accounted for. And close the REC loophole, buildings should not be able to buy there way out of the reductions necessary to ensure my kid and the next generations have at least a decent quality of life. Follow the Advisory Council’s recommendation to cap RECs to 30% of excess pollution.
  I would also love to work more directly in helping our city cut pollution, and there will be opportunity for me in the jobs growth that will come with a robust implementation of local law 97.
  I’m deeply worried about the city’s future, but the actions we take now will make an important difference. Every bit of emissions reduction counts. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 3:54pm

• Brian Noonan

  Please see attached.

  Comment attachment
  Comments-of-Bloom-Energy-NYC-DOB-Rulemaking-10.24.2023.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 3:57pm

• Lonnie J. Portis

  I am submitting comments on behalf of WE ACT for Environmental Justice.

  WE ACT for Environmental Justice is a community-based organization in Northern Manhattan that builds healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and/or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices. Today we are submitting comments on the proposed rules for Local Law 97 (2019). There needs to be strict guardrails and enforcement strategies to ensure local emissions reductions are successful and timely.

  Detailed comments are attached.

  Comment attachment
  WE-ACT-Comments-Local-Law-97-DOB-Rules-102423.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 3:57pm

• Lola Wiesner

  Local law 97 sets carbon emission standards for buildings over 25,000 sq ft and promises further restrictions by 2030. This law would only cover about 50,000 of the buildings in New York, out of the 1 million. Although this seems like an insignifcant number, every little bit counts, we need to keep sustainability in mind and this would be a huge step in the right direction. We cannot reverse past effects of pollution, so we have to prioritize the betterment of our future. Buildings produce 27% of carbon emissions, over a fourth of all emissions annually. It is not a question of whether or not carbon emissions should be reduced, they need to be. Establishing these guidelines will set a standard, not only for buildings in New York but hopefully outside of the city as well. If local law 97 is set in place and follows through with its claims, we can ensure a brighter future, ultimately helping save our planet.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:00pm

• Kate Selden, Solar One

  On behalf of Solar One, I am writing to share comments on the NYC Department of Building’s s(DOB) proposed rules on Local Law 97. We appreciate the thoughtful work that DOB, the LL97 Advisory Board, and all stakeholders have undertaken to outline the rules of the law while navigating the complex needs of our diverse city. We are in support of LL97 implementation that moves New York City buildings towards our emission reduction mandates with urgency and practicality based on the realities of retrofitting buildings. We support many aspects of the proposed rules in achieving this balance and recommend a few areas where the rules should be strengthened to increase accountability and effectiveness of this groundbreaking law.

  -Strengthen ‘Good Faith Effort’ Rules to increase accountability.
  In Solar One’s experience providing technical assistance to building owners pursuing solar installations, we understand it can take a long time to complete solar installations and other retrofit projects, even when there is a plan set in place. We support DOB’s provision that a building owner can show evidence that DOB applications and permits have been secured for the work necessary to comply with emissions limits, along with a timeline for completion of a project and the projected emissions reductions. Securing permits typically means a building owner has signed a contract with a contractor and is well underway to completing the work.

  The option to submit a ‘decarbonization plan’, however, introduces more opportunity for noncompliance, and we suggest adding more guardrails to ensure accountability. We want to emphasize the importance of assessing capital plans within the decarbonization plan for realistic timelines and financing opportunities. We’ve worked with buildings that “plan” to go solar for many years. But it is not until there is financing secured that these “plans” become realistic. Even once there is a financing plan in place, it can take years for buildings to take the necessary steps to sign contracts, get necessary approvals, and commence the work. There must be sufficient oversight to ensure that buildings are taking these necessary steps within the timeline required by the law.

  We also would like to see the rules specify that the relevant agencies will assess the decarbonization plans within a reasonable timeframe. If building owners are following this pathway, they need to be able to receive confirmation that the plan has been accepted relatively quickly so that they can proceed with the measures described. Delays due to lack of staff capacity at DOB will significantly diminish its effectiveness in getting building owners to make the needed changes.

  DOB should consider additional up-front requirements for the decarbonization plan option by requiring buildings to submit bids from qualified contractors. This step would demonstrate that buildings are planning based on accurate pricing and have taken steps to secure contractors to perform the work. It also provides additional assurance that DOB staff have realistic information on which to base their assessment.
  We support and want to emphasize the importance of accountability measures written into the rules for decarbonization plans. It is critical that a building must show that work has been completed within two years and that the applications are secured to complete the required work for 2030 emissions limits. If a building fails to complete their decarbonization plan, we agree they should be subject to back fines for the years it was out of compliance. This ensures an equitable approach with other buildings that have completed work on time and gives more teeth to what otherwise could be an easily disregarded plan.

  -Support for More Credits to Incentivize Beneficial Electrification And Solar.
  We applaud DOB’s inclusion of a credit for beneficial electrification, and we believe more resources for buildings and “carrots” like this measure will move buildings to act beyond the bare minimum and decarbonize their fossil-fuel based systems. We urge DOB to also offer a similar credit for installing solar. Currently, the value solar provides from a LL97 compliance perspective is tied to the decreasing grid electricity greenhouse gas coefficient, thus making solar less valuable over time. We believe solar should receive a separate or additional incentive because it is not only reducing kilowatt hours that would otherwise be used by the building from the grid, but it is helping to build a local zero-carbon grid, which NYC needs. Especially given the delays and price increases of the large-scale renewables that are seen as key to cleaning NYC’s grid, local rooftop solar that can be installed quickly is all the more important to accelerate clean energy production and help reduce building owner’s growing electricity costs.

