Page |1

From: Anthony Kownack, Corning Place Communications

Subject: Weekly Articles of Interest (New York Propane Gas Association)

Date: June 2, 2023

Bill,

Below, please find a compilation of articles, issued this week, that may be of interest to you. Articles
are also hyperlinked within each headline.

Thank you,

Anthony

Weekly Articles of Interest Include:

 Testing New York Apartments: How Dirty Is That Gas Stove, Really?
 The Editorial Board: Albany should pass important environmental bills
 Another Voice: Proposed recycling reform would harm manufacturers
 Commentary: Changing New York's emissions accounting would be a grave mistake
 Public weighs in on New York State's $4.2 billion environmental bond act
 National Grid on New York emissions reduction target: 'It's 78 months 'till 2030'
 Pursuing opportunities within New York’s electrification goals
 Thousands of NYC buildings still burn dirty fuels, as owners struggle with looming
ban

Testing New York Apartments: How Dirty Is That Gas Stove, Really?
Hiroko Tabuchi
New York Times
May 30, 2023

Every morning, as millions of Americans light up the gas stoves in their kitchens to heat some water
or griddle their hash browns, they aren’t just sending delicious breakfast smells wafting through
their homes. The blue flames also emit harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxides, as well as planet-
warming gases.

So a team of scientists from Stanford recently embarked on a testing tour of New York City
apartments to better understand the extent of the pollution and how it flows from room to room in
people’s real homes. It’s part of a 10-city study that is already showing how contaminants can
quickly drift into living rooms and bedrooms, sometimes far beyond the stoves that created them.
 Page |2

Concerns over the health and climate effects of gas-burning stoves have already prompted some
cities and states to seek to phase out natural gas connections in new buildings, and the federal
government has also moved to strengthen efficiency standards for gas stoves. But the issue has
become a polarizing one. Last week in Washington, Republicans convened a hearing of the House
Oversight Committee “examining the Biden administration’s regulatory assault on Americans’ gas
stoves.”

On a crisp Sunday morning, the Stanford scientists made their first stop in New York City: a public-
housing project in Morningside Heights in Upper Manhattan. Their first challenge: hauling 300
pounds of equipment to the 18th floor. “Hope there’s an elevator,” Rob Jackson, a professor at the
Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and the team’s leader, said warily. (There was.)
Image

The three-bedroom apartment they were visiting — home to Tina Johnson, a mother to three adult
children — overlooks elevated train tracks and has an eat-in kitchen filled with the aromas of herbs
and spices that she uses to make her favorite dish, an American-style ratatouille. Mrs. Johnson had
just cooked a breakfast of fried eggs and potatoes.

“I’m glad you’re here,” she told the researchers. A new stove had just been installed in her unit, but
she still “can’t stand the smell” of the gas from it, she said. She had volunteered to participate in the
study through a local climate group, Mrs. Johnson said, because she and her children have asthma
and other health problems; she was eager to know what their stove did to the air they breathed.

Nose-High Tubes

The researchers got to work powering up their analyzers and setting up tubes, at roughly nose
height, to pull in samples of air. After they took background readings, it was time to turn on the gas,
a single small burner on high.

The machinery quickly detected the change: a rise in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide — which,
among other negative health effects, can irritate the respiratory system, aggravate symptoms of
respiratory diseases and contribute to asthma. Concentrations climbed to 500 parts per billion, five
times the safety benchmark for one-hour exposures set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
(Concentrations of benzene, a human carcinogen that is present in cigarette smoke and car
emissions, also tripled.)

This was with the kitchen doorway sealed off and the window closed, too. Mrs. Johnson’s kitchen
also lacks a stove hood, which could help with ventilation.

Opening the kitchen entrance and cracking open the window, as Mrs. Johnson said she often did
while cooking, brought nitrogen dioxide levels down to about 200 parts per billion. But that also
meant fumes from the stove were now seeping into the rest of the apartment.

In one bedroom, nitrogen dioxide concentrations reached about 70 parts per billion, below the
E.P.A. threshold but significantly above the World Health Organization’s standards for chronic
exposure.

There has been mounting scientific evidence of the health risks of gas stoves. One paper published
late last year found that gas stoves may be linked to nearly 13 percent of childhood cases of asthma
 Page |3

in the United States. Previous research shows that gas stoves have led to more exacerbated asthma
symptoms as well.

There are a few simple steps that people can take to reduce the danger, such as opening the
windows and buying an air purifier.

