I began working at the New York City Accelerator, a program run by the New York City Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice, in November of 2022. What I found there disturbed me, as the Accelerator functions in practice as a greenwashing and climate delay program. While the Accelerator rhetorically embraces electrification and decarbonization, the actions taken by the organization are not compatible with NYC’s climate goals. According to a recent UN report on greenwashing, “net zero is entirely incompatible with continued investment in fossil fuels”. Nevertheless, when discussing decarbonization with project participants, a NYC Accelerator account manager stated that “NYC is promoting electrification but I say if it doesn’t work for the building, skip it”. The cognitive dissonance caused by working for a greenwashing organization that functions as the city’s primary decarbonization initiative proved overwhelming, leading me to leave the position. It is worth analyzing how New York City’s approach to building decarbonization is deeply flawed. On a basic level, the structure of the NYC Accelerator doesn’t manage to align its internal incentives with the goal of decarbonization. The NYC Accelerator is run by ICF, a for-profit management consultancy. The goals set by the Mayor’s Office, the metrics by which the city judges the success of the program, aren’t based on buildings electrified. Instead the goals are based on projects completed, with sub-goals for sectors such as affordable housing and new construction. While I was at the Accelerator, the program shifted the metrics so it was able to count Local Law 97 compliance assistance (a conversation with a property manager or building owner) as a completed project. Using this meaningless metric, talking to property managers and then telling them not to bother with electrification is what the City is currently paying for. Additionally, the 3-year contract cycle of ICF and the City means that longer-term projects, like electrification, are functionally disincentivized in favor of low-hanging-fruit free programs, like LED lighting, steam system maintenance, and reflective roof coatings. These projects, which do nothing to replace fossil fuel equipment, are the main accomplishments of the Accelerator’s minimalist approach. The Accelerator also failed to mention financing and incentive programs offered by NYSERDA such as the Clean Energy Initiative, because working with NYSERDA meant project participants were less likely to respond to the Accelerator in the future, meaning that their projects would not be counted towards ICF’s internal metrics. As an organization ostensibly designed to connect project participants with financing and incentives, this is truly unconscionable. The Accelerator also failed to mention or properly explain the tax credits introduced by the inflation reduction act, including a 50% tax credit on commercial geothermal projects that would be quite relevant when discussing electrification. ICF’s “institutional expertise” on energy transition issues is questionable, at best. Their “analysis” of New York City’s decarbonization pathways was completed working directly with National Grid, as well as ConEd. Their “analysis” did not even attempt to model full decarbonization. I strongly suspect that working with companies that sell fossil gas may have compromised their conclusions. Their fossil-friendly analyses include unscientific, non-scalable solutions, such as renewable natural gas (“RNG”), biofuels for transportation, and hydrogen gas. ICF’s study itself is flawed, highlighting the importance of gas infrastructure.This concept directly contradicts the UN report and other valid scientific recommendations. Experts in the decarbonization field have found significant fault with ICF’s analyses, as demonstrated in this ConEd rate case document. It turns out that many of the strategies that ICF proposed, such as RNG and hydrogen, are unrealistic. ConEd’s proposed plan for decarbonization still focuses on renewable natural gas and other “low carbon fuels”, which are not a credible solution. ICF also administers ConEd’s efficiency programs. ICF is lying to the public on behalf of the gas companies, their client. It’s hard for me to understand how the same company can do unbiased work for the fossil companies and the city’s decarbonization work simultaneously. Unfortunately, gas-fueled delusions are widespread in New York City, even within the engineering firms and sustainability analysts who should know better based on their education. On my final day of work, I accompanied an (non-ICF) engineer on an energy audit of a multifamily building. He mentioned that, due to economics, he would be recommending a smaller gas boiler for the building. While short term price signals may make that an appropriate recommendation on paper, the overall effect is to undermine NYC's decarbonization goal. The institutional and perspectival failures of NYC decarbonization extend to the firms with the best reputations. Steven Winter Associates, NYC’s premier energy engineering firm, is also unquestionably gas-friendly. The firm continues to certify fossil gas fueled buildings as sustainable. Steven Winter himself, the founder of the company, helped develop the LEED building standards as part of USGBC. These standards don’t take energy issues seriously, prioritizing recycled countertops and low-VOC finishes over climate action. Steven Winter Associates focuses its “engineering prowess” on maintaining centuries-old fossil heating systems, not innovative solutions to decarbonize the city. Seemingly inspired by SWA’s report, ConEd and National Grid both incentivize steam system maintenance, a responsibility that should be borne by the landlord. (Does the water company pay to maintain your plumbing?) These incentives, which make it easier to stay on gas, may be related to the utilities financial self-interest, especially in the case of National Grid, which does not sell