Co-op City, located (like the Yankees) in the New York City borough known as The Bronx, is the largest co-op apartment community in the City, and indeed in the United States. Built in the 1960s and 70s, it has more than 15,000 residential units in some 35 high-rise buildings, plus a smaller number of townhouses. Here is an aerial picture of about a quarter of the complex that appeared in today’s New York Post from Wikipedia:
Co-op City has now suddenly become ground zero in the clash between energy fantasy and reality that is starting to come into focus as the deadlines of the State’s and City’s 2019 climate statutes start to get closer. The New York Post reports on the reality side of the story in a large piece today with the headline “NY’s climate mandates may send fees in affordable Co-Op City complex soaring from $950 to $4K.”
But before getting to that, let’s look at the fantasy side of the story, which continues to hold its death grip on large swaths of the local population. Back in January, a group of businesses and trade associations calling itself the Coalition for Safe and Reliable Energy submitted a Petition to the Public Service Commission asking it to hold a hearing on whether the deadlines of the State’s Climate Act, currently set to start to bite in 2030, should be extended. (To view the Petition, go to item 63 under “Filed Documents” at this PSC docket.). The PSC then opened a public comment process as to that Petition, which process is ongoing.
Over the past few weeks the comment process has cranked up, and large numbers of comments have flooded in. You may or may not be surprised to learn that hundreds of these comments are identical, or nearly so. (To view the comments, go to the same PSC link above and click the “Public Comments” tab.). The comments apparently have been rounded up by environmental activist groups that have asked their members and donors to sign and submit form responses.
Here is an excerpt from one of those form responses that has been copied and pasted into hundreds of these identical comments:
[A]ny further investments in the fossil fuel economy will have a negative financial impact on New Yorkers. Costs of energy in New York are driven by the price of fossil fuels, which are highly volatile and affected by events outside of the control of New York, such as the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia and the U.S. war on Iran. Sticking to fossil fuels means unpredictable, unaffordable bills for New Yorkers. Renewable energy – which requires no fuel – offers predictable costs which makes families less vulnerable to energy price shocks. Renewable energy is a long-term cost-saving strategy that will promote affordability and protect New York utility customers from the impacts of volatile fossil fuel prices. I urge the PSC to reject the unsupported request to hold a hearing. . . .
Apparently these many hundreds of commenters have come to believe that shifting from what they call a “fossil fuel economy” to “renewable energy” is a “long-term cost-saving strategy” that will provide “affordability” to New Yorkers. Nothing in their letters gives any clue how they have come to this conclusion, or what calculations or feasibility studies they may have made to ascertain the “affordability” that they think is so easy to achieve with “renewable” energy.
Meanwhile, over on the reality side of the equation, at Co-op City, they are confronting the actual costs compliance with the impending and overlapping mandates of both the State’s and City’s climate statutes. Co-op City is an owner-occupied community, so the costs of compliance will fall on the owner-occupants. The racial demographics of the community, per NICHE.com, are: 64% African-American, 28% Hispanic, 4% white, and 4% other. So this is not exactly your vision of the snooty Park Avenue Manhattan co-op. Co-op City currently has its own power plant — fueled by natural gas — that provides all the electricity for the complex, as well as heat, hot water, and air-conditioning. Monthly maintenance bills to the owners, which include the cost of energy, currently average about $950 for a one-bedroom unit.
Co-op City’s current fossil fuel power plant is apparently quite efficient, but not enough so to meeting the impending deadlines of New York City’s Local Law 97. Under that statute, they must convert to electric heat by 2035. They have now done studies on the prospective cost of that, and the Post reports on the results in today’s piece. Excerpt:
A top Co-Op City official warned that residents could pay four times more in monthly maintenance charges if New York State’s controversial green-energy laws aren’t peeled back. Jeffrey Buss, Co-Op City’s general counsel, claimed monthly maintenance fees could skyrocket from $950 for a one-bedroom to more than $4,000 to pick up the tab for the edicts. . . . [T]he state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, coupled with a city green energy law [Local Law 97], would force Co-Op City to shut down its natural gas power plant and replace it with carbon-free clean energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower and battery storage, [Buss] said.
So between the costs of the electric heat conversion, closing their own efficient power plant, and buying lots of additional electricity from Con Edison, they project that the residents’ monthly maintenance costs will multiply by about a factor of four, from under $1000 per month to about $4000. Apparently that’s what the PSC commenters think of as “affordable.”
Co-op City has looked into building “renewable” resources to replace its natural gas power plant, but has figured out that that is completely infeasible:
Buss said it is technologically impossible for Co-op City to completely replace its gas-fueled plant with cleaner energy sources. He said renewable, fossil-free energy sources such as solar, wind, or geo-thermal energy aren’t capable to meet the heating, cooling and electrical demands of Co-Op City. “Although our co-generation turbines can run on 30% hydrogen,” Buss said, “there is no hydrogen supply…I don’t know the solution.”
They do have a plan to install solar panels on top of the parking garages, but those will be capable of providing only a small percentage of their power needs:
Co-op City is diversifying by installing solar panels on top of its garages, which would result in the largest urban solar project in the US. But solar energy would only meet a fraction of Co-op City’s power needs, he said.