One characteristic of New York residences, Dr. Jackson later said, is that people tend to go about
their lives at home — working, relaxing, sleeping — far closer to the gas stove than those in a
suburban setting. In all, he said, “the biggest surprise for me has been just how high concentrations
get, but also how quickly the pollutants spread around the home.”

‘Dinner Party Scenario’

The next day, the team was back testing at another location, this time at an Airbnb apartment in
Central Harlem. Their goal: recreate a “big family or dinner party scenario,” said Yannai Kashtan, a
Ph.D. candidate in earth system science at Stanford and a member of the research team.

To limit their own exposure, the team members camped out on a balcony, with sweeping views of
Upper Manhattan, holding their breath and running in and out to check on levels.
In the course of about 40 minutes, levels of nitrogen dioxide topped 200 parts per billion in the
living room, 300 parts per billion in the bedroom and 400 parts per billion in the kitchen, or double,
triple and quadruple thresholds set by the E.P.A. for one-hour exposures. Benzene concentrations
also tripled after the stove was turned on.

This stove came with a hood. “But feel this,” Mr. Kashtan said, his hand in a stream of hot air that
was blowing out from the hood’s edge instead of venting outdoors. That meant the hood “doesn’t
make much difference” to the bad air, he said.

In all, the team conducted daylong testing at eight New York City apartments, including a Brooklyn
home where the researchers puzzled over a New York peculiarity: windows sealed with plastic.
That was for insulation, said Nina Domingo, who lives in the ground-floor unit with two
housemates. But it also meant poor ventilation, which was alarming, given that the kitchen also
lacked a hood that vented to the outside.

In the immediate kitchen area, nitrogen dioxide concentrations quickly rose to about 2.5 times the
E.P.A. threshold.

The team’s results are preliminary, but they are in line with a body of scientific research that has
linked gas stove emissions to harmful pollution affecting both climate change and public health.
Previous research has also shown that emissions continue to be released when a stove is turned
off because stoves can leak natural gas, which is mostly methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Ms. Domingo, who works in technology, said she was aware of the concerns over pollution from
stoves, and her previous apartment had, in fact, come with an electric induction stove, a particularly
efficient design. But when she decided to upgrade to a larger home last summer, competition for
apartment units was so fierce that she “couldn’t be picky,” she said.

Change could be on the horizon.

 Page |4

More than 60 percent of American households already use electricity to cook, and the Biden
administration has proposed to expand gas stove efficiency rules, with an estimated $100 million in
energy savings for people on top of the climate and health benefits. Several cities in mostly blue
states have passed or considered bans on new gas hookups, effectively requiring electric cooking
and heating in new construction, though some red states have moved to pre-empt such bans.

The Stanford team, which has already tested stoves in cities including San Francisco; Denver;
Houston; and Melbourne, Australia, is heading to Washington next. It also plans to test in Europe
and Asia.

What do they expect to find in Asian cities? Even smaller living spaces, which could mean higher
concentrations of pollutants, and more exposure. It’s a global problem, they said. Just how bad a
problem, they’re about to find out.

The Editorial Board: Albany should pass important environmental bills

News Editorial Board
Buffalo News
May 30, 2023

Better late than never.

As New York’s legislative session enters its final weeks, it’s also fair to say that we are within the
final decades of being able to avert climate catastrophe for the planet.

Bills now before the Legislature offer viable – and interesting – solutions to environmental
problems and how to pay for climate-related damage. This legislation should be given prompt and
serious consideration before lawmakers adjourn the 2023 session.

Climate Change Superfund

Making a statewide switch to green energy and protecting New York’s infrastructure from
environmental damage already occurring on a regular basis isn’t an inexpensive proposition. While
consumers are being offered a diverse range of incentives to wean themselves off fossil fuel-
powered systems, there are huge costs that go along with decarbonization at every level. The
sponsors of the Climate Change Superfund Act (A.3351/S.2129), Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and
state Sen. Liz Krueger, think that the entities largely responsible for greenhouse gas-related global
warming – oil and gas producers – should help pay the costs of climate disruption. This could
include paying for infrastructure upgrades to protect against rising sea levels, upgrade stormwater
drainage and sewage treatment systems, prepare the power grid for severe weather, create systems
to protect people from extreme heat and other climate resilience projects throughout the state.

There’s nothing new about this concept. The original federal Superfund program was established in
1980 – shortly after a state of emergency was declared at Love Canal in 1976 – to force parties
responsible for environmental contamination of the land and drinking water to either perform
cleanups or reimburse the U.S. government for Environmental Protection Agency-led cleanup work.

