An owner-focused guide to applicability, field work, corrective actions, and EER filing
For a New York City building owner, Local Law 87 (LL87) is more than a report due every ten years. It requires two related technical efforts: an energy audit that identifies opportunities to reduce energy use, and retro-commissioning that tests whether existing base-building systems operate as intended. The results are documented in an Energy Efficiency Report (EER) submitted to the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB).
The process is manageable when it begins early and the owner, facility team, and qualified professionals work from a clear schedule. The following is what an owner should expect from initial applicability review through filing.
1. Confirm whether the building is covered—and when it is due
DOB’s current guidance generally identifies covered properties as a single building larger than 50,000 gross square feet; two or more buildings on one tax lot that together exceed 100,000 gross square feet; or condominium buildings under the same board that together exceed 100,000 gross square feet. Owners should confirm the property on DOB’s current Sustainability Law Covered Buildings List rather than relying only on prior notices or internal records.
The normal filing year corresponds to the last digit of the building’s tax block number: that digit matches the last digit of the calendar year in which the EER is due. Filing then repeats every ten years. Because DOB may issue year-specific service notices or deadline changes, the current DOB page should always be checked when scheduling the work.
A property’s circumstances may support an exemption, deferral, or extension, but those paths are specific and documentation-driven. Owners should not assume that a recent renovation, vacancy, landmark status, or efficient operation automatically removes the obligation.
2. Engage the professional team early
The energy audit and retro-commissioning studies used for an EER must be performed or supervised by a qualified New York State registered design professional. DOB also states that the professionals performing this work cannot be members of the building’s staff. Selecting the team early provides time to verify applicability, define responsibilities, plan seasonal testing, and address missing records or access constraints.
From the owner’s standpoint, the proposal should clearly identify the covered base-building systems, required site work, reporting responsibilities, assumptions, and any corrective work that is outside the professional services scope. A narrow filing-only approach can create problems later if testing reveals conditions that require contractor support or additional investigation.
3. Assemble building information and operating history
The project typically begins with a request for utility data, benchmarking information, equipment schedules, drawings, control-system documentation, prior audits, renovation records, operating schedules, service reports, and known comfort or reliability concerns. The facility team’s practical knowledge is equally important: recurring alarms, manual overrides, seasonal workarounds, and tenant complaints often point directly to performance issues.
For retro-commissioning, the agent establishes Current Facility Requirements—the building’s present operating needs. These consider occupancy, schedules, seasonal setpoints, indoor environmental requirements, equipment loads, and changes in space use. The goal is not to force the building back to an obsolete original design, but to evaluate whether its systems can meet legitimate current needs efficiently and reliably.
4. Expect both analysis and field verification
The energy audit evaluates how the building uses energy and identifies energy conservation measures. This may include operational improvements as well as repair, retrofit, or capital opportunities, with supporting analysis appropriate to the LL87 requirements.
Retro-commissioning focuses on how systems actually perform. The team reviews equipment and controls, observes operation, analyzes available trend data, and functionally tests selected sequences and components. Typical findings include inaccurate sensors, ineffective scheduling, simultaneous heating and cooling, failed dampers or valves, unnecessary equipment operation, improper staging, and control sequences that no longer match the building’s needs.
Owners should expect coordination with facility staff and access to mechanical rooms, controls, and representative equipment. Some testing may need to occur during particular weather or load conditions. Starting close to the filing deadline can limit the ability to observe seasonal operation or verify corrections.
5. Review findings, corrective actions, and priorities
The audit and RCx findings serve different purposes. Audit recommendations identify potential energy-saving investments; retro-commissioning findings document operational deficiencies and corrective measures. A useful owner review separates immediate compliance-related actions from optional improvements that belong in future operating or capital plans.
Not every recommendation will be a major project. Many RCx corrections involve calibration, schedules, setpoints, controls programming, repairs, or restoration of intended sequences. Other findings may expose larger equipment or distribution problems. Ownership should assign responsibility, obtain pricing where needed, track completion, and allow the professional team to verify results before the filing package is finalized.
6. Complete and retain the Energy Efficiency Report
The EER summarizes the energy audit and retro-commissioning work through DOB’s professional certification forms and required data-collection tools. The owner or authorized representative participates in the certification and filing process, while the registered design professional prepares and submits the technical materials. Owners should retain the final report, supporting analyses, findings logs, evidence of corrective work, and filing confirmation as part of the building’s permanent records.
Failure to file can result in a Class 2 violation and penalties—currently $3,000 for the first year and $5,000 for each additional year until submission. More importantly, a rushed compliance effort can leave useful operating and capital-planning information undeveloped.
Using LL87 as a building-performance tool
A well-executed LL87 project gives ownership more than a compliance record. It creates a documented view of energy use, equipment condition, control performance, operating needs, and prioritized opportunities. Those findings can support budgeting, maintenance planning, future retrofits, and coordination with broader emissions-reduction work.
Mayflower Energy Engineering supports NYC owners with energy auditing, retro-commissioning, field investigation, controls and metering analysis, corrective-action tracking, performance verification, and LL87 reporting. Our experience with multifamily, commercial, and institutional facilities keeps the process grounded in actual building operation—not simply completion of forms.
If your building appears on the covered list or is approaching its LL87 filing year, contact MEE early to confirm the schedule, define the required scope, and plan the work before the compliance deadline.
