Calculation of Emission Limits for Buildings

Online comments: 8

• Emir Pekdemir

  In 7. (3) (v), the proposed rule mentions that “The price for an offset representing one tCO2e will be set by the fund administrator, in consultation with the Department and HPD, taking into consideration the cost of compliance with this rule and the cost of the work associated with the offset projects.”. However, on the Office of the Mayor’s website, under the News section, an announcement dated September 26, 2024 mentions that “Under DOB’s pending rule — and as directed by Local Law 97 — offset certificates will be available for property owners to purchase in advance of the compliance reporting deadline in May 2025. They will cost $268 per ton of carbon emissions, the same cost as the penalty imposed for not meeting emissions limits…” This $268 per tCO2e cost was also mentioned on the October 9, 2024 webinar.
  Where is this $268 cost per tCO2e mentioned in the proposed rules?
  If this dollar amount was determined by the hypothetical cost of retrofits, why isn’t $268 per tCO2e subject to inflation?
  I am seeing that many owners would rather pay the penalty than do the decarbonization retrofits as $268 per tCO2e is way cheaper than the quotes they are receiving when they perform the financial calculations, which does not align with the City’s stated decarbonization goals.
  Overall, more transparency on how $268 per tCO2e was calculated would be appreciated by the public.
  And I would recommend tying the $ per tCO2e cost to inflation. And if this number was calculated in the past, I would recommend applying the inflation to calculate with the appropriate value to assign to today and future rates.

  Comment added October 9, 2024 12:43pm

• John Sokolowski

  Good afternoon,

  I am here today representing North Shore Towers, a unique residential community with a longstanding commitment to both self-sufficiency and environmental responsibility.

  North Shore Towers stands apart from typical buildings in New York City as we are not connected to the Con Edison grid, generating our own power. This independence, while environmentally beneficial, creates distinct challenges under Local Law 97. We’ve engaged Con Edison to explore a grid connection, but just reaching our property line will take 2-3 years. Extending that connection to our buildings would mean trenching across our extensive green space and constructing a costly vault substation. This effort alone would cost many millions of dollars, adding an unsustainable financial burden to our residents, many of whom are elderly and live on fixed incomes.

  By self-generating power, North Shore Towers helps ease the strain on the city’s grid, freeing Con Edison to build infrastructure to support larger communities such as North Shore Towers in the future. However, the proposed LL97 changes, particularly regarding cogeneration systems are an improvement but need more clarification. Moreover, the incentive programs designed to support compliance are largely limited to Con Edison customers, excluding communities like ours that lack grid access.

  We respectfully propose the following considerations:
  • Local Law 97 offers flexibility for income-restricted and rent-stabilized buildings, but it does not consider the financial challenges faced by many fixed-income residents. A significant portion of our community is elderly and living on fixed incomes, yet this financial reality is not currently reflected in the law.
  • We ask that the Department consider additional accommodation for buildings housing residents on fixed incomes who would face undue financial hardship from the substantial costs of compliance.

  • We ask for a clear understanding of the long-term applicability of the proposed efficiency standards. Specifically, does the 55% average efficiency and NOx limit of 4.4 lb/MWh apply only from 2025 to 2029, or will these standards continue indefinitely? This clarity is crucial for planning purposes, given the potential financial and operational impacts of maintaining these targets.

  • Con Edison’s efficiency rates for electricity production should be publicly available. Having this data ensures fair and transparent comparisons with self-generating facilities, enabling the Department and stakeholders to assess the impact of different energy sources accurately.

  • We urge the Department to adopt flexible compliance pathways that account for North Shore Towers’ self-sufficient energy model. This flexibility could include performance-based standards, credits for existing efficiency measures, or alternative compliance mechanisms that recognize the role of self-generated power in reducing citywide grid demand.