electricity in NYC. Steven Winter Associates’ approach, while highly financially literate in their own self interest (sure, we’ll certify your fossil gas apartment complex as “green”), is completely illogical when it comes to the implementation of decarbonization. Their own zero carbon playbook for pre-war low rise multifamily buildings focuses on energy use, not carbon emissions, obscuring the importance of fuel switching (while giving it lip service). The concept of phased improvements, where phase 2 is massive envelope improvements, is delusional. Full re-cladding with external insulation and high performance window replacement isn’t a realistic “next step” for most buildings. The concept that the envelope improvements should happen before, not concurrently, other improvements also violates basic common sense with regards to construction, health and safety. For an older building without a ventilation system, making the buildings’ envelope airtight before removing fossil gas stoves or installing a ventilation system would be disastrous for indoor air quality. On a side note, Steven Winter Associates’s disregard for building science is evident in their analysis of FEMA trailers. As ACTUAL building scientist Joe Lstiburek explains in an excellent paper, FEMA trailers are built to mold. SWA’s “expert” analysis of FEMA trailers includes critiques of landscaping and a picture of a hole in a wall, but no building science. These are the experts that “signed off on” the trailers with no ventilation and poorly designed walls. In addition to mold, FEMA trailers, partially due to lack of ventilation, have been found to have high levels of formaldehyde, leading to health impacts for the people living in them. Do you want these “experts'' designing your next home? Rather than continue to focus on the myriad ways in which NYC’s establishment is failing to address building decarbonization, I propose a reframing of the issue. The current paradigm of energy transition through efficiency and cost savings is wholly insufficient to decarbonize this city. Instead of looking at incremental improvements to fossil gas infrastructure, science demands that we consider what it would take to dismantle fossil gas infrastructure. I propose a three part plan: electrify cooking, install thermal energy networks, and install ventilation. Many other improvements to building energy efficiency and durability exist, but these 3 strategies are core solutions, addressing the city’s building emissions and protecting human health. First, I recommend a city-backed finance mechanism to replace all gas stoves in NYC with induction stoves. Due to the potentially high cost of new electrical circuits, I recommend the Channing St. Copper Company’s Charlie, an induction stove with a battery that is able to use a standard 120v plug. The stove is costly ($6000), but a program might be able to bulk order the appliances to bring the price down. ConEd or National Grid's gas connection fee, at approximately $33 a month, would be eliminated. If that $33 went towards a zero-interest loan on the cost of the stove, Charlie could be paid for in under 16 years. Eliminating individual gas connections would allow for whole buildings to be disconnected from the fossil gas grid. Indoor air quality would also improve, which is especially important for growing children. By reducing the number of customers paying a lot of money for very little gas, the cost of the fossil gas network will be borne by remaining gas users, improving the cost-competitiveness of electricity. Next, and most importantly, New York City needs to adopt Thermal Energy Networks. This approach, also referred to as district geothermal, can utilize ground source heat pumps, water source heat pumps, and sometimes air source heat pumps working together in a heating and cooling network. Waste heat from sources such as servers, refrigeration equipment, and wastewater can be repurposed to provide heat and hot water. These systems can also store energy for later use, even on a seasonal level if properly designed. In addition to unprecedented efficiency, (at least 6 times more efficient than gas equipment and twice as efficient as air-source heat pumps alone), thermal energy networks reduce peak demand through efficiency and load shifting. The reduction in peak heating demand significantly reduces the need for dispatchable electricity during cold spells and flattens out the “falcon curve” of electricity usage that would require massive dispatchable energy resources. Reducing peak demand means less battery storage, which reduces the cost of an all-electric grid. Thankfully, there’s some momentum behind thermal energy networks in New York State, driven by recent legislation as well as an advocacy group. Finally, I’d like to circle back to the importance of ventilation. While moving away from fossil fuel use does reduce some indoor air pollutants, humans still need fresh air, and generally do not enjoy lingering bathroom odor. Most of New York City’s residential buildings were built with steam heating systems in mind, which were designed to allow residents to keep windows 1-inch open year round. Ventilation reduces CO2 accumulation, which can impact cognitive performance, as well as helping to manage indoor humidity and other pollutants. Installing ventilation systems isn’t likely to save money or energy directly (unless it gets people to close their windows), but health and environmental justice are an essential part of energy transition. Regardless of the age of the building, every tenant deserves clean air. The establishment paradigm, based on fuel cost savings, is not an acceptable climate solution. We need bold leadership on this issue. By dismissing the lies that have passed for conventional wisdom and embracing scientifically valid solutions, we have the whole world to gain. Mayor Adam’s 2023 vision for how NYC decarbonizes, summarized in one line: expand the NYC Accelerator. That won’t work. We deserve real solutions!