# NYC Will Be First City to Mandate that Existing Buildings Dramatically Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2017)

Mayor de Blasio: NYC Will Be First City to Mandate that Existing Buildings Dramatically Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
http://forms.iapmo.org/newsletter/green/2017/10/NY_GHG.asp
Mandates on NYC’s 14,500 least efficient buildings to accelerate and deepen major efficiency upgrades; most ambitious program of its kind in the nation; financing to support retrofits, steep penalties for non-compliance; will spur 17,000 ‘green jobs’
Mayor Bill de Blasio last month announced new mandates that will force building owners to make sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The new rules will compel owners to meet fossil fuel caps – requiring deeper upgrades to boilers, water heaters, roofs and windows on an accelerated 2030 timeframe – with sharp penalties for failure to comply.
“Time is not on our side,” said Mayor de Blasio. “New York will continue to step up and make critical changes to help protect our city and prevent the worst effects of climate change. We must shed our buildings’ reliance on fossil fuels here and now. To do this, we are mandating upgrades to increase the energy efficiency of our buildings, helping us continue to honor the goals of the Paris Agreement. No matter what happens in Washington, we will not shirk our responsibility to act on climate in our own backyard.”
When President Trump announced the US would abandon the Paris Climate Agreement earlier this year, the Mayor pledged New York City would adhere to the treaty and accelerate its own actions to reach the 80 percent reduction in emissions by the 2050 target. Fossil fuels used for heat and hot water in buildings are the city’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
The mandates announced frontload the most dramatic reductions into the coming decade, and are the first step the City must take to help hold global temperature increases to just 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the most disastrous effects of climate change.
Mandated fossil fuel caps will apply to all buildings over 25,000 square feet, and will trigger replacement of fossil fuel equipment and efficiency upgrades in the worst-performing 14,500 buildings, which together produce 24 percent of the city’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
In order to meet these targets, building owners will make improvements to boilers, heat distribution, hot water heaters, roofs and windows, requiring deeper changes during their replacement or refinancing cycles over the next 12 to 17 years.
The new targets will reduce total citywide greenhouse emissions 7 percent by 2035, the single largest step yet taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to taking 900,000 cars off the road, and spur 17,000 green jobs performing building retrofits. The plan will be enacted via legislation, backed by the administration and sponsored by Council Member Costa Constantinides.
To compel building owners to meet these aggressive targets, the legislation will set annual penalties that increase with building size and the amount the buildings exceed the fossil fuel use targets. For example, a 30,000 square foot residential building operating substantially above its energy target would pay $60,000 for every year over the standard, starting in 2030. A one million square foot building operating well over its energy target would pay as much as $2,000,000 for every year over target. Failure to comply will also affect a building’s ability to receive future permits for major renovations.
To help smaller owners achieve these objectives, the legislation will authorize a Property Assessed Clean Energy program to provide financing at low interest with long terms that allow property owners to pay for energy efficiency investments through their property tax bill. A PACE program in New York City has the potential to finance $100 million annually in energy efficiency and clean energy projects. A 54-unit apartment building in the Bronx that recently upgraded its boiler and made energy-saving upgrades would have saved $8,000 per year in debt payments had PACE financing been available. The City will also continue to provide expansive technical support and sharing of best practices through the NYC Retrofit Accelerator program.
The plan will stop landlords of rent regulated buildings from displacing tenants or raising rents based on the cost of improvements required by new mandates. Targets for these buildings will be established in 2020, in tandem with reform of rent regulation. They will also have an extended compliance date of 2035.
The legislation is the first necessary step in fulfilling Mayor de Blasio’s Executive Order 26 signed after President withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement. The executive order committed New York City to the principles of the Paris Agreement and directed all City agencies to develop a plan by September 30, 2017 to accelerate our 80 x 50 efforts and align them with the Paris agreement’s stretch goal of limiting a global temperature increase to l.5° Celsius.
In New York City, fossil fuels burned in buildings for heat and hot water are the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 42 percent of the citywide total. The burning of these fuels also contributes to air pollution that causes asthma, bronchitis, and premature death, particularly among children and seniors. To address this climate threat, the proposed legislation draws on inspiration from President Obama's Clean Power Plan and the successful New York City Clean Heat program to challenge building owners of the City's largest buildings to meet ambitious but achievable targets to reduce their use of fossil fuels. While the mandate will set the target, it leaves flexibility and time for building owners to make the necessary improvements that make the most sense for their building.
Read the full press release: http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-m...andate-existing-buildings-dramatically-cut#/0


----------



## Keystone (Oct 4, 2017)

If the language in this bill relates to climate change, please NYC bldg. groups/owners sue the city!