  • The city’s incentive programs must be inclusive. Currently it is limited and excludes buildings that are not Con Edison customers, limiting our ability to offset the high costs of compliance. Expanding eligibility criteria to include non-grid buildings would support a fairer approach for facilities like ours that share the city’s sustainability goals but face unique challenges.

  With some adjustments, we can continue to contribute positively to the city’s environmental objectives while safeguarding our residents’ financial stability, especially those who are most vulnerable.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  North Shore Towers Apartments Incorporated.

  Comment attachment
  Local-Law-97-DOB-Nov-7th-hearing-.pdf

  Comment added November 6, 2024 4:52pm

• Mariel Gonzalez Mendoza

  LL97 is limiting emissions and pushing for electrification of everything before the grid power is clean and has enough capacity to sustain the new loads from electrifying thermal energy. By summer of 2025 in NYC, according to NYISO there will be a shortage of 446 MWs as a result of increased loads and the current increase in electricity demand. This study does not include the extra capacity that we need to electrify everything. In the extra load could be Combined Heat and Power systems that currently account for 1.8GWs of power generated plus the heating byproduct it contributes to a facility. In the current shift operators are considering to shut down their CHP systems due to their reliance on fossil fuels to operate and the penalty if they continue to operate their CHP systems. If shut down, 1.8GWs will be added drastically to a grid infrastructure that can’t sustain it. CHP systems are best designed to lower the daily peak on electricity consumption at the facility level which helps the grid to lower its peak and reduce the dirtiest electricity produced from peakers. Also, CHP Systems have a thermal byproduct that reduces fuel needed in traditional systems that burn fossil fuels and emit more carbon, yet it is not reflected in LL97 calculations. Another benefit of CHP is that by producing power on-site and offsetting heating, DHW, CHW, or steam, a building can have backup power and thermal energy during an outage and keep the occupants safe. Now, if there was a push for low carbon fuels such as renewable natural gas and hydrogen then we can approach net zero CHP systems that can produce electricity and heat with lower GHG emissions, maintain occupants safely during natural disasters, lower the stress on the grid, and create financial assets for building owners to keep implementing energy efficiency solutions at the building level. For these reasons, CHP systems should be incentivized with more accurate LL97 carbon calculations to assist NYC in the transition towards green energy.

  Comment attachment
  LL97-vs-CHP-Systems-An-Overview.pdf

  Comment added November 7, 2024 11:52am

• Ken Schles

  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.

  Local Law 97 was included in the Climate Mobilization Act, passed by the City Council in 2019 as part of the Mayor’s N.Y.C. Green New Deal. It’s a ground breaking jobs and climate law and was implemented as a response to the existential threat climate change poses to NYC in the face of climate denialism by Trump. NYC legislated locally what was impossible to legislate federally and to fight climate change with urgency and specificity.

  The election on Tuesday of Trump to a second term is a vindication of the denialism and self-interested cronyism that’s plagued the climate debate since oil industry scientists in the 1950s began to understand the dire impacts of their polluting product. Come January, on day one, Trump will pull out of the Paris agreement (1), the weak accord that committed world governments to hold warming to 1.5C. Now the necessity for LL97 is more critical than ever. Warming exceeded the 1.5C threshold for over a year(2). 1.5C is effectively dead (3). According to the newest UN Emission’s Gap assessment, we’re headed for 3.1C warming (4) in short order, putting NYC under 15 feet of water (5). Scientists are envisioning [quote] “widespread famines, conflicts, mass migration, and increasing extreme weather that will surpass anything witnessed thus far, posing catastrophic consequences for both humanity and the biosphere.(6)” “Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled.(7)”

  Mayor Adams, mired in scandal, under indictment and facing prosecution, our local Trump, has made his bed with real estate interests from “day 1.” He’s weakened LL97 by:

