The bill NYC co-op boards support consolidates energy reports, not disclosures.

New York City buildings above 50,000 square feet file an energy audit and retro-commissioning report under Local Law 87 every ten years. Buildings above 25,000 square feet report annual carbon emissions under Local Law 97, with penalties of $268 per metric ton above their cap. Int. 559-2026, pending before the City Council, would let buildings subject to both laws file one combined report on one schedule rather than two reports on two separate tracks. The Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums listed the consolidation bill as supported in its 2026 Co-op/Condo Legislative Scorecard. The same scorecard lists three other bills as opposed. Those three bills would require co-op boards to provide rejected buyers with written rejection reasons, restrict screening criteria, and extend protected-class coverage to family structure and relationship status. The scorecard's distribution is consistent: the organization that represents co-op and condo boards supports reducing compliance reporting costs and opposes bills that would expand accountability to buyers and applicants.

What LL87 and LL97 require now.

Local Law 87, enacted in 2009 as part of the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, requires buildings above 50,000 gross square feet to conduct an energy audit and retro-commissioning study every ten years. The audit reviews how energy is consumed by the building's systems. The retro-commissioning study verifies that existing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems operate as they were designed to. Results go to the NYC Department of Buildings in an energy efficiency report. The filing cycle runs by block number: the final digit of a building's tax block determines which calendar year its report is due. A building on a block ending in 4 must file by December 31 of a year ending in 4.

Local Law 97, enacted in 2019 as part of the Climate Mobilization Act, established annual carbon emission caps for buildings above 25,000 gross square feet. The first compliance period runs 2024 through 2029; the second, with tighter caps, runs 2030 through 2034. Buildings that exceed their cap in a given calendar year pay a penalty of $268 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent above the limit. Compliance is reported through a separate annual benchmarking submission distinct from the DOB filing system LL87 uses.

Both laws carry penalties for non-compliance. A building that misses its LL87 filing deadline faces DOB fines. A building that fails to benchmark or exceeds its LL97 cap without a qualifying exemption faces the per-ton penalty. Co-op boards that rely on managing agents to track these obligations pay the agent's time for maintaining two compliance calendars. For buildings whose LL87 decennial cycle falls in an odd year while LL97 benchmarking runs annually, the reporting calendar in any given year may include both a decennial audit submission and an annual carbon report, each filed through a different portal with different documentation requirements.

What Int. 559-2026 would do.

Int. 559-2026 would create a unified energy compliance report covering both Local Law 87 and Local Law 97 obligations. Under the bill, a building subject to both laws would submit one document through one process rather than tracking and maintaining two separate compliance calendars. The underlying substantive obligations remain in place: the energy audit, the retro-commissioning study, and the carbon emissions benchmarking are not altered by the consolidation. What changes is the administrative structure of reporting.

The Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums marks the bill as supported in its 2026 scorecard. The trade organization's position reflects a long-standing priority: reducing the administrative and cost burden of regulatory compliance on co-op and condo boards. For a building whose LL87 decennial cycle and annual LL97 benchmarking run on different timelines, a unified format reduces the number of separate compliance tracks the board or its managing agent must maintain. No new disclosure obligations attach to the consolidation. No new penalties apply. The bill is an administrative reform with no accountability dimension.

What the 2026 CNYC scorecard covers.

The CNYC 2026 Co-op/Condo Legislative Scorecard covers bills before the City Council and the Albany legislature that affect residential cooperatives and condominiums. The scorecard assigns each bill one of three positions: supported, opposed, or monitoring. It is the primary public statement of CNYC's legislative priorities for the session, distributed to member co-op and condo boards.

Bills marked supported in the 2026 scorecard include Int. 559-2026 and others addressing procedural and filing requirements for boards. The pattern on the supported side is consistent: bills that simplify compliance, extend deadlines, or reduce paperwork for boards managing residential buildings. Bills that shift costs or obligations from boards to other parties do not appear on the supported side.