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2017)

Keystone said:


> If the language in this bill relates to climate change, please NYC bldg. groups/owners sue the city!


On what grounds, Local AHJ are allowed to have mandates *that exceed* State and Fed guidelines.
"All cities and towns are empowered to determine their local affairs and government as established by ordinance passed by the governing body…”


----------



## conarb (Oct 4, 2017)

Keystone said:


> If the language in this bill relates to climate change, please NYC bldg. groups/owners sue the city!



I would hope so, this is all about carbon taxation as a way to redistribute the first world's wealth to the third world through the United Nations, at this point even the United Nations has admitted that it's all about destroying capitalism, I've posted several articles on this *here is one*, DiBlasio is a left wing nut case who was elected to stop Mayor Giuliani's very successful "stop and frisk" program that drastically reduced crime in New York City.


----------



## tmurray (Oct 4, 2017)

conarb said:


> I "stop and frisk" program



Is it legal to perform a search without probably cause in the US? It's a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms here. I would have assumed that it would have been the same there...


----------



## conarb (Oct 4, 2017)

I believe it's okay in Canuckistan too, *here is Wikipedia's take on it*.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 4, 2017)

And the law of un-intended consequences may be roof failures if not properly analyzed. We have had 4 buildings where we would not let them add more insulation because they would significantly exceed the design loads of the roof. 


http://www.roofmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Dec-2015-Reroofing-feature-resize.pdf

With minimal insulation, older building designs with reduced load capacities can survive heavy snow conditions because a significant portion of snow will melt from heat escaping through the roof. As a result, these roofs may not have experienced a code-prescribed loading event. When adding insulation as part of a reroofing project, it is important to understand a roof structure’s adequacy to support the added weight of insulation and realistic snow loads. With added insulation, the potential for increased snow loads on a building’s roof can be significant. The increased R-value will reduce the potential for heat to escape from the building and melt snow and ice off of the roof. Consequently, a greater potential is introduced for snow accumulation and drifting on roofs that would not have existed with the previous lower R-values. As a result, there is a potential for greater snow and ice accumulation on roofs with higher R-values. These conditions can be of greater concern for buildings constructed before 1975. To address these concerns, even if not required by local building codes, designers and building owners involved with reroofing challenges that require R-value improvements should ensure the effects on the structure are properly evaluated as part of the project. 1


----------



## steveray (Oct 4, 2017)

mark handler said:


> On what grounds, Local AHJ are allowed to have mandates *that exceed* State and Fed guidelines.
> "All cities and towns are empowered to determine their local affairs and government as established by ordinance passed by the governing body…”




Not in CT......


----------



## conarb (Oct 4, 2017)

In California Building Standards just takes application statements for code changes and files them away without looking at them, I know I've talked to Building Standards about it.  Let's suppose some rogue CBO filed an application to require ADA standards on single family homes?  The state is going to let it go, someone has to sue to block it.


----------



## tmurray (Oct 5, 2017)

conarb said:


> I believe it's okay in Canuckistan too, *here is Wikipedia's take on it*.



Nope, violation of section 8 of our charter: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html


----------



## Keystone (Oct 5, 2017)

mark handler said:


> On what grounds, Local AHJ are allowed to have mandates *that exceed* State and Fed guidelines.
> "All cities and towns are empowered to determine their local affairs and government as established by ordinance passed by the governing body…”



Well I'm not registered with the bar so I would defer that response the individuals with that knowledge and authority. With that said, yes state and local authorities may enact laws as reasonable to that area however on the same point those laws may also be challenged. Wrong or right, I'm not a believer in global warming and I haven't been convinced otherwise despite the bombardment of nonsensical information.


----------



## tmurray (Oct 5, 2017)

Keystone said:


> Well I'm not registered with the bar so I would defer that response the individuals with that knowledge and authority. With that said, yes state and local authorities may enact laws as reasonable to that area however on the same point those laws may also be challenged. Wrong or right, I'm not a believer in global warming and I haven't been convinced otherwise despite the bombardment of nonsensical information.