It was easy then to trace toxic waste back to the chemical companies that dumped it. It’s equally
logical now to trace greenhouse gas emissions back to fossil fuel companies. By every known official
 Page |5

measure, burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation is the largest source of these
pollutants.

The new Superfund, as proposed, would raise $75 billion through a $3 billion annual assessment
over a 25-year period on the 35 largest greenhouse gas emitters. Given that the five biggest oil
companies reported combined profits of $196.3 billion in 2022, it’s unlikely such a levy would
strain the resources of these industrial behemoths to any appreciable degree.

And there’s evidence that this damage was inflicted knowingly for decades. Both University of
Miami and Harvard researchers report that ExxonMobil scientists were uncovering information
that confirmed the effect of fossil fuel emissions on climate change as early as the 1970s – and then
for decades, the company adamantly denied such man-made damage was occurring.

If the bill becomes law, the companies will fight it. But this is a reasonable ask and – because it is a
one-time fixed cost – will help alleviate climate action costs without causing pain to consumers. The
Legislature should pass it.

Reducing plastic and glass pollution

Most of the plastic packaging well-meaning New York residents put in their recycling bins goes
directly into a landfill. Nobody wants it. Single-use plastics must be reduced and that won’t happen
without regulatory help. The Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act
(S.4246/A.5332) requires producers to reduce packaging by 50% over 12 years. It also phases out
chemicals such as PFAS – the “forever chemicals” being found at high levels in local waterways –
and prohibits chemical recycling from being considered a recycling strategy. (Chemical recycling
subjects plastics to high heat, releasing toxic chemicals like benzene, mercury and arsenic.)

The strategy this legislation proposes is known as extended producer responsibility (EPR). Bills
proposing various versions of EPR have been in New York’s legislative mix for some years now.
That’s because they make sense. By the time plastic gets to the consumer level, it’s too late; this
legislation would address plastic pollution at its source and should become law.

Plastics have their uses – think syringes – but we should use them as little as possible. This bill gets
us closer.

The situation with glass is even sadder, because so much of the glass used by consumers is 100%
recyclable. Unfortunately, New York’s single-stream recycling methodology, which mixes all types
of recyclables together, without pre-sorting, causes recyclable glass to get broken and irretrievably
contaminated. Hence, only about one-third of eligible glass is being recycled. That amount could be
tripled if Senate Bill S.237, which attaches deposits to wine, liquor, cider and distilled spirit
beverages, is passed. Then, just like glass containers for juice, beer, soft drinks and other products,
wine and liquor bottles would be worth 5 cents each – increasing to 10 cents in 2025 – at the
redemption center. If passed, as it should be, this legislation would make New York’s returnable
container policy, already a great success, even more effective.

New York residents are lucky their lawmakers are keenly aware of environmental issues. These
bills, among others, are aimed at keeping the state – and planet – livable for generations to come.
 Page |6

Another Voice: Proposed recycling reform would harm manufacturers

Dottie Gallagher
Buffalo News
May 31, 2023

New York lawmakers are rightfully looking to address the problem of plastic waste. One of Albany’s
proposed solutions is an extended producer responsibility (EPR) bill called the Packaging
Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act (S.4246/A.5322). This bill would put manufacturers
financially on the hook for the disposal and recycling of packaging. While the goal of this bill is
commendable, it would fail to solve the problem of plastic pollution and add tremendous costs onto
New York manufacturers and consumers.

This legislation would yield significant consequences for New York’s economy. Currently, recycling
is financed by local governments. Placing the cost burden squarely on manufacturers would
discourage business in our state, and ultimately make goods and services more expensive for
consumers.

A 2021 study conducted by York University found that EPR would add at least $800 million in
direct costs to materials producers and have an additional $2 billion to $3 billion impact on the
state economy. The study also found it could increase grocery bills by 4% to 6.5%, which equates to
$36 to $57 per month in grocery costs for the average family of four. For low-income households
that consume almost 20% more prepackaged goods when compared to families whose household
income exceeds $100,000 a year, this increase could be catastrophic.

After a period of steep inflation, and with energy costs predicted to soar after the recently passed
natural gas ban and other climate laws, the last thing New Yorkers need is another legislated cost
increase.

Another critical flaw of this legislation: it will not increase recycling rates as intended because our
current recycling infrastructure is limited in the products it can recycle. This legislation does not
allow for advanced recycling, which is a process that enables the recycling of plastic products we
currently send to landfills and incinerators. More than 90% of post-use plastics that are not
currently recycled can be converted into high-quality new plastics through advanced recycling. By
failing to capitalize on the opportunity advanced recycling presents, plastic pollution will continue
to be a problem.

