Clean Heat: A Technical Response to a Policy Innovation

Abstract

New York City clean heat policies were enacted to improve air quality, especially reducing exposure to black carbon, particulate matter and sulfur that are linked to environmental degradation and various health risks. This policy measure specifically called for the phase out of residual oil and adoption of cleaner burning fuel sources through boiler conversions in commercial and residential properties throughout the city. This paper describes the process of clean heat technology adoption within the innovative clean heat policy context demonstrating its thorough compliance and discussing implications for scalability in other urban settings.

Introduction

Significant changes to the U.S. housing stock are often inspired by market demands or policy advancements. In New York City (NYC) both scenarios are true. Market forces have dictated a higher demand for new housing developments at all levels of affordability (Kadi and Ronald, 2014). Meanwhile, policy advancements have served to improve the functional capacity of existing buildings (Tan et al., 2015). A recent policy measure issued by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection mandated conversion from a heavy-burning fuel source (No. 6 oil) used in boilers to provide heat and hot water in (mostly older) residential and commercial buildings (NYC DEP, 2011). The policy required conversion to cleaner burning fuel sources including lower sulfur No. 2 fuel, biodiesel or natural gas and, No. 4, a blend of No. 2 and No. 6 oils, until 2030. This environmental/public health law was intended to address widespread air pollution by reducing fine particulate matter emissions that produce soot and black carbon in NYC (Seamonds et al., 2009). As NYC is the most populated city in the United States, this regulation marked one of the largest and most comprehensive pieces of environmental, energy and public health policy in the nation in the past decade.

This article reviews key tenets of the clean heat policy regulations and describes the technical responses available to building operators to achieve compliance. These changes ranged from minor retrofitting of boilers to the installation of modern, more efficient mechanical systems coupled with energy efficiency upgrades. The discussion section highlights the benefits, drawbacks and gaps associated with the policies as other jurisdictions consider adopting similar measures.

Rationale for Clean Heat Policies

Previous research has demonstrated that residual oil represents a significant environmental and public health threat (Seamonds et al., 2009; Cromar and Schwartz 2010). In addition to polluting the air, these environmental hazards are linked to a variety of health problems including cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and reduced cognitive function (Brook et al, 2010; Cornell et al., 2010; Suglia et al., 2008). A significant contributor to the city’s current black carbon, particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) and sulfur emissions are buildings that burn residual heating oil-- No. 6 and No. 4 (Seamonds et al., 2009; Cromar and Schwartz 2010). As such, NYC Clean Heat policies were enacted in 2012 to address the hazards associated with heating oil emissions. The regulation called for over 6,000 buildings to convert from No.6 oil to a cleaner fuel by 2015 and has since achieved an almost perfect level of compliance with a mere 20 buildings still running No. 6 in NYC as of this writing (NYC Clean Heat, Spot the Soot, 2016). As a result of the success of this initiative, it is estimated that related emissions have decreased by as much as 65 percent resulting in cleaner air and reduced health risks (NYC Clean Heat, Program Progress). These important achievements were reached through a multi-pronged technical response.

Clean Heat Technical Responses

Building operators affected by this policy measure were required to install new boilers or burners utilizing at a minimum No. 4 oil or cleaner options such as ultra-low sulfur No. 2 oil, natural gas, biodiesel, or steam. Of these options, most boilers converted to No. 4, No. 2, and natural gas. Many also took the opportunity to install dual burner boilers running No. 2 and natural gas (similar to the boiler pictured here) to better contain costs and ensure reliability of heat in buildings. Building operators that opted to make the minimal shift to No. 4 oil will be required to adopt one of the cleaner options by January 2030 in order to achieve the complete phase out of heavy heating oil to comply with clean heat regulations and other city plans. Buildings operators were given administrative support as well as financing help to ensure compliance Enforcement was tied to the renewal of boiler permits with violations and fines issued for non-compliance.

Along with conversion, building operators were also encouraged to implement energy efficiency measures to improve performance and increase cost-savings. Furthermore, most buildings mandated to transition to cleaner fuel were also required to comply with the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan laws which called for energy benchmarking and better energy performance in large commercial and residential buildings. The energy efficiency measures to be coupled with fuel conversion included, for example, installing heat management systems with indoor temperature sensors, burner and draft controls to increase boiler efficiency and weatherization techniques to reduce heat loss and increase comfort. Many building operators took advantage of the opportunity to upgrade building efficiency and applied for related financial incentives. Nevertheless, a very small number of building operators opted to incorporate renewable energy sources such as solar thermal and biodiesel as part of the clean heat policy initiative.

Discussion

In the broadest sense, the clean heat policy initiatives proved to be quite successful in phasing out the use of residual oil for heating purposes and thereby reducing a prominent source of air pollution in New York City. Spanning only three heating seasons from 2012–2015, the conversion timeframe was short but ubiquitously complied to with 99.8% compliance achieved in the short implementation period. There are several benefits conferred by this initiative. First, building operating costs and procedures were improved by incorporating cleaner, more reliable fuel sources with significant cost savings for participating buildings (NYC Clean Heat, Case studies and Testimonials). Second, air quality has improved drastically since introducing this measure. Compared to air quality measures from 2008–2011, recent estimates demonstrate a significant decrease in particulate matter and sulfur oxide in large measure attributable to clean heat regulations (New York City Community Air Survey, 2016). Third, health risks related to black carbon emissions including cardiovascular, respiratory and neurological disorders are expected to significantly decline with improvements in air quality spurred by clean heat policies, however it may take time to fully document the public health impact of this policy measure for NYC residents.

Though promising, clean heat initiatives do leave unanswered questions pertaining to the geographic distribution of the cleanest (or dirtiest) heating sources, the incorporation of renewable energy and the economic consequences to fuel providers and others that were negatively affected by these changes. In addition, a major shortfall of the policy reform is the extended time allotted to the complete phase out of heavy fuel sources. As indicated above, the majority of buildings opted to transition to #4 oil, which while cleaner than #6 is still considered a dirty fuel. Policymakers, advocates and public health officials should consider shortening the timeframe to phase out #4 so as to reap the benefits of cleaner air long before the year 2030. Systematic evaluation of the impact of such policies is critical as other cities weigh the benefits of transitioning to cleaner fuel sources.

Conclusion

Long recognized as a dirty city, NYC has made significant strides to sanitize its air quality by successfully implementing clean heat policies. The technological response to this policy innovation ranged from a simple shift to a slightly cleaner fuel source to major overhauls of heating systems and coupling of energy efficiency to improve the overall performance of buildings. With an aging housing stock, clean heat policy measures offer a promising approach to modernize building functions while also addressing environmental and public health concerns one boiler at a time.

Exhibit 1.

Heating Fuels Implicated in NYC Clean Heat Policy

Exhibit 2.

Emissions Stemming From Residual Oil Use in a Large Residential Building in New York City, 2013

Exhibit 3.

New York City Building That Transitioned From No. 6 to No. 4 Oil During the Clean Heat Policy Implementation Period

Exhibit 4.

New Dual Burning Boiler (No. 2 Oil and Natural Gas) in Residential Building Formerly Using No. 6 Oil To Provide Heat and Hot Water