✕

New York City has set an aggressive pace for reducing carbon emissions from buildings through the enactment of its landmark Local Law 97. That’s because buildings globally are responsible for 39% of energy-related carbon emissions. The majority of the buildings impacted by the law are commercial buildings, but it affects institutional clients, such as houses of worship, as well. Our firm’s work helping many commercial and institutional clients address this law has included working with half a dozen houses of worship. Those efforts have revealed a number of low-cost, high-impact steps that religious facilities nationwide can take to reduce their energy consumption and thereby benefit from both energy and financial savings.

Local Law 97, enacted in 2019, requires buildings over 25,000 square feet in size to meet new energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions limits. The deadline for complying with initial goals — and avoiding penalties — is May 1, 2025, based on 2024 utility data.

The law also creates special pathways for a few building types, one of which is those whose main occupancy type is “house of worship.” As an alternative compliance option, these buildings can complete 13 prescriptive measures, laid out in Article 321. The same deadline of May 1, 2025, applies, but a one-year extension is possible for buildings engaged in and working toward compliance.

Most cities in America, even smaller ones, have houses of worship that are over 25,000 square feet in size. The square footage is mostly the sanctuary; however, the rest of the facilities often include administrative offices, classrooms, sports facilities and housing for religious leaders.

That’s a sizeable, but not unusually large, religious facility. Smaller properties can also use these recommendations to save energy. As a result, lessons gained from the houses of worship in New York City are applicable nationwide and beyond.

The 13 measures include the following: adjust temperature set points for heat and hot water; repair heating system leaks; maintain heating system; install individual temperature controls or insulated radiator enclosures; insulate heating and hot water pipes; insulate steam system condensate tank or water tank; install heating system sensors and boiler controls; repair or replace steam traps; install or upgrade steam system master venting; upgrade common area lighting to comply with the New York City Energy Conservation Code; weatherize and air seal, where appropriate; install timers on exhaust fans; and, install radiant barriers behind all radiators.

These are not arduous measures, and they do not affect the envelope of the building. Eleven of the 13 measures focus on the heating system; one on the exhaust fans, and one on lighting.

They are low-cost, high-impact, standard practices that are too often overlooked. That’s why the upside for houses of worship is so significant, with improvements mostly reducing heating costs.

Compliance, which is a one-time event for the Article 321 compliance pathway, will typically yield energy savings immediately and financial savings over time. The cost of complying can likely be paid for in energy savings in two to five years. The penalty in New York City for non-compliance is $10,000 per year, so there is added incentive in that.

An initial site visit by a local consulting engineering firm can reveal the potential savings and relevant recommendations. Then the energy measures can be implemented. There is typically no cost to that initial two or three-hour visit to review existing systems and determine if savings are achievable. The consultant can, based on that site visit, provide a proposal for a more detailed energy study or implementation assistance. Hence, there is no downside for a house of worship to explore potential energy and financial savings. That’s important, given the benefits of improvement and the waste of energy inefficiencies.

The challenge for houses of worship is to identify funds for the design and improvements. The fact that the upgrades are one-time costs, and the savings are ongoing, still requires upfront funding, but it can also offer an attractive prospect to a potential donor. Once the scope of work is determined, the implementation can be conducted shortly or phased in over time — with the cost spread out.

One could start, for instance, with lighting, where the benefits are very straightforward. Some of the heating measures may require further investigation into the operation of the heating system.

There also may not be someone on the staff of the house of worship who has experience overseeing such an initiative, but someone in the congregation might be able to volunteer it. The consulting engineering firm can also recommend reliable vendors for the implementation.

These same 13 measures can be implemented at smaller houses of worship as well since the steps are universal. Costs typically vary based on where the house of worship is located as well as the square footage and the condition of the operating systems.

All religions consider nature to be an act of divinity that should be treated as such. Reducing the carbon emissions of houses of worship is, therefore, aligned with that tenet. The challenge is to bring it about. Lessons gained from experience in New York City are pointing the way.