Sustainability efforts in New York don’t have to be anti-business. Lawmakers should focus their
attention on how to best address operational, structural, and financial challenges within the
existing system instead of creating a new one and shifting the financial burden to the private sector
in the process. We can and should safeguard our economy and our environment simultaneously,
but proposals that add enormous costs to manufacturers and consumers while failing to tackle the
issue of plastic pollution do not strike that balance.
We are ready to work with our elected leaders to combat plastic pollution, but much more work
needs to be done.

Dottie Gallagher is President and CEO, Buffalo Niagara Partnership.

Commentary: Changing New York's emissions accounting would be a grave mistake

Anshul Gupta
Times Union
 Page |7

May 30, 2023

Ever since New York passed its landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in
2019, fossil fuel and biofuels interests have vigorously advocated for weakening its targets. Some of
these efforts recently culminated in a bill to partly eviscerate the law through changes to the state’s
accounting methodology for its climate pollution.

After an uproar, Gov. Kathy Hochul withdrew her support for an egregious provision of the bill that
would have substantially undercounted the near-term climate impact of methane — the principal
component of “natural” gas that traps 83 times more heat than carbon dioxide within 20 years and
that leaks during its every application, from drilling to distribution to domestic appliances. But that
controversy drowned out other questionable provisions of the bill that could still be on the table,
like classifying biomethane as renewable energy and using spurious life-cycle accounting for the
associated emissions. 

The CLCPA created a Climate Action Council comprising scientists, industry and labor
representatives, environmental justice leaders and state agency heads. After rigorous analyses,
extensive public comments and thousands of hours of cumulative work, the council developed the
state’s Scoping Plan — specific recommendations for a just and affordable energy transition —
which were based on the state’s current approach to emissions accounting. A legislative bid to
rewrite that approach is not only an affront to the council’s hard work, it is scientifically erroneous. 

Life-cycle accounting, in general, is indeed a rational notion; we must and do care about the
upstream and downstream impacts of the products we consume. However, the specific model being
proposed in the new bill is deeply flawed and introduces a loophole for subverting science and
opening the door to unclean out-of-state biomethane euphemistically dubbed as “renewable
natural gas,” or RNG.

RNG, which is substantially purified methane, can be obtained by refining the biogas captured from
landfills and waste treatment. Intercepting the biogas before it escapes into the atmosphere is
beneficial, but RNG derived from natural biogas can replace only a minuscule fraction of fossil gas.
Producing RNG at meaningful scales will entail artificially coaxing extra biogas from organic waste
streams such as livestock manure using industrial systems called anaerobic digesters. 

The storage and transportation of manure for RNG production results in significant methane
releases. It is this methane that is believed to have caused the recent explosion and fire at a Texas
farm with an RNG facility in which 18,000 cows perished. Refining biogas into RNG consumes
energy and releases even more methane. As a result, the real global warming potential of RNG isn’t
lower than that of fossil gas. 

The federal life-cycle analysis model developed at the Argonne National Laboratory

grossly undercounts the methane emissions from RNG production because instead of real
measurements, it uses watered-down estimates based on industry self-reporting. And whatever
little it counts is diluted over a 100-year timeframe, when methane causes almost all its warming
within a decade of release.
 Page |8

Capturing and using unrefined biogas onsite is economical, and the state’s policies should
encourage it. But on a large scale, RNG is not only environmentally unsound, it is significantly more
expensive than fossil gas, and its supplies will be limited. Every aspect of New York's greenhouse
gas accounting is grounded in solid science, and the state is right in rejecting this life-cycle model
for RNG.

Anshul Gupta is a senior policy analyst with New Yorkers for Clean Power and a steering committee
member of the NY Climate Reality Chapters Coalition.

Public weighs in on New York State's $4.2 billion environmental bond act
Matt Glynn
Buffalo News
May 30, 2023

New York State voters last year approved a $4.2 billion bond act focused on safeguarding the
environment.

Now, it's time to start deciding how to put the funding to use.

The state kicked off that process on Tuesday at the University at Buffalo's North Campus, with the
first of a series of "listening tour" sessions that will be held around the state. State officials outlined
the environmental bond act's objectives and welcomed feedback on what types of projects ought to
be funded. 

The bond act focuses on four major categories: restoration and flood risk reduction; water quality
improvement and resilient infrastructure; open space land conservation and recreation; and
climate change mitigation.