The bills marked opposed in the same scorecard are a different category. Three pending City Council bills that would expand what co-op boards must disclose to buyers, and what criteria boards may use when screening applicants, appear as opposed. Each addresses a different facet of the same structural gap in how NYC co-op boards interact with prospective buyers.

The three bills on the opposed list.

Int. 0774-2026 would require co-op boards to provide rejected purchase applicants with a written statement of the reason for rejection within five days. The bill does not restrict the grounds on which a board may reject; it requires only that those grounds be stated in writing when a rejection occurs. CNYC opposes the bill. The organization's published position notes concerns about administrative burden on all-volunteer boards and the potential use of written rejection reasons as evidence in fair housing litigation. The second concern is precisely the bill's purpose: the written record is intended to be examinable when a rejected buyer believes the decision reflected a protected-class bias that current law prohibits but, without a written record, cannot be proved.

Int. 0267-2026 would place statutory limits on the criteria co-op boards may use when screening prospective buyers. CNYC opposes it, citing the discretion boards exercise in the admissions process as a reason the criteria should not be subject to external standards.

Int. 0242-2026 would add family structure and relationship status to the list of protected classes under the NYC Human Rights Law. A co-op board that rejected a buyer because they are unmarried, have children, or live in a non-traditional family configuration would face the same statutory prohibition that currently covers race, sex, national origin, and disability. CNYC opposes the extension.

All three bills address the same structural gap from different angles: a co-op board in New York City can reject a buyer, and nothing in current law requires it to state why. None of the three has been scheduled for a floor vote in the current Council session.

What the scorecard pattern describes.

An organization's scorecard is a statement of priorities. CNYC's 2026 scorecard supports a bill that reduces administrative cost for boards and opposes three bills that would increase accountability to the buyers and applicants those boards evaluate. The distribution is not contradictory; it reflects a coherent institutional interest.

Managing agents and co-op board members bear the cost of compliance filings. When a building carries two separate energy reporting obligations on two separate calendars, the person managing that compliance bears the scheduling and filing burden. Int. 559-2026 reduces that burden. No other party loses anything under the consolidation.

The three opposed bills would move costs differently. A rejected buyer who receives a written rejection reason now has something to examine. A screened-out applicant evaluated against disclosed criteria can compare those criteria to their own qualifications. A buyer refused on family-structure grounds would have a legal basis for a complaint that currently does not exist. In each case, the cost of accountability shifts toward the board. The scorecard marks those bills as opposed.

At the City Council level, a bill needs to clear committee, receive a floor vote, and survive mayoral review to become law. Bills that lack organized support from groups with standing in the legislative process: trade organizations, industry coalitions, named institutional advocates, regularly stall at committee without a scheduled hearing. The three accountability bills in the CNYC opposed column share that position. Int. 559-2026, backed by the organization representing the majority of co-op and condo boards in the city, does not.

Bottom line.

Int. 559-2026 is a bill that boards, managing agents, and their industry organization all benefit from: one energy compliance report instead of two, with no new obligations attached. The Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums supports it. Three bills that would require boards to disclose rejection reasons, restrict screening criteria, and extend protected-class coverage appear as opposed in the same 2026 scorecard. None of the three has been scheduled for a floor vote. The pattern is consistent across sessions: bills that reduce compliance cost for boards move through the legislative queue with organized support. Bills that expand accountability to buyers and applicants move without that support, and have not moved far.

Primary sources:
CNYC 2026 Co-op/Condo Legislative Scorecard (PDF) · NYC Council Legistar: Int. 0559-2026, Int. 0242-2026, Int. 0267-2026, Int. 0774-2026 · NYC DOB: Local Law 87 energy efficiency reporting · NYC DOB: Local Law 97 carbon emissions

Companion resources: LL87 energy efficiency reports: the deadline and the managing agent gap. · Local Law 97: carbon emissions caps for NYC buildings. · Co-op rejection reasons: required in Westchester since 2021, stalled in NYC. · NYC co-op fair housing: a new protected class, the same enforcement gap. · NY's condo-reform record: what stalled, and what passed.