  – Adequately enforce tenant protections for buildings undergoing retrofits.
  We are supportive of efforts to protect tenants from being displaced due to building owner upgrades. However, we want to see administering agencies equipped with adequate resources to enforce this requirement.

  – Limit the use of RECs for LL97 Compliance
  We support the rules that limit the purchase of RECs for offsetting electricity emissions only, and agree with restricting buildings to either choosing to purchase RECs or showing a good faith effort through one of the pathways. However, we would like to see further limits on the ability to purchase RECs to offset electricity, such as adopting the LL97 advisory committee’s recommendation of limiting REC’s to 30% of electricity usage.
  We think buildings should first be encouraged to pursue a reduction in electricity usage by undertaking basic energy efficiency measures and installing solar where feasible to offset electricity.

  Further, purchasing RECs for electricity emissions from renewable projects outside of Con Edison territory does not address pollution within New York City that is harming environmental justice communities. While we recognize that the large transmission and renewable projects in New York State are critical to cleaning our grid, we believe LL97’s efforts should prioritize cleaning the air within New York City. We would be interested to know what opportunities exist for local, smaller-scale renewable energy projects to generate RECs within Con Edison territory, and whether these RECs would be made available for buildings to purchase to offset a small portion of their remaining electricity emissions.
  Increase Resources for Implementation

  While it is clear DOB made efforts to include accountability measures in the “good faith efforts” pathways, these measures are meaningless if DOB and other agencies are not fully resourced with staff and knowledge to administer the complex requirements. Well-trained staff will be needed to assess whether decarbonization plans are legitimate, to track project completion, and to assess whether buildings are indeed acting “in good faith” and submitting accurate projections for emissions reductions. We are very concerned that given the existing hiring freeze and lack of necessary staff capacity, there will not be sufficient resources to uphold the intention and requirements of the law.

  We also believe additional resources and financing options are needed to better support building owners who are taking steps to comply. The Mayor’s report “Getting 97 Done” relies heavily on the assumption that incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act will be available and accessible to buildings. However, these rules and incentives are still rolling out and owners will need much more technical support to understand how to access them. Importantly, because of the unique ownership structure of NYC’s co-ops and condos, they are largely excluded from many of the most beneficial tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. Thus, it is essential that the city provide funding directly to buildings that face the highest barriers and have the least resources, as well as continue to fund technical assistance programs like the NYC Accelerator and the Clean Energy Hubs.

  Overall, Solar One supports many aspects of DOB’s proposed rules for taking a major step toward full implementation of the law. We support the efforts to strike a balance between addressing challenges faced by buildings such as co-ops and affordable housing, and the urgency to reduce climate-warming emissions and achieve the long-term goals of Local Law 97. And we urge DOB to further strengthen the rules with more guardrails for RECs and ‘good faith efforts’ to increase accountability.
  New York City must lead the way in moving us away from fossil fuels and to fight climate change. Solar One urges DOB to consider our concerns as they finalize the proposed rules, and we urge the City to properly resource DOB and other implementing agencies so that we move one step closer to a more sustainable city.

  Sincerely,

  Stephen Levin
  CEO, Solar One
  [email protected]

  Kate Selden
  Policy Analyst, Solar One
  [email protected]

  Comment attachment
  Solar-One-Comments-on-LL97-DOB-Proposed-Rules_10.24.23.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:00pm

• Malaya Angeles

  Local Law 97 is vital because it directly combats climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in NYC buildings, and NYC’s overall carbon footprint. As an aspiring architect, this law would have a drastic impact on the future of this city’s infrastructure, implementing sustainable technology such as solar panels, heat regulation, efficient insulation, and clean energy systems. This law would essentially regulate building’s carbon emissions, reduce air pollution, and overall improve our health and quality of life. This matters beyond just New York City–it sets an example for other cities all over America and the world and showing the impact of local action.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:01pm

• Jackson Brinckerhoff

  DOB:

  My name is Jackson Brinckerhoff, I am a junior in high school and my whole life I’ve been affected by climate change in New York, growing up I’ve had several friends and some family who have had asthma, I’ve seen more extreme storms in fall, and more awful heat in the summer. In my own neighborhood flooding which was once rare is now frequent. Just a few weeks ago my entire basement was completely flooded, with one of my cats floating on a box in the middle of it. My dad had to actually wade through the water just to pick her up and get her to safety.

  Even despite all of this I still love this city, I love the scale of it, the ease of transport, and the culture. I can hardly imagine living somewhere else. But the thought of it becoming even more polluted than it already is, to the point of rampant asthma, deadly heatwaves, and even worse flooding, creating an unsafe environment for people to live and grow up in disgusts me. I want other people to be able to enjoy this amazing city and all it has to offer as I have.

  Buildings make up the majority of our city’s emissions so regulating these buildings is unbelievably important to the future of our city. Right now the proposed rule is not sufficient to fight the climate change and pollution occurring in this city. The two year delay program allows landlords to waste valuable time in which their buildings will continue to pollute more and more. These landlords should have to make deeper cuts to their emissions to make up for the damage they are causing by delaying. Also the REC loophole allows landlords to buy their way out of these cuts. We should listen to the advisory council’s recommendation to limit REC’s to 30%, and only allow these REC’s to offset pollution generated from electricity.

  I hope with these measures we can ensure this city will remain safe for those living here in the coming years.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:04pm

• Meg Ahearn

  Good afternoon. My name is Meg Ahearn, and I am the Program Director for NYPIRG, the New York Public Interest Research Group. NYPIRG is a non-partisan, not-for-profit research and advocacy organization. Environmental protection, public health, consumer protection, higher education equity, and civic empowerment are our principal areas of concern. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Local Law 97 by strengthening the draft rules proposed by the City.