"We're going to strengthen critical infrastructure, protect our communities from these storms and
the severe flooding," said Gov. Kathy Hochul. "We're already building a strong track record for
getting these projects under way and funded, including right here in the Buffalo region."

Hochul predicted the bond act will have an impact on Western New York through "countless
projects."

"We're going to be jump-starting a whole new level of collaboration with the people on the ground,
elected leaders, our advocates and people who are involved in the science of this," she said. "We're
going to avert future disasters, but also we need to protect vulnerable populations."

At least 35% of the bond act's funding will be directed toward disadvantaged communities.

"These are the communities that have been subjected to the most pollution over time," said Jessica
Ottney Mahar, the Nature Conservancy's New York director of policy and strategy. "They're ready –
they're ready for less asthma, they're ready for less heart disease. They're ready for less pollution."

Mahar said the environmental bond act will build on allocations in the latest state budget, including
$400 million for environmental protection fund and $500 million for clean water infrastructure.
 Page |9

Hochul said the environmental bond act is expected to create 84,000 jobs that will include labor
provisions.

"You don't have to choose between environmental preservation and economic prosperity. They're
intertwined, they're not inconsistent," she said.

The "listening tour" sessions are designed to provide more information to the public and potential
funding applicants.

Michelle Lockett, community engagement director for Niagara River Greenway, said her "eyes lit
up" when she heard open space planning mentioned as part of the environmental bond act. She is
co-chair of Grand Island's open space planning committee.

"I am interested in learning how we can get some funding to help develop the plan and also
implement it," Lockett said.

An open space plan sets a vision for determining which land in a municipality should be devoted to
recreation, development and preservation.

"Grand Island's got a lot of green space," Lockett said. "We want to preserve and protect that. But
there's also people who want to obviously bring more development in. So we're trying to find a nice
balance. Having a plan to do that is a way to go."

Suzanne Schafer, a retired nurse who lives in Kenmore, attended Tuesday's session to learn more
about the bond act.

"I'm just an average taxpayer," Schafer said. "When they do a project, I like to see the results of the
project. They can say they're going to throw a lot, a lot of money to a particular project, but what's
the outcome?"

A total of 10 listening sessions, including two in a virtual format, are scheduled through late
August. 

"We're working on getting the money out the door as soon as possible," Hochul said. "Everybody
knows how impatient I am."

National Grid on New York emissions reduction target: 'It's 78 months 'till 2030'
Susan Arbetter
State of Politics
May 30, 2023

New York's move toward electrification is a massive undertaking, and the timeline to
implement it is aggressive. Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
(CLCPA), the state must reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. That’s in less
than seven years. 

“It’s a crunch; it’s 78 months ‘till 2030,” said Bart Franey, the vice president of Clean
Energy Development at National Grid. “That’s like tomorrow for us.”
 P a g e | 10

To meet that goal, the state must electrify its energy grid. A grid that utilizes electricity can
be powered by renewable energy sources like solar, hydro and wind, rather than fossil
fuels. It’s the reason the new state budget includes a mandate to build new homes that use
electricity rather than gas starting in 2026.  

On Wednesday at the Renaissance Hotel in Albany, the publication  City & State   will be
holding a major summit on electrification in New York.  The theme of the event is how New
York is building an affordable, reliable and equitable electrified future.  
Franey will be one of the speakers. 

“We need a lot of tools. A lot of tools in the toolbox, including some very aggressive energy
efficiency. Customers have to play a big part in reducing usage or shifting usage," Franey
said.

Building new infrastructure before 2030 is also key, according to Franey.  

“I see this as being an all-hands on deck approach,” he explained. "It’s markets and private
industry, but also you need regulated utilities to play a role in the transition.”

According to the recently passed state budget, starting in 2026, newly built homes will
need to be wired for electric cooking and heat. While there is no requirement in statute to
retrofit existing homes, it is mentioned in New York’s Scoping Plan.

But retrofitting can be costly. According to Cornell’s Dr. Bob Howarth, a member of the
Climate Action Council, one idea would be to have utilities like National Grid pay for the
retrofits, and then have ratepayers simply pay the utility back over time via their energy
bills.   

According to Franey, the utility typically lets consumers make their own decisions on
investments.

“That would be something that would be totally up to the customer to do,” he said. “In
some cases, it may not be cost prohibitive.”

Franey is referring to rebate and retrofit programs introduced by both National Grid and
NYSERDA. 

