>> good evening and welcome to MetroFocus.

In 2019, the New York City Council passed a groundbreaking climate law designed to drastically reduce carbon emissions by setting strict limits on the biggest polluters, buildings.

The law part of the mayor's New York City renew deal was hailed at the time of the model for how cities can take bold action on climate change.

A recent report revealed on the clock ticking, many homeowners are facing a tough time, facing million of dollars of penalties if they fail.

Infrastructure updates are costly, especially for the oldest apartment buildings.

Some more than a century old.

Property owners feel they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Adapting the law would weaken the city's efforts to go green.

Joining me to talk about the issue as part of the ongoing promise initiative on climate change and solutions is Stefanos Chen.

Thank you so much for joining us.

It was a fascinating article that you wrote.

I will admit not living in New York City, I was not familiar with all of the details.

Let's start off with the backdrop to help viewers understand this.

How was it that the law came about back in 2019.

>> in 2019 when they passed the landmark bills attempting to curb the carbon emissions to do something about climate change.

I think what a lot of folks don't realize is our biggest polluter in New York City is not trucks outside, though they are a big component, it is buildings.

In New York, having one of the dirtiest housing stocks in the country has quite a lot to retrofit an upgrade.

>> that was one of the more fascinating aspects.

It was not all of the trucks and traffic coming in and out, it was buildings.

That is the backdrop.

Give us a sense of what this law , this series of laws, what do they provide?

>> a framework for stopping climate change to a degree that we believe, the scientific community believes, can be sufficient to prevent the worst catastrophic climate change events in the future.

And there are very rigid dates in which we want to get this done.

The loss outline by 2030, significant carbon emission reduction we need.

2040, 2050.

If we don't hit these mile markers, we are in trouble -- it is too late, to make those changes.

>> then the introduction there could be hefty penalties, what kind of penalties might we be talking about?

>> I the criticism from some is this is a law with a lot of steak and no carrots is the way it is described.

Also important that the penalties are to dis-incentivize building owners, whether it is condo, rental building, office buildings, and to do that, they have created a measure, this complicated formula by which they measure at the end of the year how much carbon the building has put out.

If you are in excess of that goal, you will be fined for this carbon emission.

Most buildings by 2024, the first major hurdle, will pass this.

Those that don't have huge fees.

By 2030, the first giant hurdle buildings have to cross, some buildings are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars a year they will have to pay.

Thinking of some of the condos, if you have ever been one of these meetings, a lot of these buildings don't have the deep reserves to pay for that year on year.

>> you point to a number of particular situations.

One I was struck by with a conversation with a man who works in the realm of climate change.

And he is in one of these positions where they have to make some hard decisions.

Give us a sense of his situation and why it was so ironic.

>> it was interesting we interviewed a person very much behind preventing the worst of climate change.

He has a PhD, specifically these issues of climate change mitigation and the waste due to buildings.

When he gets home after his day job, he's on the board of his condo.

He has a more than 100-year-old brick building in New York that just recently had to fight all sorts of issues to get off of oil in the building.

Some of the dirtiest oil in the buildings.

Now you have a building struggling to get up-to-date because of the costs involved with it and construction is expensive in the city.

Now they have this decision to make with a hard deadline that says you've got to cut down emissions by this much by 2030.

There is no clear way for them to do it.

Adding solar panels to the roof, putting in what are called the split heating systems that are electric instead of the gas boiler or the oil boiler?

All of these comes with trade-offs and different costs.

It is hard to run up these systems through old buildings.

He's telling me he's got to spend over $600,000 to spend as of today and be compliant with city rules.

All of these other projects are on top of those costs.

As much as he wants to hit these goals, he's worried he's got to convince everyone else to go along with it.

Indecisive means nothing gets done in the building and they are facing fees.

>> another one of the telling illustrations you used was a housing complex Queens.

A series of homes.

Tell us about that situation and their particular problems.

>> the thing about New York housing stock, not only is it old, but it is Corky and really out of the gambit in terms of what you're looking at.

It is a co-op community.

But when you think of a co-op, you think of one vertical building, brick.

This is near the border of Long Island where it is on over 100 acres, if you look on the street, they look like several dozen single-family, two family homes.

They are considered a single co-op entity under this law.

This 100 acre property, they also have to comply with these rules.

The estimate that the co-op board owner has come up with is just to go all electric as has been suggested to them to get out of the gas and oil systems, would cost somewhere in the range of $30 million.

When he crunches the numbers on that, it seems he would have to raise maintenance on these numbers, many of them elderly folks.

He's struggling those concerns.

There is also a reluctance and cynicism because they feel as though they have already complied with recent changes to the law.

Change to natural gas, they thought natural gas was clean.

Making these changes, will it come back to me in a few years and say I have not done enough?

>> I was going to ask about that.

You talk about the notion of increasing standards as we go along here five years, 10 years, 15 years.

The problems that that provides for landlord-tenant owners.

>> these are going to be staggered goals.

They only get harder from here.

That is why the buildings really have to start being forward-looking.

Many of them in conversations have not given this much serious thought, which is troubling.

These are projects that will take years to get going.

Think about those that take place on these boards for anyone on board anyone is willing to increase the common charges or the maintenance fees to pay for this stuff.

20 or 30 is not far away.

2024, the first year buildings can start to get penalized based on what they do is around a corner.

It is only going to get harder.

The decision they make today has to future proof them for years to come.

>> is there any prospect of financial health for state government or the federal government?

>> there are several programs both city and state are offering.

There are loans and grants.

Financial help for these buildings.

Right now, it is an issue of communicating these programs to the boards.

Helping them understand what is available.

There is still confusion.

The department building still has to rule on important contours of this law.

The main one is local law 97.

There will be a group of them that may get -- under something called good faith exemptions.

Buildings that have tried their best but can prove they can't do anymore under certain conditions.

May not to have pay as much penalties for instance.

That guidance has not come out yet.

There is also concerned about whether there may be loopholes in this law.

A lot of environmental advocacy groups are concerned they fought this fight to get the law on the books, and now that there are large industry special interest groups who will carve out enough holes that it makes the law ineffective.

>> are there any talks taking place, any movements that might result in either pushing some of these deadlines back or creating some sort of amendments to the laws?

>> there is a councilmember in Northeast Queens who has sponsored a bill to essentially pause this law for seven years.

The thinking is it will give homeowners more time to get their ducks in a row, get ready for this.

The concern is it is kicking the can down the road.

We already know through substantial research that this is coming one way or the other.

We cannot postpone what is seemingly inevitable.

If we don't cut down on these emissions, we are in deep trouble.

New York is one of the biggest cities and is being looked at.

If New York kicks the can down the road, what does it mean for the other municipalities who have adopted similar laws?

Do you anticipate that there will be changes or a pause impose on these laws?

>> Hard to say.

As you mentioned earlier, it was Bill de Blasio's big push.

We were under a different administration.

As of today, Department of buildings, agencies involved are saying that they are committed to doing this and enforcing this.

We also know that Mayor Adams has made sharp cuts in the budgets of these same agencies and will be required to enforce the laws.

It is an open question.

>> stuff enough chen, it was a marvelous article, well reported.

Certainly very revealing.

We appreciate you spending time with us.

We will check in with you as it moves on to see what progress is taking place.

Thank you so much.

>> thank you.