  Undermining the process set forth in the law for DOB to adjust individual buildings’ emissions limits, by allowing buildings to exceed emissions limits without penalty even if they don’t meet the statutory criteria to qualify for an adjustment;
  Allow DOB to forego even a minimum recommended penalty, which the law requires, and gives to DOB power to set final penalties that the statute grants only to courts and administrative tribunals;
  Loosen definitions of “good faith efforts” for the purpose of penalty mitigation that require no evidence that a building owner has made any efforts to comply with the law or acted in good faith; and
  Fail to set limits on the amount of renewable energy credits (“RECs”) building owners can use to comply with emissions limits, as required by Local Law 77 of 2023, which amended Local Law 97

  Now, the Adams administration wants to further weaken the law by giving more handouts to the Real Estate lobby.
  By adding a “pollution adjustment loophole” for buildings claiming financial distress by using financial numbers that are easily gamed, and do not investigate chains of ownership.
  By allowing co-generation coefficients into a building’s calculated greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of how much pollution that building actually emits.
  By allowing purchased pollution offsets to be theoretically calculated, allowing rich owners to “buy out” of having to do the work to eliminate pollution.

  NYC is facing an existential crisis. Last year Tropical Storm Ophelia flooded my cellar 120ft above sea level. We regularly experience storms that exceed the design capacity of our sewer system (8)—when it does rain. Now we’re experiencing drought and “Red Flag Warnings,(9)” with temperatures 25F above normal in the middle of November. This summer 350 died in their apartments from heat.(10)

  We can lo longer play “make believe” with the climate crisis. LL97 needs to be the bulwark it was designed to be to cut pollution emissions and to compensate for failures of our state and federal governments to tackle the climate crisis.

  I disapprove of the Administration’s proposed changes to LL97.

  Thank You for considering this testimony.

  Ken Schles
  Volunteer Leader with Food and Water Watch
  378 Vanderbilt Avenue
  Brooklyn, NY 11238
  917-816-3845
  [email protected]

  Footnotes
  (1) https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/trump-paris-climate-treaty-withdrawal-again-00165903
  (2) https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68110310
  (3) https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26335052-800-the-1-5c-target-is-dead-but-climate-action-neednt-be/
  (4) https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/statements/emissions-gap-report-2024-press-statement
  (5) https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/archive/2012/erheblicher-anstieg-des-meeresspiegels-in-einer-welt-mit-zwei-grad-erwaermung
  (6) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature
  (7) https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biae087/7808595?login=false
  (8) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/nyregion/nyc-sewer-system-infrastructure.html
  (9) https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/what-is-a-red-flag-warning-new-york-new-jersey/
  (10) https://a816-dohbesp.nyc.gov/IndicatorPublic/data-features/heat-report/