Here’s more information on both: 

https://www.nysenergyaudits.com/service-category/national-grid-total-home-comfort-
program/
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/61172.pdf
https://www9.nationalgridus.com/non_html/2010_EI_Lighting_PIF_RI.pdf
https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/RetrofitNY-Program

Pursuing opportunities within New York’s electrification goals

Ralph R. Ortega
City & State
May 31, 2023
 P a g e | 11

New York’s decarbonization goals present lofty challenges for generators, distributors and
consumers, but the electrification transition also comes with immense opportunity, according to
industry leaders, policy makers and advocates at City & State’s Electrification Summit in Albany
Wednesday.

Among the main topics at the summit was the state’s ambitious Climate Leadership and Community
Protection Act. Signed into law by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2019, the act requires the state to
reduce “economy-wide” greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 and no less than 85% by 2050
from 1990 levels. 

Energy professionals also have cautioned that the state’s decarbonization goals include the
requirement that 70% of energy be developed by renewable sources by 2030, which may be
difficult to achieve. Speakers at the summit acknowledged the complexities of reaching the state’s
goals, but noted the opportunity for jobs and economic development electrification offers, among
other benefits. 

"The CLCPA is one of the most advanced challenges in the world. It requires adapting our systems
and innovating new ones,” Bryan Grimaldi, vice president of corporate affairs at National Grid and
emcee of the summit told attendees gathered at the historic Renaissance Albany Hotel. National
Grid along with Clean Path NY sponsored the event. 

Delivering a keynote address, John O’Leary, deputy secretary for energy and environment in Gov.
Kathy Hochul’s administration, underscored the governor’s push to enact the CLCPA across five
pillars: reliability, decarbonization, environmental justice, and economic development. O’leary also
spoke of environmental initiatives in the recently approved state budget, including a controversial
requirement that some new buildings be decarbonized beginning in 2025. Other challenges facing
the state’s climate goals, according to O’Leary, include inflation and geopolitical instability. “As we
navigate these headwinds, we have to be nimble, and there are tailwinds too,” O’Leary said.

Pivoting to opportunities, O’Leary mentioned how incentivizing electric vehicles could potentially
benefit power producers and the New York Independent System Operator by providing more
consistent demand in non-peak times such as overnight. 

He also promoted the Hochul administration’s push to ensure energy affordability during the
transition, including the newly enacted state budget’s provision of $200 million to support utility
customers making less than the state’s median income and $200 million towards the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority’s EmPower Plus program to subsidize home
electrical retrofits.

"For all of you, everything here will continue to generate a massive signal, market signal, political
signal, for the deployment of clean energy technologies, products and services that will allow us to
decarbonize and make this transition in a just and equitable way,” O’Leary told attendees.

A diverse set of panelists followed to discuss building electrification in New York, affordability and
equity and reliability. Represented on the panels were the Public Utility Law Project, Alliance for
Clean Energy, NYS Builders Association, Building Decarbonization Coalition, New York Independent
System Operator and Independent Power Producers of New York, among others.
 P a g e | 12

Delivering a second keynote address was Justin E. Driscoll, acting president and CEO of the New
York Power Authority. “As the largest owner and operator of the high-voltage grid in our state, we
at NYPA are laser-focused on electrification efforts and the interplay with our system,” he told
attendees. “Also,we are also working closely with our government customers as they look to
electrify their operations as well.”

Driscoll noted that utility executives, lawmakers and officials, as well as business leaders have
“useful ideas and perspectives” on decarbonization in the state. “While strategies and tactics will
differ, we are aligned in our collective desire to achieve a cleaner, healthier New York for this and
future generations,” he said. 

The NYPA will embark on “considerable preparation, hard work, and, yes, continuing scientific and
engineering breakthrough” in the months ahead, according to Driscoll, who added that the
Authority, in its “desire to achieve substantial progress” will consider every possible option. “No
potential solution is off the table,” he said.

Driscoll later detailed the Authority's efforts to help transform New York’s grid to meet the state’s
decarbonization goals. “In fact, over the next two years, we will spend nearly one billion dollars on
transmission projects,” he said. “This considerable investment will play a major role in helping to
achieve the Hochul Administration’s bold energy aspirations.”

He also spoke of “leveraging private sector dollars through strategic collaborations to minimize the
cost and risk to New Yorkers,” noting a collaboration with Clean Path NY on a renewable energy
and transmission project. “This effort is a great example of what is being achieved as some of the
best minds of the public and private sector come together to change the energy landscape,” he said. 