In most cases more restrictive requirements at a local or state level are not ultra vires. Similarly, a client could ask a builder to construct them a more energy efficient home than required by code. Provided there is nothing in the state law prohibiting more restrictive requirements, I'm not certain on what legal grounds that you would fight a law.


----------



## conarb (Oct 5, 2017)

tmurray said:


> In most cases more restrictive requirements at a local or state level are not ultra vires. Similarly, a client could ask a builder to construct them a more energy efficient home than required by code. Provided there is nothing in the state law prohibiting more restrictive requirements, I'm not certain on what legal grounds that you would fight a law.



The bases for overturning laws, statutes, and regulations are usually constitutional, recent case on point was Trump's ban on some peoples from largely Muslim countries.  The US Codes state that the President has the sole right to ban anyone from entry into the country at his discretion, that is black letter law yet it was challenged on the theory that the residents of those countries are a religious group, so the black letter law violated the constitutional freedom of religion.  A few liberal Appellate judges bought that argument, eventually the Supreme Court backed the President's right but with some limitations.  There are creative attorneys out there who could come up with a myriad of theories to overturn this city ordinance.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 5, 2017)

The validity of local ordinances can be challenged based on violation of state or federal laws.  In some states where the state has preempted the field of building regulation local jurisdictions will not necessarily have the authority to modify.

In the case proposed you might have situations where this constitutes a regulatory taking thus requiring the local government to pay for the loss.  This would kick in if as a result of the regulation all of the economic value of the property was loss.  

From a legal perspective whether you believe in climate change or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether the governmental entity believes the change is needed and whether they have legally adopted the laws.


----------



## conarb (Oct 5, 2017)

Mark K said:


> The validity of local ordinances can be challenged based on violation of state or federal laws.  In some states where the state has preempted the field of building regulation local jurisdictions will not necessarily have the authority to modify.



In California, most all cities passed ordinances requiring all contractors have city licenses to operate in the city, the ordinances also required that all contractors' trucks have city license decals on their windows so code enforcement officers could ticket unlicensed contractors parked on the streets.  Here many cities run together and in the late 50s a painter was ticketed for not having a city decal on his window one morning, in the afternoon he was again cited by the California Highway for having his vision blocked by having too many city decals on his windshield.  He took it to court and up through the appellate system and an appellate court ruled that contractor licensing was usurped by the state and cities could not require contractor licensing. Cities had to scrap their licensing ordinances but passed city ordinances requiring that contractors have business license ordinances in order to obtain a building permit, and permits required state licenses, the state passed a statute requiring that contractors have state license numbers on their trucks, I never did claiming that my trucks were my personal vehicles by not posting my company name on my trucks.  

I don't know if New York City has a separate building code, but if they don't De Blasio's ordinance might have the unintended consequence of the courts ruling that the state has usurped the filed of building code requirements.  Anyway, it looks like New York will be in for many millions in legal fees to attempt to enforce such an ordinance.


----------



## VillageInspector (Oct 16, 2017)

conarb said:


> In California, most all cities passed ordinances requiring all contractors have city licenses to operate in the city, the ordinances also required that all contractors' trucks have city license decals on their windows so code enforcement officers could ticket unlicensed contractors parked on the streets.  Here many cities run together and in the late 50s a painter was ticketed for not having a city decal on his window one morning, in the afternoon he was again cited by the California Highway for having his vision blocked by having too many city decals on his windshield.  He took it to court and up through the appellate system and an appellate court ruled that contractor licensing was usurped by the state and cities could not require contractor licensing. Cities had to scrap their licensing ordinances but passed city ordinances requiring that contractors have business license ordinances in order to obtain a building permit, and permits required state licenses, the state passed a statute requiring that contractors have state license numbers on their trucks, I never did claiming that my trucks were my personal vehicles by not posting my company name on my trucks.
> 
> I don't know if New York City has a separate building code, but if they don't De Blasio's ordinance might have the unintended consequence of the courts ruling that the state has usurped the filed of building code requirements.  Anyway, it looks like New York will be in for many millions in legal fees to attempt to enforce such an ordinance.



NYC does have their own stand alone code separate from the rest of New York State. I wish they would separate from the rest of New York state totally but that's for another forum.


----------