  NYPIRG works with students at college campuses across New York, including 10 here in New York City. Generational climate justice is an issue that’s front and center for the students we work with. Today’s college students are seeing more severe storms and flash floods, they are reading dire climate reports, and grappling with what their future will look like.

  Local Law 97 is the most important city-level climate and jobs law and is one of the best tools NYC has to combat the climate crisis. For the future of our city, we need it to remain strong and implemented fully. 70% of New York City’s climate-heating pollution comes from buildings, with the majority of that pollution coming from large buildings. By requiring owners to reduce their building’s emissions, and upgrade their energy efficiency, Local Law 97 will be creating tens of thousands of good, green jobs, improving local air quality, and cutting utility bills and operating costs.

  Urban Green Council (UGC) estimates that the building energy improvements mandated by Local Law 97 can produce tens of thousands of jobs. Architects, engineers, sustainability consultants, building tradespeople and HVAC professionals will all see direct industry growth from the needed planning, efficiency, and infrastructure enhancements. The jobs growth associated with Local Law 97 is an important issue for many of our members who are students at Pratt Institute and CUNY in relevant programs such as Building Trades, Construction, Building Management & Sustainability, Architecture, and others. A growing industry in energy design, construction, and renovation is just what CUNY needs to attract new enrollment. But these jobs will only materialize if Local Law 97 is not gutted by delaying pollution reductions or allowing a wide “buy-out” loophole.

  We urge the Department of Buildings to update their draft regulations in two major ways:

  Amend the “Good-Faith” Delay Program to Make-Up for Increased Emissions During the Two-Year Window.

  The proposed regulations allow two more years to make the same pollution cuts that were mandated in the original law in 2019 for the years of 2024 and 2025. While some have shared the refrain “we want your carbon, not your money,” the truth is that by delaying emissions reductions by two years, the city will lose out on two years of cleaner air and tenants and homeowners will lose out on two years of lower utility bills. A simple solution is to increase the pollution reductions to “make up” for the two years of delayed pollution reductions. For example, a lower pollution limit for 2026 – 2029 for buildings that get a delay for 2024 and 2025 would be easily achievable for those owners, and can be planned for now.

  Local Law 97 is not only necessary to reduce emissions from the City’s top climate polluters, but it is reasonable and achievable; 90% of buildings who fall under Local Law 97 are already in compliance. Further, the administrative burden of having to review two-year delay plan submissions during a citywide hiring freeze and ongoing PEG cuts is worrisome. The Adams Administration is behind the ball on many administrative applications, from affordable housing to food benefits. While we appreciate the work of Department of Buildings staff who are taking on this major matter, there are simply only so many hours in the day at current staffing levels and looking at current City government output.

  Further Limit Renewable Energy Credits to Close “Buy-Out” Loophole

  Across the board, environmental organizations are concerned that overuse of RECs imperils the law and puts real estate profits over climate pollution reductions. The Administration’s responsibility to properly limit and regulate REC use remains incomplete. Allowing for unlimited RECs for electricity-use means losing the air quality benefits, the job creation, and the quality of life and utility benefits of upgraded efficiency. Local Law 97’s Advisory Council recommended RECs be further limited to off-setting only up to 30% of the pollution by which a building is over its pollution limit. This further limit has been well-analyzed and should be adopted immediately.

  The Cost of Inaction
  Building owners must confront the cost of their inaction. Now, under Local Law 97, owners can employ the most cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades they prefer. More than just heat-pump installations, upgrades include a goodie bag of choices: better insulation, tighter air sealing and better ventilation, tuning boilers, upgraded HVAC systems, efficient lighting, and modern sensors and software to optimize building systems. An added benefit to these upgrades, is that most buildings will save money through lower utility bills and operating costs. Cutting energy waste is good for the environment, public health, and your wallet.

  Unfortunately, the fossil fuel and real estate industry tactic to delay climate action is an old story. And the public pays for it with respiratory disease, a narrowing window to avoid climate devastation, and by footing the bill for disaster clean-ups which are costing New York billions every year. Over the past year, reviewing news releases issued by Governor Hochul from August 2022-September 2023 by NYPIRG, New York taxpayers have been burdened with $2.7 billion in climate change-related damage repair and resiliency costs alone. The cost of inaction — or delayed and weakened action — is simply too high.

  Thank you.

  Comment attachment
  NYPIRG-LL-97-DOB-Hearing-Testimony-10.24.23-final.pdf

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:05pm

• Amelia Katagas

  Hi my name is Amelia, I go to school at Essex Street Academy. I’m a sophomore in high school. I live in Brooklyn and am 15 years old. The climate movement is really important to me because it affects all of our lives more than we know. I’ve learned so much more information since joining the Sixth Street Community Center, which is an amazing program.

  Growing up in nyc we don’t see main effects of climate change like you see on the news happening to other countries all over the world, the first moment I can think, where me or my family was affected by the aspects of climate change is hurricane sandy, living in dumbo Brooklyn I was maybe 4 the only memories I have are playing in the puddles after remembering how the water was almost up to my knees, now I hear these story against but about how our friends and family houses or apt flooded and were scared about what they were going to do, I’ve been too numerous protest throughout my life and have tried to educate myself to the most of my ability but recently with the smoke from the Canadian fires or my house flooding this past week and me not being able to go to school, these are all effects that make me feel worried about living in nyc especially. Speaking about our city specifically the local law 97 is specific to NYC and reducing emission caused by building over 25,000 sq, and changing there plans to make them not contribute to about 60 percent of admission by following this plan we can start to make progress and start to fix all the damage done by our society and government, and start a better and healthier future!