The project involves building out 175 miles of new, underground, high-voltage DC transmission,
with 105 miles being built within existing NYPA rights-of-way. The effort will reduce the impact to
local communities along the route. Partnering on the project is Invenergy and energyRE. The plan
pairs a NYPA investment with a private-sector investment of $11 billion, making it one of the
largest infrastructure projects in the country, he said.

Thousands of NYC buildings still burn dirty fuels, as owners struggle with looming ban
Rosemary Misdary and David Brand
Gothamist
May 30, 2023

Landlords of roughly 2,800 buildings still use No. 4 heating oil, a major source of air pollution in
New York City. But some building owners say they don’t feel prepared to pivot to cleaner
alternatives as mandated, despite government-funded incentives to help make the switch.

This fuel source is now on a fast track to being abolished citywide, after the New York City
Council voted in February to accelerate a ban. Akin to the new restrictions on gas stove hookups,
the ban on No. 4 fuel oil is necessary for improving the city's air quality and reducing the effects of
climate change, but landlords say the up-front expenses of phasing out heating oil has created
logistical costs and hurdles.
 P a g e | 13

With the accelerated ban, residential buildings must stop using No. 4 oil by July 2027. Over a decade
ago, city officials had originally set a prohibition date of 2030. Likewise, city-owned structures will
stop using No. 4 fuel oil years earlier than originally planned, with its ban taking hold in 2025.

“A lot of red tape,” said Vinny Gjonaj, the landlord and owner of a 78-unit apartment building
located at 2800 Jerome Ave. in the Bronx. He said he has tried unsuccessfully to make the switch.

“[City officials] ask you to do something, and then they just throw grenades in front of your path on
everything,” Gjonaj said.

2800 Jerome Ave., a 78-unit building in the Bronx, is attempting to convert from No.4 heating oil to
natural gas.

Under the original ban adopted in 2011, about 10,000 buildings had to begin the process of
transitioning away from heavier fuel oils. Fuel oils are any liquid forms of petroleum that are
combusted in a furnace or boiler for the purpose of heating. They are graded No. 1 through No.
6 based on their boiling point, thickness and weight.

Fuel Oil No. 6, which the city phased out by 2015, comes directly from the bottom of petroleum
barrels. It is used in a 50-50 mix to make No. 4, the dirtiest heating source still available in New
York City.

A single building can burn huge amounts of fuel oil. During the cold season, the six-story complex at
2800 Jerome Ave. burns about 2,000 gallons weekly of No. 4 fuel oil, according to Gjonaj, the
landlord. That spews nearly 300 metric tons of carbon dioxide during an average winter — the
weight of pumping around 50 T-Rexes into the air.

The weight of pumping around 50 T-Rexes into the air.

All heating oils negatively affect human health. Their dark, billowing columns of smoke contain an
unhealthy cloud of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, nickel and black carbon – also
known as soot. And most of the 2,800 properties still burning No. 4 fuel oil are located in northern
Manhattan or the Bronx, which are home to predominantly lower-income communities of color
with disproportionate rates of asthma and respiratory illness.

The City Council referenced human health concerns, global warming and the approximately $130
million spent annually by the city in health care when considering the bill. And Mayor Eric Adams
signed the bill into law in March, citing the need for environmental justice.

“Removing these harmful emissions will prevent deaths, lifelong respiratory illnesses, and
emergency room visits for asthma attacks every year,” said Councilmember James Gennaro, a
Queens Democrat who sponsored the legislation to hasten the transition.

But making the change isn’t cheap and comes with the cumbersome process of replacing fuel oil
boilers at residences, some of which are old structures.

Gjonaj estimates he’ll spend about a half million dollars to switch the fuel source from No. 4 fuel oil
to natural gas at four of his eight buildings, including at 2800 Jerome Ave. in Kingsbridge Heights.
 P a g e | 14

“For landlords, believe it or not, it's like the big topic for the last eight years,” Gjonaj said. “They
don't want to proceed with the job because of the aspect of paying all that money at once.”

Building owner Vinny Gjonaj says he is in the process of changing four of his buildings from No. 4
fuel oil to natural gas. He estimated it will cost about a half million dollars.

David Brand
Building owners have basically two options for replacing No. 4. They can transition to natural gas,
which is much cleaner to burn and can involve a quick switch-out of boilers. But this path comes
with additional infrastructure expenses.

Gjonaj said he hired a contractor to handle the switch to natural gas six years ago, but the
contractor failed to get the necessary permits before going bankrupt. Unused gas lines run through
Gjonaj’s basement. He said he paid about $93,000 to install the gas lines and run tests to identify
leaks. He estimates the final cost will reach up to $130,000 — “a hefty chunk of change.”