Buss’s conclusion: complying with the impending State and City energy mandates would be “foolish.”
We are facing the consequences of having ignorant environmental activists and politicians trying to re-design our energy system. Fortunately, Co-op City comes complete with a large bloc of voters who, when they learn what the ignoramuses have in store for them, can take their revenge at the ballot box.
Look at the bright side – implementation of the Climate Act should work wonders in alleviating current congestion on the Cross-Bronx Expressway and other New York roadways!
/sarc
Just think of the tax revenue generated by the traffic will be lost. Another benefit, /s
Burning NG in a modern furnace or water heater loses about 15% of the energy up the flue.
Converting NG to electricity loses about 65% up the chimney and out the cooling system before it even leaves the plant site. Co-generation is smart.
Dumb!
Natural gas at $6/E6Btu burned in a modern condensing furnace (air) or water heater with 85% efficiency has a net delivered cost of $7/E6Btu.
Electricity at $0.15/kWh and 100% efficiency powering a furnace (air) or water heater has a net delivered cost of about $40/E6Btu.
A heat pump using $0.15/kWh and a COP of 3.5 has a net delivered energy cost of about $12/E6Btu. The colder the weather the lower the COP and higher the net cost.
If some salesman suggests replacing NG w heat pump & does not know this he is uninformed.
If he suggests replacing NG w heat pump & does know this, he is a crook.
Per US census blacks are 13% of the population.
Per FBI table 43a blacks are 28% of violent crime.
On a per million basis the rate of black demographic murder and robbery is 6.5 times that of the white demographic.
What is it for Co-op city??
Can you explain the relevance of the census and crime statistics to the cost of living in Co-op City?
I was wondering the same, unless he is leading to an unstated point that the Co-op city houses criminals. Just a guess. Unfounded and possibly untrue.
Probably wishful thinking. A co-op is an older form of semi-ownership than condominiums, and is rare outside older large cities. In a co-op the occupant buys shares in the corporation owning the building, and usually ownership transfers have to be approved by the board. The co-op resident does not “own” his individual unit; he owns shares in the corporation and holds a permanent lease on a specific unit.
Because of these restrictions it is much harder for people to get loans to purchase co-ops; it’s a specialty market. Rates are usually higher because if the lender ever forecloses, it is much more difficult to unload to a new buyer.
It is also much more difficult to finance significant capital improvements; the co-op must obtain commercial financing rather than the standard FHA process detached homes and condos can access. Commercial financing comes with a much lower loan-to-value limits and pre-payment penalties and usually a 10-year balloon payment. Refinancing to a higher loan balance is generally prohibitive. All this means the aggregate borrowing power of a co-op building by both the corporation and residents is significantly less than the same building run as a condominium. This is one of the factors that tends to force condo conversion when an older building needs major capital improvements: the corporations forces the current owner/occupants to kick in a large capital reserve payment as part of the conversion, which can be more easily financed as condo owners rather than co-op members.
Forced conversion of any older building to meet NYC mandates will be painfully expensive, but much more so for a co-op. At least with a condo if you are faced with ruinous upgrade costs you can walk away and your liability is limited to the property itself. With a co-op you are stuck paying the monthly lease in perpetuity until you can find someone to take over your shares. And if the co-op owner dies, the estate is still liable under the lease.
So what (do you suppose) happens to Co-op City if the laws are enforced?
Converted to luxury condos for wealthy white people?
Not just one skin tone, please. There are lots of wealthy people with skin tones from pale brown to dark brown.
We are all brown, except albinos (who lack melanin).
Right- it’ll be condos for the wealthy. The poor can go live on the sidewalk. /s
Sot on.
Typos R US.
Spot on.
with apologies.
Looks like a “15 minute” city the UN could be proud of. Chances of them converting to renewables are slim to none unless they can get a grid connection to provide it and that’s another fairy tale. With that kind of density housing just the charging station connections to the garages would be a fortune.
Was thinking… what land surface area would be required to provide enough solar power (at noon on a sunny summer day) to power the whole place?
I’m guessing the panels would take a lot more land than the buildings. Last I tried this calculation I used Paris as my test case. That one was 5x. The New Yorkers live farther North and I bet they take hot showers every day in December plus don’t use those itty bitty refrigerators.
(Darn it my calculations were an Excel sheet I turned in when I switched jobs in 2008. Have to start from zero.)
Some gov’t energy web site quotes 50kW/acre on average and the Co-op City co-generation plant is a 40MWplant, so roughly 800 acres of solar cells.
That’s 50kW/acre for half the day, or 1600 acres for full-time power. (Perhaps they can tuck the required LI battery storage in the basement garages of each tower. Good idea??)
This may help. https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/solars-land-use-problem-is-much-worse
“Long story short, matching the accredited capacity of one natural gas plant sitting on 58 acres of land with solar in 2030 would require over 105,792 acres of solar panels, roughly 29% of the total land area of Cerro Gordo County”
Yes this is the kind of calculation I was getting at. Thanks BM. Saved me a lot of Excel cell equations.
