The New York City Clean Heat Program

In 2007, the PlaNYC report was published, highlighting that New York City (NYC) was failing to achieve the minimum standards set by the federal Clean Air Act, especially for PM2.5 and ozone. A report published by the Health Department in 2011 estimated that, in NYC each year, pollution from PM2.5 causes more than 3,000 deaths from all causes, 2,000 hospital admissions for heart and lung diseases, and 6,000 emergency department visits for asthma in children and adults. Pollution from ozone was also estimated to cause 400 deaths and 5,000 hospital admissions and emergency department visits among children and adults.

Since 2007, New York City has taken several steps to improve air quality in the city. One such initiative was the Clean Heat Program. This policy aimed to reduce air pollution from boilers by mandating a transition from residual diesel-based fuel oils No.6 and No.4 to cleaner burning alternatives. Approximately 10,000 buildings burned residual fuel oils No.6 and No.4 in 2007 in New York City, as they are cheaper compared to cleaner oils. These oils were sources of emissions of PM, ozone (O₃), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), nickel, and vanadium.

The Clean Heat Program consisted of three policies that were passed to regulate heating oil use. The NYC state law (section 1145-C) aimed to reduce the sulphur limits of No.2 diesel oil from 2000 to 15 parts per million (ppm); a NYC local law (43-2010) which required that ≥2% in home heating oils to be biodiesel and reduction of No.4 diesel oil sulphur limits from 3000 to 1500 ppm; and a third local regulation which banned the use of No.6 oil by 2015 and No.4 oil by 2030.

In 2007, it was estimated that 6.1 million metric tons of CO₂eq were emitted citywide from heating oils No.2, 4, and 6. By the year 2015, this reduced to 4.24 million metric tons of CO₂eq (NYC Mayor's Office of Sustainability, n.d.).

The reduction in buildings’ burning of heating oil No.6 was associated with reductions in SO₂, PM2.5, NO₂ between 2011 and 2016, by 4.2 parts per billion (ppb), 4.6 ppb, and 2.7 microgram/m3, respectively. Conversion away from heating oil No.2 was associated with a slight reduction in PM2.5 levels but not with any other pollutants, while conversions from heating oil No.4 were associated with decreases in SO₂.

The implementation of this programme required collaboration between government, private and non-profit actors. The main coordinator of the programme was the Mayor’s Office of Long-term Planning and Sustainability, which worked closely with the Environmental Defense Fund. Partnerships with several other agencies facilitated the availability of natural gas and No.2 diesel oil throughout the city, and community partners, industry, local government agencies, and unions were represented through a task force. A website was developed to provide information on the importance of the switch, help identify professionals who could carry out the upgrades, and provide technical assistance.

The program also consisted of financing incentives and tools to aid property owners with the costs of boiler upgrades. By 2015, almost all targeted buildings complied with the ban of oil No.6. However, not all buildings that discontinued use of oil No.6 transitioned to clean fuels. Instead, some transitioned to using oil No.4, and transition patterns were spatially related. One analysis found that fewer buildings in Uptown borough transitioned from oil No.6 to clean fuels between 2011 and 2015 compared with the rest of the boroughs in NYC. The Uptown borough had a higher proportion of people living in poverty and communities of colour and a lower proportion of home ownership. About 53% of buildings that were using heating oil No.4 were in Uptown borough. This indicates that the initiative was not as successful in disadvantaged areas. On exploration of the underlying reasons for this, the study found that despite outreach and education efforts, low and moderate income households may have lacked the incentives, knowledge, or resources to make the transition. Uncertainty about the fuel market was also another factor, where some stakeholders perceived cleaner fuels to be more expensive, while others believed that the cleaner fuels market was more volatile (Carrión, 2018).