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:05pm

• Mazuda Parvez

  Hello my name is Mauzuda and I’m 16 years old. I live in an apartment building in a very busy area. Climate change has been a huge issue for a year now which seems like it is not taken seriously by everyone. There’s people who say they are worried but what are you doing to make a change? Others are not concerned whatsoever. Thanks to programs like Sixth Street Community Center that are trying very best to make changes. But What are people waiting for? Are they waiting for the earth to die and then panicking about it? We see and suffer from climate change on a daily basis. The air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution and more pollution are increasing each day. It’s affecting our lives and environment because of OUR actions. How ironic is that. We see how our society is throwing garbage out on the street or not placing trash in the right garbage can. The drainage system is so poorly managed that sometimes we see brown dirty water instead of clean water. We have to take off or can’t make it to our work places due to flooding. The rain water gets so out of control due to high pressure of water that it gets into basement areas or school house train stations. I was affected by the recent flooding and it took me over two hours to get to home when it takes only 45 mins. These are affecting us because of the decisions we made. When will this stop? When will we get a healthy earth back? What is the government doing about climate change? Are they creating new projects to “develop” the world instead of saving the world? I demand Mayor Adams and the Department of Buildings fully enforce and implement Local Law 97, fix the 2-year delay program, and close the Renewable Energy Credits loophole.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:08pm

• Nancy Lorence

  My name is Nancy Lorence. I am a part-time teacher and I live in Brooklyn. I am the coordinator of Metro NY Catholic Climate Movement, a network that brings together Catholic parishes working on the issue of climate change and the environment. We currently have 15 parishes in our network, most of them here in the city.
  We supported LL97 because many of us recognize the urgency of doing something to lower our U.S. emissions. We understand that buildings are the biggest source of emissions in the city.
  We are concerned about the world that future generations will inherit from us, and feel that it is a moral and ethical issue to leave behind a world where people can thrive. We take to heart Pope Francis’ recent message in Laudate Deum, his most recent exhortation on the climate:
  “We must move beyond the mentality of appearing to be concerned but not having the courage needed to produce substantial changes. Although the measures that we can take now are costly, the cost will be all the more burdensome the longer we wait.”
  We feel that weakening the regulations runs the risk of not meeting the important targets we have set for the city, and there will be no accountability for that. The urgency is NOW! New York must do its part; and it has an increased responsibility given the important role the city plays in being a model for the country.
  As we’ve seen in recent flooding events here in the Metro NY Area, the most vulnerable and at risk of being impacted by the devastation brought by climate change are the poor and low-income working families. We cannot put the burden of increased warming – caused in part by high-rise buildings – on their shoulders. The city is for all of us. It’s in the interests of everyone to lower our city’s emissions. We all deserve to have the strongest LL97 regulations.
  Thank you.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:10pm

• Isabella Militello

  My name is Izzy. I’m 16 years old and I go to Beacon high school. On September 29, we saw one of the NYC largest floods in decades. Living in Brooklyn, I saw countless videos of floods in areas I knew, completely flooded. One of my close friend’s basement was flooded, it wasn’t even the first time. And so thankfully my best friend’s basement was not flooded, as their family worried about it because my best friend’s 90 year old grandparents live in the basement. But what about next time? Because this is only going to be getting worse and more frequent. If we don’t make the sustainable changes that we need to, New York is going to keep suffering. Most of us aren’t fortunate enough to stay in our upper floors of apartments every time it rains. Many of us have to commute to different boroughs for work or school. So many migrants live in basement apartments which are scarily affected by flooding. It’s vital to acknowledge that while some can fight for climate justice out of awareness and empathy, some fight for climate justice because they have to for their own safety and the safety of their communities. As one of the many LGBTQ+ youth in NYC, the climate crisis is a personal issue for me. As we know, In NYC homelessness is a huge problem. And throughout the US, LGBTQ youth are 120% more likely to experience homelessness than non-LGBTQ youth. This is alarming because those experiencing homelessness are impacted by climate change on a massive level- being more exposed to the extreme temperatures and powerful storms, not to mention having no escape from poor or potentially dangerous air quality. I know I wasn’t the only one who noticed when the sky turned orange from the Canada wildfires- it was dangerous to just breathe outside. This is the climate crisis happening right now in our city. Because buildings are the biggest polluters here in NYC, it is totally unreasonable for there to be no cap on the amount of renewable energy credits to be purchased. This is why we must limit purchasing renewable energy credits to 30% of the pollution over a building’s pollution limit. We also must fix the two year delay program.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:11pm

• Karen Ono

  Hello, my name is Karen Ono, and I am a junior at the Bronx High School of Science. I am currently 16 years old, and have had asthma since I was very young. My mother, in her 50s, has had asthma since she was young as well. Ever since I was young, I would often get asthma attacks and would have to rest, whether I was practicing ballet at a rehearsal, or simply going on a walk with friends. Asthma attacks are terrifying experiences, especially for young children who may not yet understand why suddenly they feel as if their lungs are choking them from the inside out. As if there’s an immovable weight stuck on your chest. If this law is not passed; if pollution is not cut down, it would mean allowing children, elderly, and the disabled to go through such experiences on a regular basis. I currently live approximately 7,000 miles away from my grandparents, aunts, and cousins in Japan. Many of them live in the countryside, where they do not have to worry about pollution like one does in urban areas. Breathing clean air, free from fear of respiratory issues, is a liberty all people have a right to. Local Law 97 is a step in the right direction towards achieving this goal, and would help set a precedent for other large cities.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:12pm

