Thread by @PeteSikora1

I got a bunch of questions yesterday: what’s next in the process on Local Law 97?

1. This particular (big) rule-making is primarily items that must be set into place by the end of the year, as per LL97. This rule will be finalized by then. Major action looms:
🧵

2. Rule-making is governed by city law. The administration develops a proposed rule, then vets it with the law dept. Then they propose it in the city record. This is that page: a856-cityrecord.nyc.gov It’s the city’s version of when the EPA or something makes a rule/regulation.

3. After the rule is formally posted, there’s a 30 day public comment period and a public hearing. Yesterday’s public hearing (what a turnout from LL97 supporters!) was the hearing on this proposed rule.

4. After the comment period, the agency is obligated to consider the comments. At any time, they can finalize their proposed rule. 30 days later, it becomes the rule. That is, it applies the same way a law. (If ur a lawyer plz correct me here but that’s basically it)

5. So: the fastest this could go is 60 days: posting of draft rule; 30 days of public comment and hearing; posting of final rule; after 30 more days it’s set.

6. In this case, we expect the city to post this proposed rule’s final version sooner rather than later. Barring some extremely weird circumstances, it’ll be in place by the end of the year. (As required by LL97. That’s basically it for this. BUT more action is coming soon:

7. The REC issue is a mess. They must tightly limit RECs or landlords will be able to buy RECs instead of upgrading their buildings. The administration says they will propose further rec limits beyond the far too-lax limit proposed in this rule making.

8. They say they want to study the issue further. Speaking for NYCC: this had better be getting into place by around mid/late February. That’s plenty of time to examine the issue and make decisions.

9. It’s common knowledge among insider that the law’s Advisory Council, which I am on, has weighed in on this issue. This decision on RECs isn’t a “technical” decision. It’s fundamentally a values based judgment: to what extent do owners get to buy RECs, not upgrade.

10. Our answer is: RECs should be limited to only up to 30% of the pollution over a building’s particular cap and only to pollution from electrical use. That is a properly tight limit that fulfills the law’s purpose. In contrast, electrical only, as proposed, guts the law.

11. The other HUGE issue that will be proposed soon is enforcement. That is, what are the procedures and standards governing enforcement. This includes the rules around what constitutes a “good faith” effort to satisfy the law, which is language from the law.

12. That definition cannot become a exploitable loophole in the law. Penalties can’t be delayed or weakened. The department has the discretion under the law to deal with outlier, unusual circumstances.

13. Too many housing laws are toothless because they are unenforced or easy to game. That cannot be LL97’s fate.

We expect these draft rules to also be issued in the coming months.

14. There are also other rules necessary to fully implement the law. But RECs and enforcement are the biggies that could be used to gut the law.

The next, say, 6 months will very likely decide these issues.

15 and fin: Mayor Adams must not gut or severely weaken the law at the behest of the real estate lobby, which wants loopholes to evade the law’s requirements.

Oops adding our hashtag so people can look this thread up more easily #GreenNewDeal4NYC

Also here’s a link to NYCC’s testimony on this proposed rule (proposed Oct 11), which goes into some depth:
docs.google.com/document/d/12v…

*To be clear: in 10 I mean nycc’s answer and recommendation.