Posted on 04/29/2026 6:44:00 AM PDT by MtnClimber
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:
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 of 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.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
No one has mentioned unicorns on hamster wheels yet.
Cronos, don’t want to bloviate about green bean energy fantasies and cash grabs are?
ALL - 100% - “Green Energy”/”Climate Change” mandates are 100% pure demands with 0% feasible plans in them. They are no different than a legal mandate that says “all motor vehicles WILL get 100 miles per gallon without a scintilla of feasible ideas of how that’s possible. The political organizers believe themselves to be economic magicians who by merely clapping their hands they can miraculously make something happen.
Looks very Soviet.
As I’ve said for a long time here, you cannot power modern civilization on wind, solar, and unicorn flatulence. Great example of that in this article.
My F=Grandparents lived there. It was like the Brezhnev era Soviet Union.
Co-op City replaced Freedomland, a great amusement park I went to as an early teen.
“The racial demographics of the community, per NICHE.com, are: 64% African-American, 28% Hispanic, 4% white, and 4% other.”
Is this what they used to call the “projects”?
They could cut energy usage by shutting down the elevators and turning down the thermostats to 60 in the winter.
Sounds like they are considering “renewable energy” as the answer to the big upcoming problems, when it is most likely just extra cost to an already big bill. Who are these people trying to fool? The ones that voted for Momdani, I’d guess. They seem to be the easiest marks.
Wow. Just wow. The level of ignorance is staggering.
These people believe energy originates from those ivory colored receptacles in the walls with the funny narrow rectangular holes.
It is a sickness.
I leave that to you, wildcard.
I posted an article Global fossil power generation fell after the Hormuz closure due to solar and wind growth which said
My comment on that article was As this goes forward, will it destroy the Middle East and the Russian federations oil supply power?
Global power generation from fossil fuels fell in the first month since the start of the Hormuz closure, with the fall in gas-fired generation offset by large increases in solar and wind power, rather than coal.
Total power generation from fossil fuels in countries with near-real-time data fell 1% year-on-year, with coal-fired generation flat and gas-fired generation falling 4%. The dataset covers the world’s largest power markets: China, the U.S., the EU, and India, among others.
Seaborne coal transport volumes fell 3%, to the lowest levels since 2021. The data contradicts widespread expectations that coal power generation would rise in response to the crisis.
Outside China, in countries with real-time electricity data, coal-fired power generation fell 3.5% and gas-fired power generation fell 4.0% in March. This was due to increases in solar power (14%) and wind (8%) generation. Hydropower generation also saw a small increase (2%), but this was more than offset by a drop in nuclear power generation.
In China, power generation from coal increased 2% in March, according to weekly surveys by China Electricity Council, with generators on the coast shifting from gas to coal in response to the high prices. Coal-fired generation was still significantly below 2024 levels, however, as March 2025 recorded a steep 6% drop.
you then went on an ego trip accusing me of "selling a pipe dream"
At no point in that thread nor in any of the other threads I've been on since 2001 (I've been here for 25 years unlike you newbie) have I advocated any kind of government move like you accuse me
i have consistently been against the Middle East Mohammedans having power due to their petroleum assets - whichever means can be used to destroy that, whether the USA pumping more or more nuclear or more renewables or even more coal, I don't care - as long as Saudia stops getting money to spread its Wahabbi ideology
You in contrast seem to want the USA to lose to China - why is that?
"...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.."
Yeah. That'll fix it.
Yeah. They will just keep talking about their "Five Year Plans" which will keep failing, and they will just keep pushing back the goalposts.
But they will keep the prices for energy high and keep milking the governments at the local, state, and federal level for more and more money.
I think another element of their thinking is the idea, which I think comes from left-wing intellectuals of the early 20th century, that "demand creates supply." These people looked at the role of advertising in creating the consumer economy of the last 150 years; they concluded that the public could be herded toward anything with advertising pressure. Of course, this got them thinking that the public could be herded toward accepting the goals of the left.
Government rules here - the LL97 are short-sighted. Co-op city is highly efficient and shows that the “Net Zero” transition did not account for micro-grids like Co-op city that are ALREADY more efficient than the average building.
this is trying a “one size fits all” approach which fails. It’s like the fact that within a large city a small electric car like a Nissan leaf works better than a Ford 150, but outside in the suburbs or even more so in rural areas a Nissan leaf is worse than useless.
The article’s conclusion is also a case of “one size fits all” where he tries to use this to prove that the entire renewable transition is a “hoax” —> this is an inductive leap.
What the Co-op City situation actually proves is that one-size-fits-all urban policy fails to account for complex infrastructure.
The reason the Manhattan Contrarian can write about Co-op City’s “energy reality” is that NYC is trying to solve a collective problem with individual penalties.
Dem’s ruin everything they touch
Right? I think it's safe to assume that that particular demographic voted overwhelmingly for one party?
They're getting what they voted for, wouldn't you say?
Good. And. Hard.
“They’re getting what they voted for, wouldn’t you say?”
Not to worry, I’m sure the city will pay for it. What % of those “residents” do you think are on SNAP and free rent?
Did a quick search...
“Approximately 40% of Co-op City residents receive SNAP benefits, and about 60% benefit from subsidized rent programs.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.