Alternatively, landlords can opt for a more expensive solution: electric heating. While this choice
costs more in the short-term, it puts a New York CIty building ahead-of-schedule for future
compliance under Local Law 97, which plans to begin phasing out natural gas in most buildings
starting in 2024.

Pivoting to electric heat comes with more city and state incentives than the natural gas option.
Grants and low-interest loans are available through the city’s Accelerator program, which is
intended to help building owners meet the requirements of stricter environmental laws.

The building boiler is the size of a UHaul truck. It’s powered by No. 4 fuel oil.

David Brand
While the amount each building owner is eligible for in funding can vary tremendously, depending
on size, financial need, costs and scope, there is the potential to get a substantial portion of it paid
for, especially if energy efficiency upgrades are included.

Gjonaj said he has only sought modest subsidies from the government because more low-cost
financing or grants come with additional oversight.

“When you're talking about replacing fuel furnaces, there's usually significant ancillary work to be
performed around it,” said Matthew Bremer, president of the New York chapter of the American
Institute of Architects. “In New York City, it becomes a huge issue, whether it's a rental building
with a landlord who very often is not interested in upgrading heating for obvious financial reasons
or for cooperatives it can be a hugely expensive proposition.”

Given its difficulties making the pivot, 2800 Jerome Ave. still relies on a hulking, 5,000-gallon oil
tank to power a U-Haul-sized boiler that delivers heat and hot water to residents. The tank sits in a
cement room that is sealed off from the rest of the basement and big enough to contain a spill.
 P a g e | 15

“It looks like a submarine,” Gjonaj said during a tour of the building’s inner workings last month.
“And that's what generates our fuel and our heat to keep the tenants warm and happy.”

Oil delivery trucks visit once a week to refuel the tank through a portal near the front steps, said
Arsen Qemalli, who’s been the building’s superintendent for more than a decade.

Superintendent Arsen Qemalli inspects the port where heat oil is pumped into the building. Trucks
refill the tank every week in the winter.

“Sometimes the oil comes [delivered] too dirty, it clogs the [boiler’s oil] filter and they have to close
the pipe,” Qemalli said. “I clean it [oil filter] every day, and when the oil comes dirty, I clean twice
that day.”

Their address and the other 2,800 residential buildings still using No. 4 fuel oil are a fraction of the
roughly 825,000 buildings with at least one unit in New York City. Yet this select group generates
pollution that not only can sicken their immediate neighborhoods but also contribute broader
environmental harms, such as acid rain upstate or global warming.

In 2021, the number of New York City residential buildings that are reliant on No. 4 fuel oil
produced about 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, combined – or about the weight of the Empire
State Building plus two U.S. naval aircraft carriers. Other “indirect greenhouse gases” come from
burning fuel oil, including nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. They contribute to
the creation of ozone, which harms health and worsens warming.

Many air pollutants have declined in New York City over the last decade according to recent air
quality studies. Public health experts attributed these improvements to the city’s phase-out of
different fuel oils.

“Air pollution is the number four leading cause of preventable deaths around the world, and so any
traction that we can make on reducing air pollution is good in my book,” said Daniel Carrion,
director of education for Climate Change and Health at Yale School of Public Health.

The most deadly substance among fuel oil emissions is fine particulate matter, PM2.5, which is so
small, it can penetrate the lungs and further.

“Some of those particles can get deep down into our lungs, and then a subset of those particles can
actually make it into our bloodstream, and they can get into systemic circulation and impact almost
every single part of our body,” Carrion said.

Exposure to PM2.5 is linked to a long list of respiratory diseases including reduced lung capacity.
The pollutant increases the risk of hospitalizations, emergency room visits and premature death.

“It's also an exacerbator of existing health conditions,” said Dr. Diana Hernandez, associate
professor of sociomedical sciences at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Other
fuel pollutants — such as nickel — can elevate cardiovascular and kidney diseases along with
cancers in the respiratory tract. Black carbon, another byproduct of fuel oil combustion, is linked to
similar health impacts, including birth defects such as low birth weights, respiratory problems and
premature birth.
 P a g e | 16

According to a 2014 study, completely discontinuing the use of all fuel oils in residential New York
City buildings could avoid nearly 300 premature deaths, about 200 hospital visits for respiratory
and cardiovascular illnesses and 550 trips to the emergency room for asthma, annually.

“Moving towards electric is really the holy grail with regard to both climate change and with regard
to health,” Carrion said.