• Seraya Vazquez

  My name is Seraya, and I’m 16 years old. I care about the Climate Crisis because it is a major risk for people who are struggling with their health which leads to death and illness from frequent weather events. My Climate Story is that on June 7, 2023 there was a wildfire that occurred in Canada and that NYC was engulfed in the smoke, and turned the sky and sun orange colored. On this day I was not really feeling well, at 2:40 school ended and I had to put on two masks because of the bad air quality. When I was heading home I had a bad time breathing and felt really scared because this was my first time I ever experienced this.My friends and most importantly my family was effective, my younger sister and grandfather had struggled the most because of the smoke in the air, my friend who had asthma couldn’t breathe at all and had to use her ventilator with a mask to breathe. I demand Mayor Adams and the Department of Buildings fully enforce and implement Local Law 97, fix the 2-year delay program, and close the Renewable Energy Credits loophole.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:13pm

• Ashley Sanchez

  Hello I’m Ashley, and as a student and a future generation I am very concerned about my future. We have seen signs (from nature itself) that climate change is affecting the people. My neighbor had really bad asthma growing up and I was really concerned for my friend, he would always have bad asthma attacks during the night. So bad he sometimes had to end up in the hospital. It was really hard for him to grow up with asthma. It affected him during recess and it affected him to be at his full potential during his baseball practices (he is an amazing baseball player). It even affected me, I started getting asthma symptoms during the third grade. I would have trouble breathing during P.E, and I would cough and wheeze while playing tag during recess. I still clearly remember one of my most terrifying asthma attacks. It was during summertime and I was playing tag with my cousins in our favorite park and I felt my chest tightening and had trouble breathing. I was breathing too fast than normal.And I was crying since I didn’t know how to control my breathing. It was so scary. Thankfully I really don’t get as many asthma attacks as my friend. But I would like to ask if there would be a way to have less air pollution so kids don’t continue to grow up with asthma. I demand Mayor Adams and the Department of Buildings fully enforce and implement Local Law 97, fix the 2-year delay program, and close the Renewable Energy Credits loophole.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:14pm

• Gabrielle Roseman

  Hello, My Name is Gabrielle Roseman, I am a junior at HPHS and I live in Sheepshead Bay with my father. My Dad and I live in Sheepshead Bay. Sheepshead Bay is directly connected to the Atlantic Ocean giving it a major risk of flooding in as little as the next 30 years. I worry that if we don’t pass local laws 97, his life and many other lives will be at stake. Flooding in Sheepshead Bay can cut off emergency services, utilities, and transportation access. My dad has a heart monitor which needs electricity to run. I can assure you that there are thousands of New Yorkers who rely on electricity for life-preserving necessities. Over 1.5 Million New Yorkers live in flood zones. What are you going to do once their homes are flooded?I demand Mayor Adams and the Department of Buildings fully enforce and implement Local Law 97, fix the 2-year delay program, and close the Renewable Energy Credits loophole.

  I demand Mayor Adams and the Department of Buildings fully enforce and implement Local Law 97, fix the 2-year delay program, and close the Renewable Energy Credits loophole.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:15pm

• Kevin AJ Rosario

  My Family has suffered through negative impact of climate change such Hurricane Sandy which forced shut down power in my family apartment for a week and force my school to shut down class. Even in My Junior Year I still face these same issues due to my school having high flood risk. So this is why I asking you to put a limit of carbon credit and prevent 2 year delay from happening. To make sure Eric Adams help enforces Local Law 97 and stop giving Real Estate loopholes to excuse and continue their pollution.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:17pm

• Maddie Noveck

  Hello, my name is Maddie, and I am a senior at Millennium High School. For my entire life, I have lived in my neighborhood of Stuyvesant Town. This also means that for my entire life, I have lived directly next to a huge ConEdison power plant. Because of this, me and my family, my neighbors, and everyone living in areas around this power plant have been exposed to toxic industry. In the U.S., 60% of all power plants, which is about 3,400 individual plants, use fossil fuels. In New York City, 24 plants generate up to 9,600 megawatts of power, which is more than 80 percent of New York City’s peak demand. Together, they contribute to over a quarter of total CO2 emissions in New York City. Although many industries are slowly switching to green energy, fossil fuels are still contributing heavily to climate change. Why should we have to be reliant on fossil fuels when we could have something that is drastically better for our planet? It is time that we as a city do what we can to move completely towards clean, green energy before it is too late. This is why I, as a student, care deeply about your support of Local Law 97.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:19pm

• Kevin Perez

  My name is Kevin Perez and I’m 17 years old, close to be 18. I care about the climate crisis because it has becomes evident for everyone to see, the increase of intensity and frequency of how often climate disasters occur. Earlier this year around June, a yellow smog covered the entire city of New York because of the raging wildfires up in Canada, a hazard to those with breathing health problems. Not only that but towards the end of Septemer, a flash flood striked New York, flooding streets and subway stations, rending any form of transportation useless against the approximate 8inches of rain. I demand for Eric Adams as well as the Department of Buildings to fully enforce and implement Local Law 97 in order to fix the year delay program, and close the Renewable Energy Credits loophole.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:21pm