  Comment added November 7, 2024 1:09pm

• Barry Weiss

  Local Law 97 Comments
  October 7, 2024,
  To whom it may concern,
  These comments relate to the proposed new rules that are being issued on how to comply with Article 320 of Chapter 3 of Titel 28 of the New York City Administrative Code which limits annual greenhouse gas emissions for buildings.
  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
  Most Building owners must comply with Local Law 97 by May 1, 2025. The law applies to many NYC buildings 25,000 Square Feet and larger. While this is a date that many building owners have been aware of for a long time, NYC is still issuing rules, regulations and processes for compliance less than 60 days before the end of the year, even though the bulk of the work has to be completed by year end.
  The City has not addressed the fact that utilities are still using inconsistent methods for gathering and loading data and despite the fact that Con Edison is still having significant issues with billing accounts. As another added layer of concern, Con Edison has implemented a new billing system at the end of last year, which may or may not have contributed to some of the billing issues. Both Con Edison and National Grid have changed account numbers over the last 12-13 months.
  The city has been overwhelmed with questions about implementation and still, as of November 1st, has not been able to respond to basic questions about whether certain properties are on the correct covered buildings list. During webinars, they suggest that any questions should be sent to the appropriate email address but they issue a generic response and cannot seem to respond to many questions. In some cases, similar building categories are being treated differently.
  Sample email acknowledgement
  Good Afternoon,
  Thank you very much for your question and inquiry.
  Please note that in recent days and weeks, we have received a significant increase in the number of questions to this inbox, and therefore we are experiencing some delay in providing responses to each question.
  We deeply appreciate your patience as we work get your inquiry addressed and resolved in as timely a manner as possible.
  Thanks again, and we will follow up to this email shortly.
  Sustainability Outreach & Assistance
  NYC Department of Buildings |Bureau of Sustainability
  280 Broadway – 3rd Floor|New York, NY 10007
  [email protected]
  There is too much uncertainty about what needs to happen and how to comply and how certain buildings should be treated. Further, the date for LL 97 compliance coincides with the annual date for compliance for Local Law 84 and the data used for Local Law 84 will be an important aspect of determine compliance. There needs to be some time between these 2 deadlines as ensuring data accuracy for LL 84 is a prerequisite for LL 97.
  There are building owners that have buildings which are not on any of the LL 97 lists but are filing as a precautionary measure out of concern that they will be added to the list at a date when it is too late to benefit from compliance through Article 321
  The rules require that engineers be hired no later than the end of January for purposes of benefitting for certain exemptions/extensions which seems impractical because they will not have access to complete data for 2024 from the utilities. Further, they only recently (11/1/24) released information on the LL 97 Compliance Report Submission Process. The City has known about the deadline for years and they are still issuing new information about compliance.
  Local Law 97 has many merits and the intent is positive for everyone in the long run if implemented properly. The City has made great strides in the last year in issuing updates on rules, regulations and procedures. However, there has simply not been sufficient time to synthesize everything that has been issued and to have property owners act in a proactive manner. Therefore, practically, it only makes sense to defer the date for compliance with the law by 1 year until the City could complete the rules, regulations and processes needed to comply and provide design professionals, engineers and building owners sufficient time to properly review and gear up for compliance, submissions and certifications.
  Respectfully submitted.

  Barry

  Comment added November 8, 2024 9:36am

• Eric Wood - Senior Environmental Program Coordinator

  TESTIMONY OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP TO THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS REGARDING THEIR NEWLY (SEPTEMBER 27) PROPOSED RULES FOR LOCAL LAW 97
  November 7, 2024

  Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. My name is Eric Wood and I am the Senior Environmental Program Coordinator for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). NYPIRG is a non-partisan, not-for-profit research and advocacy organization. Consumer protection, environmental preservation, public health, healthcare quality, higher education affordability, and governmental reforms are our principal areas of concern.

  As one of the largest states and the nation’s financial capital, New York’s leadership on climate change can shape U.S. policy. At a time when the federal government is failing to act fast enough to protect us from the dangers that the changing climate poses to our communities and is failing to quickly adapt to the very reality of climate change, the time for New York to lead is now.

  Local Law 97 is the nation’s strongest climate action plan and it can be set as a model for the entire planet in humanity’s fight against climate change. New York City should be proud of the law as it stands. However, the newly proposed rules introduce loopholes that could increase pollution, and exacerbate public health threats. We urge the Department of buildings to close the overly broad “pollution adjustment” loophole, close the “cogeneration” loophole by accounting for the actual gas burned by each system, and close the “offsets” loophole by funding affordable housing retrofits with government subsidies basing the cost of the offset on the actual emissions reductions, not estimates. Creating loopholes in Local Law 97 only protects the wealthy, while stagnating our battle with rising sea levels and increasing threats to public health.

  Close the “Pollution Adjustment” Loophole
  The “pollution adjustment” loophole is too broad and is left vulnerable to being taken advantage of by wealthy building owners, the top polluters, and slows necessary progress in protecting people’s health and lives. The regulations propose that a co-op would be considered in “financial distress” if maintenance costs increase more than 5% over inflation annually over three years. The building, therefore, would be allowed to pollute more. However, there are many reasons a building might increase maintenance by over 5% over inflation while not being in financial distress.

