New York City Backs Off Retrofit Requirement
Well, that did not last long. Two weeks ago, we wrote about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to require retrofits of existing buildings. After vehement opposition, Mayor Bloomberg has backed off of his plans to require retrofits:
"The plan, which the owners said was too costly, called for all buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to undergo audits to determine which renovations would make them more energy efficient, and for owners to then pay for many of those changes.
The mayor wants to go forward with the proposal to require energy audits, but now is leaving it up to the building owners whether to undertake the changes called for by those audits."
Not surprisingly, opponents cited the economy as one of the prohibitive factors to implementing the mandatory retrofitting:
“It’s another unfunded mandate, and this is just not the time for it,” said Stuart Saft, chairman of the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, an opponent of the plan. “Come back in five years when we’re past this recession. At this point it’s just a slap in the face.”
Green building legislation has developed quickly over the last ten years. Cities like New York City and Washington, D.C. previously pushed the envelope by requiring all new construction achieve green building certification. The New York City proposal would have taken the next step in requiring existing buildings to incorporate green building features, like energy efficient windows and HVAC systems.
Opposition to the New York City legislation suggests the real estate industry is not prepared to retrofit all existing building stock. The legislation was an enormous leap for an industry that continues to wobble through the recession.
What do you think the rejection of the New York City legislation suggests?
Opposition to the New York City legislation suggests the real estate industry is not prepared to retrofit all existing building stock. The legislation was an enormous leap for an industry that continues to wobble through the recession.
What do you think the rejection of the New York City legislation suggests?
Related Links:
Photo: danihollaender
For DC, the energy audits required by the Clean and Affordable Energy Act and DDOE are simply the precursor to the same requirement of retrofitting existing buildings, or risking fines for using "too much" energy.
It would be far more intellectually honest if the environmentalists in DC city government would acknowledge that their plan is to force people to use less energy or else pay fines. Instead, they focus only on how great it will be for customers to know how much energy they're using.
Which is true, except then why require that customers notify the government about their building's energy usage, other than to pony up money because some bureaucrat who has never managed a building, let alone actually built anything, decides how much energy each building should be allowed to use?
If New York City were flush with money, and banks were lending money, the commercial office building and coop/condo industries would not have been so opposed to the bill's provision that would have required building owners to implement cost effective energy retrofits. But commercial rents are way down, there is a significant number of coop and condo owners who are worried about paying their existing bills without having to see an increase in maintenance, and there's no money to borrow at any event.
Still, the legislation will require measurement and allow comparison. Measurement and comparison should be the first step toward building owners/managers and coop/condo boards both being able to make more informed choices about energy investment, and being held accountable for the choices that they make.
Phil Simpson