• Anna Tsomo

  My name is Anna. I am a climate justice educator with Sixth Street Community Center. I live in Kensington Brooklyn, and my family lives right near the North Brooklyn Pipeline, which is a fossil fuel project that risks their health and safety. My work is attempting to explain to high schoolers the reality of the climate crisis, how fossil fuel companies hid the truth of climate change, so that they could continue making profits, how at every moment of change, industry is pitted against the people fighting to cut emissions and preserve the environment. My high school students and I discuss how the things we experience here in NYC are directly tied to the climate crisis. The orange skies come from wildfires which are fueled by climate change, and the bad air impacts our health and our lungs. Ironically, that day I was walking around Manhattan to enroll students in a climate justice activism program…but I couldn’t stay outside for more than a few moments without feeling nauseous, dizzy, and exhausted. This is the reality we have to be ready to face if we do not make drastic cuts to our emissions, as soon as we can. The flooding that left my students, and my partner who is a high school teacher, stranded without any public transportation to get home. I was at home, frantically checking the MTA notices and reroutes, trying to help my partner and the students I care about so much figure out how to get home safely. But for all the effects we feel right here in NYC, the impacts of climate change are felt even more harshly in the Global South. This year, a third of Pakistan was underwater, displacing 33 million people, which is just one example among many climate change related disasters. The average person living in the US had a CO2 footprint of nearly 15 tonnes in 2021, compared to only 1 tonne of the average person in Pakistan. The US is consuming far more than the countries in the Global South, and the devastating impacts of our emissions are felt by those most vulnerable to disaster. It is our responsibility as New Yorkers to be leaders in climate policy, and I believe that fully enforcing Local Law 97 will be a step towards taking that responsibility seriously. I demand Mayor Adams and the Department of Buildings fully enforce and implement Local Law 97, fix the 2-year delay program, and close the Renewable Energy Credits loophole.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:29pm

• Andres Chang

  Statement from The Alternative Building Industry Collective
  Submitted to the NYC Department of Buildings
  October 24, 2023

  Mr. Mayor, the US building industry has in recent years achieved remarkable success in reducing the operational carbon emissions of buildings, success largely due to the electrification of buildings, and in turn, the increasingly cleaner generation of electrical power, nationwide.
  But, Mr. Mayor, New York City’s building emissions lag far behind. Why? Even as we take steps to green our power grid, culprits remain, namely owners of a relatively small number of large, highly-emitting oil- and gas-burning buildings which add climate-heating pollution to our air and contribute to the chronic asthma suffered disproportionately by our city’s most vulnerable.

  Mr. Mayor, when New York City passed Local Law 97 in 2019, it represented the most visionary climate legislation affecting the building property industry, world wide, establishing New York City as a global climate leader, Now is the time to decide, will we fulfill that promise, or remain stuck in the past, stuck with half-measures and loopholes for the wealthiest in the industry?

  Mr. Mayor, the proposed rules represent an unnecessary concession to the real estate industry. We respectfully recommend that you reject these efforts to soften the intent of the bill, against the recommendations of your very own Local Law 97 advisory board. Your responsibility lies with the people of New York, and bowing to the interests of the real estate lobby would be a shame, an outrage, and a devastating loss for the future of this great city.

  Mr. Mayor, do not sacrifice this opportunity! Atmospheric carbon is additive. Delay is deadly. Now is the time to decide whether your administration will be remembered as ushering a new era of sustainable prosperity for our city, or the one that let that opportunity slip away. Thank you.
  Signed,
  The Alternative Building Collective:

  Martin Weiner, Senior Associate, Michael Zenreich Architects
  Hans Maarten Wikkerink, RA, Senior Project Architect, Bowerbird Architects
  Peggy Deamer, Professor Emerita, Yale School of Architecture
  Marianela D’Aprile, Writer and Deputy Editor, New York Review of Architecture
  Adare Brown, Organizer with the Architecture Lobby
  Ethan Dubin, Organizer with 350 Brooklyn
  Andres Chang, The Alternative Building Industry Collective
  Ryan Ludwig, RA, The Architecture Lobby
  Valerie Lechene, The Architecture Lobby
  Gabriel Gutierrez Huerta, Principal, Studiohuerta
  Nathan Strieter, RA, YAF Mission 2130 Delegate & Director LSM
  Nicholas Raap, Writer, Operations Coordinator, New York Review of Architecture
  Adam Achrati, RA, Project Manager, Spatial Discipline

  The Alternative Building Industry Collective is an all-volunteer advocacy group of building industry workers living and working in New York City, advocating for green industrial policy for the built environment.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 4:55pm

• Wendy Seligson

  I am with Jewish Climate Action Network NYC. Please see my comment attached. I submitted this earlier today by email to the DOB rulemaking email address.

  Comment attachment
  Wendy-Seligson-testimony-and-comment-DOB-hearing-October-23.docx