Imagine trying to maintain 100k acres of horizontally-mounted glass sheets. Ugh.
Also… what would it look like from space?
“To be seen from space (specifically the International Space Station, approx 400 km up) with the naked eye, an object generally needs to be at least 100 to 150 meters (roughly the size of a large building or football field) in all dimensions.”
The car fires in those underground garages would also cost a fortune.
Going from fossil fuels to renewable power means changing from:
A power source that is always available and sometimes expensive to
a power source that is sometimes available and always expensive.
Since they all vote Democrat, just don’t see what the problem is. They are getting 100% of what they voted for. This is Democracy in action.
Somewhere on the tenth floor of one of those buildings a conservative rebel’s head is exploding. We can find which unit by looking for a window caked with raspberry jelly.
Qualified: The is the Democrat’s version of Democracy in action.
I have operated an off-grid system using solar and lithium batteries since 2012. I have 3kW of solar panels and 5kWh battery to supply a daily demand of 2.7kWh – a bit higher in summer and a bit less in winter. So annual average not far short of 1MWh. My system cost $6000. So far 14MWh at amortised cost without counting opportunity cost is $428/MWh.
Back in 2003, base load power cost $23/MWh in Australia. The $428/MWh is actually lower than current retail grid costs. But it is because we are the proverbial frog in the oven with prices gradually going up have made us immune to how bad it is. No energy intensive business can survive at the current price of electricity without government subsidies.
I am at 37S where sunlight is good to fair year round.
When morons suggest that we go “renewables” ask them when did they go “renewable” and what did it cost. There is no magic pudding and there is actually cost of scale with wind and solar rather than any benefit of scale.
The one good outcome in Australia is solar rooftops and household batteries is making all the grid scale wind and solar useless because their demand is disappearing. Curtailment of grid wind and solar is doubling year-on-year as they try to squeeze more into the system.
“a daily demand of 2.7kWh” = refrigerator, lights, TV, and internet? I’m considered low usage in my neck of the woods and it’s 10 kWh/day.
Most people misremember that Thoreau’s Walden was written before the US Civil War.
“Henry David Thoreau’s classic 1854 book detailing his two-year experiment in simple living at Walden Pond, near Concord, Massachusetts”
Tesla was not born until 1856.
Edison’s lightbulb was 1879, 25 years later (than Walden).
Edit – incongruous Walden comment’s inspiration was RickWill’s description of modern simple living.
Thoreau sent his laundry back to Concord to be done by his mum.
That seems incredibly low energy consumption for a modern home Rick? My fridge freezer and chest freezer alone consume that amount of energy.
I consider myself to be a frugal energy consumer at between 6kWh and 8kWh/day that is not including my wood burning stove that provides most of my heating in winter.
Living in the UK we do not require air conditioning so summer comfort is handled by opening windows and drawing curtains, I suspect that is not how you handle Australian summer heat.
How do you get below 3kWh/day average energy consumption in your part of the world?
He says he is off grid. It is common for off grid operators to convert as much demand as possible to propane to reduce electrical demand. Heating, refrigerator, clothes dryer.
That may or many not be the case in his situation.
I live in Houston with natural gas heat and hot water, ~ 2400 sq.ft. My home was built in 1985. March 2026 electrical usage was 1609 kwh, a tad over 50 kwh per day. Here comes the summer….
ummm… not a single wind turbine or solar panel in sight !!
Why is that 😉
Step 1: Needs-based exemption is created for low income places
Step 2: High income places learn the minimum set of conditions to be classified as low income places
Step 3: Middle income people leave NYC
How about replacing the FF plant with an SMR? The Air Force has three underway for powering air bases.
Why replace something that is performing as designed, not incurring excessive maintenance and repair costs, and has no valid reason to be replaced?
Consider also, the radiation scare tactics, also, too often injected to affect public opinion.
Consider also, to put in a SMR one would first have to remove the existing generator. How long with those 10s of thousands be without power until the SMR comes online?
Then there is the landfill issue with the tons of concrete and steel, etc. that would have to be removed during demolition.
The demolitio0n will likely cause health issues, too.
“But environmental activists and some Democratic allies are in the legislature are resisting a major rollback, saying Hochul and critics opposed to the law are using the threat of inflated costs as a scare tactic.”
Fair is fair. The Trans-Reality Activists have been using the threat of a burning world and boiling oceans for decades as a scare tactic.
“can take their revenge at the ballot box.”
but will they?
No, not in New York City. If in the year 2030, a New York politician tells NYC voters they are paying less for electricity than they were ten years earlier in 2020, most of those NYC voters will believe it. In other words, it’s Perpetual 1984 in New York City, and probably always will be.
The renewable-island test didn’t even last long in an ideal location.
https://joannenova.com.au/2026/04/renewables-finally-powers-coober-pedy-for-five-days-straight/
Almost $1,000 a month to power and heat a 1br apartment? How is it that I’m able to live in a 3br stand alone house in the burbs for 1/5th that? Isn’t the whole point of communal living about harnessing the benefits of economies of scale for more affordable living?
Or is it that I live in a red state?