Despite the well-established role fossil fuels play in the acceleration of climate change and its dire consequences, converting to renewable or ‘green’ energy raises big questions for multifamily communities. While generally supported (in theory, at least) by many condo and co-op boards and residents, government mandates aimed at reducing the use of oil and gas in favor of renewables can come with serious engineering challenges and a hefty price tag—which can put communities in a structural and financial bind. 

Environmental Urgency vs. Economic Reality

The question for many shared-interest communities (particularly those in dense urban areas with older housing stock) is how this shift away from fossil fuels can be made economically and efficiently—and in some cases, whether it can be made at all. The infrastructure necessary for conversion to an electric or other ‘green’ energy system is often the polar opposite of what currently exists in most residential buildings in these areas. 

For that reason, some pros note that perhaps the most efficient (though often overlooked) way to save on energy and counter climate change is conservation, plain and simple. Richard Costello, president of Acela Energy Group located in Norfolk, Massachusetts, says that efficiency and conservation are the starting point to controlling and reducing your building’s energy usage. He recommends getting energy usage under control before employing new technology. 

“For conservation in individual units,” he says, “the best thing you can do is to control both heating and cooling to control energy consumption. Get a digital thermostat; it’s the single most important thing one can do. Most residences in New England will have some kind of HVAC system, either individual to the unit or part of a main system for the building. Installing digital thermostats and letting them do their job will save money as well as energy. That means that individual residents cannot override the system. Let it work. Don’t change it to your comfort level.”

Most multifamily buildings are designed with a single building-wide heating or dual HVAC system that serves all the units in the building from a single common source. By contrast, electrification generally requires per-unit systems, and that typically means installing individual heat pumps that only serve one unit apiece (though that may be evolving too). In trying to comply with new emissions restrictions, many communities are facing the prospect not only of expensive retrofits, but also rising utility costs after the fact—neither of which may have factored into the bottom line when these long term projects were undertaken. 

So again, while the goal of a neutral carbon footprint is admirable, the question shared-interest communities are faced with is how to get there without breaking the bank.  

Taking a Closer Look

Like most large projects, something like electrification should be undertaken carefully and step-by-step. Each building is different, and factors including age, building type, building size, and existing HVAC systems and technology must be considered before it’s determined whether electrification is even an option. 

“Electrification is an important and worthwhile challenge,” says Antonio Argibay, managing principal of Meridian Design Associated, an architectural firm with offices in New York and Miami. “Yes, it is feasible for older apartment buildings, but the conversion must be carefully planned. It’s necessary to phase it in. That can mean upgrading electrical risers by vertical lines of apartments, gradually abandoning gas as apartments convert to electric systems and appliances. The key is to reduce demand first (especially through building envelope improvements) so systems like heat pumps perform efficiently, and the transition becomes a practical long-term roadmap rather than a disruptive one-time conversion.”

Others feel differently. For his part, Costello believes that the future is efficiency over electrification. “Electrification costs too much,” he says. “Instead, install an artificial intelligence (AI) system to improve the operating efficiency of your boiler. The payback on an AI system is three years without any incentives from a public utility. The payback on electrification is 15 years—10 years with incentives. In the end, electrification doesn’t save energy—it just uses it differently.”  

And according to Kyle MacKenzie, a principal with Polise Consulting Engineers, a mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) consulting firm that works with buildings across the country, “The upfront costs of fully electrifying and adding energy efficiency measures can greatly offset the benefit of the energy efficiency measures,” he says. “There is a need for a life cycle cost-and-benefit analysis to determine if the conversion is worth it. The problem is that today we are required by law to reduce our carbon footprint. You’d be fined if you didn’t do so. The truth is that sometimes even the fine can be less than the cost [of compliance].”

For older buildings grappling with the decision whether to undertake a major energy upgrade, “The first step is and always should be an evaluation of the existing electrical infrastructure,” says Richard Hahn, division manager M.E.T. for national engineering consultancy Falcon Engineering. “It’s critical to know what’s feasible from a capital standpoint. Determine the capacity of your existing equipment, and complete an analysis of current electrical bills to determine how the property uses electricity. Once you have that identified, you can figure out what projects to undertake without a massive upgrade and extensive refitting.”

It’s also critical to complete a formal electrical load analysis for your property. You need to know more than the building’s total amperage; the key is to understand how power is distributed through the risers, apartment panels, and common areas, how future loads like heat pumps, induction cooking, and EV charging will be phased in, and most importantly, how windows and envelope improvements will play into the phasing.

Once you’ve determined what your starting point is through thorough engineering studies, the potential difficulty of changing existing systems must be considered. “Often, for existing buildings it’s very difficult from all engineering perspectives,” says MacKenzie. “Any new system to convert heating and hot water production from fossil fuels to electric is a major overhaul. The real problem is systems-based, not just age-based. If a building is to be converted from an all cast-iron radiation system to an electric system, it may pay to electrify the boiler rather than to rip out the steam pipe system.” In other words, much like a car, a hybrid system may be a better, more feasible economical change than full electrification.