  Comment added October 24, 2023 5:08pm

• David Vassar

  Mayor Adams, I’m writing you as a longtime volunteer with Food & Water Watch, a dedicated environmental advocacy organization based in NYC and as a father terrified about our children’s vanishing prospects for a livable planet.
  I’m one of growing numbers of fellow New Yorkers—parents, fellow activists, people of conscience, young and old—who are baffled and dismayed over your expressed intention to water down Local Law 97’s crucial provisions for protecting New Yorkers and helping stabilize our severely degraded Climate.
  Consider: Local Law 97 rates as the world’s most important city-level Climate & Jobs law, and as such its provisions must be upheld and strongly implemented.
  The all but ineffectual version of LL97 you’re proposing is totally unacceptable, giving building owners nearly unlimited leeway with zero fines or other sanctions when delaying compliance with the Law; additionally, it would actually encourage owners merely to purchase RECs in lieu of making the vital building energy infrastructure upgrades mandated by the Law.
  And without the enforcement authority to compel these essential upgrades, virtually nothing LL97 was designed to achieve will get accomplished.
  You’re threatening to squander a unique and critical historic opportunity, Mayor Adams, and for the most indefensible reasons. If you choose to pander to a few narrow, deep-pocketed corporate interests at the expense of the best interests of millions of New Yorkers and the very environment that sustains all of us, you’ll in effect render yourself unfit for NYC’s high office and the fiduciary mandate you’ve sworn to uphold.
  You will literally be turning your back on the best interests of my son Ben and your own son Jordan, on any remaining prospects for hope that they and their generation might yet harbor for a livable Climate future.
  You’ll also be rendering meaningless all the good work over many months accomplished by my dedicated friends and fellow advocates for healthier NY communities and Climate.
  My question to you now: Will you continue your patronage of greed-driven CEOs and real estate power brokers who apparently care little for the catastrophic environmental consequences of their greed for NYC, our planet, and our kids’ very future?
  Consider: Your weakening of LL97’s key provisions at the behest of narrow corporate interests would set off an ominous ripple effect throughout municipalities nationwide. If NYC fails to enact its much-vaunted Climate Law decisively, then what can we expect from America’s smaller urban communities, which so often take their cue from NYC in important matters of policy?
  Your ill-considered “plan” to water down our unique and critically important LL97 could deal a mortal blow to our City’s prospects for effectively confronting the worsening Climate Emergency—again, with consequences for our kids that I can’t even think about.
  As is, your “plan” amounts to little better than a shameful capitulation to a fossil-fuel addicted corporate capitalism whose toxic greed threatens to take down all of us, our children, and the world we all live in. Such a “plan” could tailspin into a great American tragedy, a collective failure of the will in this most critical of times.
  So right now is the pivotal moment– there’s still time to act for the benefit of all New Yorkers and the environment that sustains all of us.
  Think of it: Renewable energy is in ascendancy, fossil fuels are in decline, and going forward LL97 can create thousands of new well-paying jobs while ensuring far cleaner and energy-efficient buildings with huge reductions both in toxic emissions and in energy costs.
  Patience, commitment, and a long-term perspective are all that are needed to bear out LL97’s wealth of potential benefits for New York and New Yorkers.
  Mayor Adams, the Climate Clock is ticking, windows of opportunity are closing, and there is literally no time left to delay. PLEASE: Carry out your critical fiduciary duty, commit to upholding and championing a maximally robust LL97 and ensuring its full and uncompromised implementation from inception to fulfillment.
  We’ve got to move quickly, decisively, and with a fully empowered LL97 in order to give our kids any hope of a livable Climate future. Increasing floods, wildfires, destructive winds, all are part of our children’s prospective Climate future, and all are payback for my generation’s heedless corporate favoritism. Let’s turn this sick tendency on its head, put it in reverse, and now.
  Local Law 97 still gives this father a sense of hope—but only if NYC’s Mayor chooses now to listen to reason and conscience and ignore the shrill promptings of cynicism and greed.
  For all of us New Yorkers, our children, and generations to come I urge you from the heart: Do the right thing and give LL97 in its full undiluted form the chance it richly deserves.
  Very sincerely,
  David Vassar

  Comment attachment
  Testimonial-to-Mayor-Adams-re-LL97.docx

  Comment added October 24, 2023 5:14pm

• Ellie Miller

  Representatives of the Department of Buildings, good afternoon. My name is Ellie, I’m seventeen, and I am a proud Brooklynite. I was born and raised in New York City. It is my home. But my love for New York stretches far beyond hometown pride – I love New York because it is a trailblazer. It sets the tone for the rest of the nation – and the rest of the world – as to what is current, correct, and important. To not enforce Local Law 97 would be to go against everything New York represents.
  I call upon the Adams administration and the Department of Buildings to amend the two-year delay program so that landlords are required to make deeper cuts to emissions to compensate for a delay in compliance. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly support capping the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) at 30% of the pollution over a building’s legal limit.
  Thank you.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 5:22pm

• Chloe McDermott

  My name is Chloe McDermott, I am 17, I live in Brooklyn, and I attend NEST+M High School.
  Local Law 97 was enacted to combat climate change and reduce carbon footprint. As one of the biggest cities in the world, therefore a considerable contributor to climate change, it is New York’s duty to keep the legislation in place. Local governments play a role in supporting their countries’ international commitments. New York City’s adherence to Local Law 97 contributes to the United States’ efforts to meet global climate goals.
  I understand how Local Law 97 could pose problems for building owners, but its intent is to encourage the transition from current climate practices to more sustainable ones. Long term, the practice could promote innovation, create jobs, and lower energy bills for buildings.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 5:30pm

• Eva-Lee Baird

  Hello I’m Eva-Lee Baird with 350 NYC

  Because of climate change caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions, drought and sea level rise are increasing and will continue to increase. Migration will increase. As food supplies decrease, poverty and displacement will increase.

  This is an emergency. To save the world’s children from a nightmare of starvation, homelessness and conflict over diminishing resources we all have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, not later. Local Law 97 was written to be part of the now.

  Dear DOB and City Council:
  Please do not weaken LL97 by allowing non-compliant building owners a two-year delay. We can’t afford that delay. In promoting that delay Mayor Adams champions the real estate industry. Please champion the rest of us.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 5:56pm

• River Ferretti

  I’m a nanny who lives in Prospect Lefferts Gardens.
  Local Law 97 is important to me because it’s a vital part of New York City’s response to the dire need of reducing reliance on fossil fuels. It will also be part of creating a cleaner, healthier city for us all, and especially for the children of NYC in the short and long term. We need Local Law 97 implemented at its full strength of regulations, without capitulation to the real estate industry in NYC. I urge you to require landlords to make additional pollution cuts if they are allowed a delay in penalties, especially because they’ve already had 5 years to comply to the next benchmark.

  In addition, Renewable Energy Credits should be limited to 30% above a building’s cap, as the LL97 Advisory Council recommends.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 6:02pm

• Blake Riley

  We are responsible for ensuring our environment’s safety now and in the future. In all of America, large buildings and structures represent 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. As we “modernize,” we also build more detrimental sculptures, buildings that hurt the world around us. Both residential and commercial buildings take up so much of our carbon emissions in America; however, it is especially concentrated here in New York. Estimates vary, but approximately 1 – 3 million buildings are in New York City, and they are concentrated in such a small area that their carbon emissions can directly affect more individuals. Eight million people in fact.