  According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, the IRS is losing $160 billion annually to the nation’s top earners who aren’t paying their fair share, due to loopholes they exploit. We urge you not to let Local Law 97 fall to the same fate.

  The “pollution adjustment” must be for those who need it, and a flat rate of five-percent over three years is not an equitable way to approach adapting to Local Law 97. The “pollution adjustment” loophole should be specifically for the relatively few building owners that will have trouble affording compliance with Local Law 97. Rather than a flat rate, building owners should have to prove “financial distress” according to their wealth or income. Wealth distribution was a focal point in the origins of the creation of Local Law 97, and this loophole, as proposed, begins to crumble the goals of the nation’s leading climate legislation.

  Close the “Cogeneration” Loophole
  The “cogeneration” regulations introduce a loophole by using the grid coefficient as a guiding tool for individual building compliance. The New York City electrical grid is made up of several power sources, including nuclear and solar, that have less air pollutants than fracked gas. Building owners with cogeneration systems that burn a higher percentage of gas as their “codependent” could emit higher levels of air pollutants.

  The average carbon dioxide coefficient of natural gas is 0.0550 kg CO2 per cubic foot. “Heat release” is the heat liberated by the combustion of the fuel (Btu/hr) per cubic foot of furnace volume. Local Law 97 can include a formula that calculates emissions compliance on individual building “heat release” and the CO2 coefficient of gas, rather than the grid coefficient which is a combination of several energy sources. An individualized calculation based on actual gas burned by the cogeneration system would address the most egregious polluters and could help strengthen our communities who are working to comply.

  Close the “Offsets” Loophole
  While the Affordable Housing Reinvestment Fund is a good idea – to send much-needed dollars to low-income housing electrification retrofits – the proposed Fund is set up to be financed by offsets purchased by building owners in order to get off the hook from reducing more pollution. At $278/ton, the “offsets” loophole creates a smooth path of “business as usual” for the wealthiest building owners in New York City, essentially leaving building emissions stagnant overall rather than decreasing harmful air pollutants, as Local Law 97 sets out to do. Instead, the City should hold buildings to pollution reductions across the board, and provide subsidies to help affordable housing comply.

  Why Are These Loophole Closures Important?
  Extreme heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths Annually, New York City sees an average of 450 heat-related visits to the emergency room and more than 100 deaths. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is estimated to cause approximately 250,000 excess deaths per year. Of these, 38,000 is expected to be due to heat exposure in elderly people, 48,000 due to diarrhea, 60,000 due to malaria, and 95,000 due to childhood undernutrition. The additional deaths are projected to occur in late spring and summer—before and after the traditional heat-wave season.

  Local Law 97 is working for an overwhelming number of building owners as it stands and we can help the few that are struggling to meet the , but the newly proposed rules are not the answer. NYPIRG commends New York City, the Department of Buildings, and the efforts community members have made to achieve the goals set forth in Local Law 97. We look forward to helping solve the remaining few questions to ensure compliance with the law, without introducing loopholes that allow more pollution. NYPIRG calls on the New York City Department of Buildings to amend the newly proposed rules with the above suggestions and ensure that future rules and regulations are not overly broad and susceptible to exploitation by wealthy building owners. Thank you.

  Comment attachment
  November-7-DoB-LL97-Testimony-NYPIRG.pdf

  Comment added November 8, 2024 10:11am

• Chris Halfnight

  Please see attached joint comments from 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 of the Department’s proposed rules for Local Law 97.

  Comment attachment
  241111_Joint-Comments-UGC-AEA-NRDC-NYLCV-RPA-on-LL97-Proposed-Rules.pdf

  Comment added November 11, 2024 2:40pm

• Craig Gruber

  Please see attached comments from the New York Chapter of the Association of Energy Engineers (NYAEE)

  Comment attachment
  AEE-NY-Comments-23-1021-LL97-Rules-Comment-Submission-FINAL.pdf

  Comment added November 14, 2024 3:24pm