Pros & Cons for Daily Life

“The main benefit [of converting away from fossil fuels] is that [electrical] heat pumps are exclusive to the individual units, as opposed to a central system,” says Doug Weinstein, senior vice president of operations for AKAM Management, which has offices in New York and Florida. “Heat pumps don’t require fossil fuels, so they are considered more eco-friendly. Also, if a central system goes down—say the boiler crashes—you lose service buildingwide. If a heat pump breaks down, only one unit is affected. 

“Alternatively, because heat pumps are electric, the whole building would be affected in the event of a blackout,” he continues. “Another serious problem with installing heat pumps is that the units require fresh air input—so if the building doesn’t have provisions for fresh air, you have to cut into the exterior envelope in every unit for additional fresh air intakes.

“Yet another consideration is that the physical viability of the conversion depends to a great extent on the physical characteristics of your property,” Weinstein adds. “If the conversion requires installation of new electrical conduits throughout the building, it may require cutting into someone’s unit. Lastly, the cabinet dimensions from radiators to heat pumps are different, and may interfere with individual built-ins in specific units.”

Finding the Right Path

While many communities are faced with compliance requirements under local ordinances such as New York City’s Local Law 97, there is also the question of how exactly to plan and execute the changes needed to comply. Should the shift to electrification be completed in one massive project, or would it be more physically and economically manageable to make the shift incrementally, say unit by unit?

“Unit-by-unit systems allow buildings to phase the transition over time as apartments renovate,” says Argibay, “avoiding a massive upfront special assessment. The downside is managing electrical upgrades at every unit panel, finding acceptable exterior locations for condensers, and dealing with DOB or Landmarks approvals for facade penetrations. Centralized systems keep the heavy machinery off the facade and in the mechanical rooms, but they require major vertical shaft space for piping and almost always demand a whole-building, all-at-once capital investment.”

Hahn explains that, “In general, the newer the building, the easier it is to convert.  What is frequently overlooked is the building façade work entailed to make the change from an old fashioned boiler and radiator system to heat pumps. Heat pumps need a cut into the façade of the building to create air exchange which the heat pump requires. There is a significant cost associated with this façade work along with an electrical upgrade. There’s also the question of serviceability. Boilers have long lives, and a competent super can get you through most problems with an old system. Whereas heat pumps, which have a short life span, are finicky. You need a manufacturer-approved technician to fix them, and there can be delays with getting people to the building to make repairs.”

MacKenzie notes that there are centralized heating and cooling systems that run on electricity and are the better option for some. “Say there’s a chiller on the roof that has air-to-water exchange and does both heating and cooling,” he says. “I now view these as an option for moving an existing property towards compliance, though it depends on the building and structure. In a more modern building it’s likely the cooling system can easily be transformed to electrified cooling and heating with the same amount of power. Domestic hot water must be considered as well.” 

And, he points out, “Another consideration where there may be major complications is whether the grid can accommodate the new load, especially in the winter. Our grid is built for the summer now, but the winter peak will be a very big issue. Heat pumps are less effective at lower temperatures.” That may be another argument for a hybrid system. 

The Cost of Compliance & Today’s Reality

Most people acknowledge that the climate concerns prompting legislation like New York’s Local Law 97 and similar laws elsewhere are well intentioned and necessary; everyone benefits from the shift away from pollutants like fossil fuels and reducing their long-term effect on our planet. But some of the assumptions underlying the shift have themselves shifted.  

For example, at the time the legislation was written and passed, much of the renewable energy that would be supplied to the grid to increase its capacity was projected to come from wind power. The present administration is opposed to wind energy, and has effectively short circuited the growth of wind power. Current estimates on what the cost of power from the grid will be, as well as capacity, have also changed. Cost has increased and capacity may have dropped.  

This, plus the inflation that continues to raise the costs of replacing or retrofitting equipment and systems has thrown into question whether compliance is financially possible within the initially projected time frames. This conundrum is particularly vexing for co-op and condominium communities that don’t have profit margins to cut into.

The Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums (CNYC) recently completed a study of the effect the compliance process is having on shared-interest communities in New York City. 

“The severity of the financial burden on co-ops and condos ranges depending on building typology,” says Rebecca Poole, Director of Membership and Communication at CNYC. “However, across the board, co-ops and condos are facing escalating costs and are becoming stuck in a compliance loop that is precluding buildings from undertaking proactive resiliency projects, and potentially exacerbating the problem going forward. 

“All capital preservation work is self-funded by co-op and condo homeowners,” Poole continues, “and most salaries are not keeping up with the increases seen in CNYC’s annual study of operating costs. For young families and young professionals, middle class workers, and seniors on fixed incomes, the costs are becoming increasingly infeasible. Those co-ops and condos that added to their underlying mortgages to fund capital projects while rates were low will now face the added burden of potentially refinancing at a higher interest rate, further adding to carrying costs. We’ve gotten to the point where some potential purchasers are making the decision not to purchase because they are concerned their savings will be depleted by assessments.”

The problem of our changing climate is an emergency that requires that immediate, decisive, global measures be undertaken to avert further disaster. But alongside the alarm, more study may be needed to make solutions more manageable for people whose most important life investment may be at risk through compliance with those measures.

A.J. Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for New England Condominium, and a published novelist. He may be reached at alan@yrinc.com.