  Finally, now, our government is trying to do something about it. Mayor Eric Adams started the “Getting 97 Done” plan, a detailed layout to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. It’s a start, a start to a healthier and cleaner future. When this law is fully implemented, it can put limits on individual buildings, measuring carbon emissions per square foot. This will be specifically for buildings 25,000 square feet and larger to ensure we monitor the worst carbon emission offenders and allocate our money and time to the right areas. This implementation can significantly help New York City now and the future of me and my generation.

  Blake Riley, 12th Grade at New Explorations into Science, Technology + Math

  Comment added October 24, 2023 6:02pm

• Moshiur Rahman

  So, NYC came up with this cool law in 2019 called Local Law 97. It’s all about fighting climate change by making big buildings (like over 25,000 square feet) cut down on their greenhouse gas emissions. Starting in 2024, there are some strict limits on these emissions, and these limits get even tougher as the years go on. This is super important because buildings in NYC are a big reason we have so much pollution. By sticking to this law, we’re taking a big step towards a greener NYC. If we all pitch in and support this, we can help the city breathe easier and be a better place for future generations. So, let’s help out and make sure everyone’s following the rules! NYC took a major step in 2019 by introducing Local Law 97. Think of it as the city’s game plan for battling climate change. It’s mainly targeting the big buildings, ones that are over 25,000 square feet, asking them to seriously cut back on how much greenhouse gas they pump out. From 2024 onwards, there’s this set limit on emissions, and trust me, every few years, that limit is gonna get tougher and tougher. And here’s why it’s a big deal: a lot of the city’s pollution comes from these buildings. It’s not just about traffic and waste; buildings play a massive part. By really pushing this law, we’re setting NYC on a path towards being more eco-friendly and sustainable. It means cleaner air to breathe, a healthier city to live in, and a big move towards saving our planet. If we rally behind this and ensure everyone’s on board, especially the big building owners, we’re not just making a statement. We’re making a difference. So, as students and future leaders, let’s get the word out, support the cause, and help NYC lead the way in environmental change!

  Comment added October 24, 2023 6:08pm

• Sean Brust

  I’m a 16-year-old NEST+m student and a proud resident of Manhattan. I call upon the Adams Administration and the Department of Buildings to amend the two-year delay program to require landlords to make deeper cuts to emissions to compensate for a delay in compliance as well as capping the use of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to no more than 30% of the pollution over a building’s limit. Putting these acts in place is so important to the future of our city and the entire world. New York City is supposed to be a leader in progressive policies like Local Law 97, and by including loopholes like these, we undermine the very essence of what this city should be. As a young person, I look at the effects of climate change that we are already experiencing, and I’m genuinely frightened by what the future holds; that’s why it is so important to me that laws like Local Law 97 are enacted with integrity.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 6:27pm

• Hayley McDaid

  My family and I vigorously support implementation without delay; however, we are also concerned about the heavy financial burden (of fines) for middle income NYorkers residing in pre-war co-operatives. There needs to be careful consideration of this and provisions made.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 6:40pm

• Giulia Pesenti

  Local Law 97 should be enacted because it is a crucial step toward addressing the urgent issue of climate change at the local level. By imposing strict emission limits on large buildings, this law actively promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, decreasing the impacts of global warming. Additonally, enacting Local Law 97 not only shows commitment to fighting climate change but also sets an example for other communities to replicate. By reducing the city’s carbon footprint, the law helps enhance air quality, improve public health, and create more resilient urban areas capable of withstanding more challenges to come posed by climate change. Local Law 97 is a significant push toward a healthier and more sustainable future for our community and the planet as a whole.

  Comment added October 24, 2023 10:12pm

• David Grogan

  In 1991, my wife Lyn and I founded Sweet Sam’s, a Bronx-based wholesale bakery with an uncompromising commitment to quality. In our 32 years of operation, we have grown from just one full-time employee to a current workforce in excess of 80, and throughout this time we have remained loyal to NYC despite increasingly formidable competition from bakeries in localities with substantially lower taxes, energy rates, and labor costs.

  As New Yorkers and longtime supporters of environmental causes, we are proud of the bold leadership the city is trying to show on decarbonization. As we move forward with LL97’s implementation, however, reasonable accommodations are urgently needed for niche industrial uses of natural gas that may have been initially overlooked and for which electric alternatives aren’t yet widely available and affordable.

  At Sweet Sam’s, plans are underway to to electrify our facility’s heating systems, but the fact remains that 80% of the natural gas we use goes toward running the bakery’s large ovens, two of which are 120 feet in length. Most builders of such ovens have told us that we’re the first customer to ever inquire about the possibility of an electrified model, and the few prices we’ve been quoted have been millions of dollars beyond our reach. In addition, a substantial upgrade to our electrical service will be required. We haven’t given up on trying to find a solution, but in the near-term we will have no alternative but to add the steep penalties under LL97 to our cost of doing business. It remains to be seen whether we will be able to stay competitive under these circumstances and retain our employees, many of whom have worked at Sweet Sam’s for twenty years or more.

  As grandparents, we are deeply concerned about the future of our planet and see LL97 as an important initiative. We humbly request, however, that its implementation is carried out in a manner that is sensitive and fair to New York’s small yet vibrant manufacturing sector, parts of which are currently facing a disproportionate financial burden and potential unintended consequences. We aren’t asking to be let off the hook, but we do want a chance at survival so that we can complete our electrification instead of being replaced by manufacturers in cities and states that aren’t doing anything to tackle climate change.

  Comment added October 25, 2023 1:57am