When Policy Does Not Reflect Science
The Problem With NYC’s Local Law 33
The premise is simple; energy efficiency is achieved when using less energy to do the same amount of work. Where things get confusing is when policy does not use a metric that is equally quantifiable. Local Law 33's intent was sound. It’s application is not. In achieving an effective energy-efficient policy, we should come to some consensus in the efficacy of using a metric which will ensure that high-density buidling — where low-to-moderate income residents live — recieve lower grades than the low-density buildings where wealtheir residents live.
Several areas drive the discrepancies in the calculations used by Local Law 33. Lewis Kwit, President at Energy Investment Systems, Inc., and an owner’s representative specializing in energy efficiency, authored an open letter signed by 20 industry professionals to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, Council Speaker Corey Johnson, and Councilmember Costa Constantinides. In an interview with Kwit, he encapsulated the issues of Local Law 33 that are at odds with the goals of an effective energy efficient policy:
Surface Area vs. Volume. Square footage does not take into account height, whereas heating and air conditioning is based on volume/cubic footage.
“High-ceilinged apartments, for example, would require more energy for space conditioning than units with low ceilings, even if the square footage is the same,” Kwit said.
Density vs. Apartment Size. By a ratio of more than two-to-one, apartments in wealthy neighborhoods are much larger than the apartments of low to moderate income tenants.
“More occupants mean more personal electronics, as well as more showers, washing, cooking and cleaning. That translates into greater domestic hot water loads. As a consequence, buildings with small apartments generally use more energy per square foot than those with larger units.”
Demographics is another area Kwit said where the energy use is disproportionate. Mainly because occupant density in higher income building is consideraly lower, given that these residents are frequently out of town for the weekends and even months at a time during the winter and summer. These buildings will naturally have lower average energy use not because they are especially efficient, but because of significantly lower occupancy.
Low to moderate income residents are generally home more often. This means air-conditioning units may be working longer hours. When people are home, their apartments will consume more energy than when an apartment is empty or under occupied.
Environmental Justice. Low-income neighborhoods that are devoid of trees and parks cause local ambient temperatures to rise fully 5 to 12 degrees above city averages. As a result, Kwit noted, air conditioners require more energy to reduce indoor temperatures to comfortable levels than in cooler urban areas.
“This condition can be deemed an environmental justice issue given that higher temperatures resulting from a lack of greenery occur most frequently in disadvantaged neighborhood,” he said.
Grades Lack Proportionality. In a scale of 1 to 100, a D grade represents Energy Star scores of 1 to 54.
“Clearly, a building that scores between 1 and 10 would use far more energy than a building that scores 50 to 54 and outscores the nationwide average. In another questionable instance, New York City has opted to set the bar for an A grade at Energy Star scores of 85 and above, while the EPA makes buildings that score 75 or higher elifible for coveted Energy Start status.”
When the New York City Department of Health enacted the letter grading system for restaurants in 2010, it used a metric that was quantifiable, offering the consumer accurate information to help them make food safety decsions. A similar methodology should be implemented for buildings in determining how energy usage will be measuredl
Nor only do Local Law 33’s energy efficiency metrics demonstrate an inherent bias which disadvantages lower-income residents, it undercuts motivating building ownership to make their properties more efficient. If they fail to comply because they feel that the law’s methodology makes no sense, the opportunity for ownership to do something of real value for our city’s future (as well as their own) will be wasted.
