Spend enough time in building operations and compliance conversations these days, and you’ll start hearing the same message repeated over and over: electrify everything. The implication is simple: if a building wants to reduce carbon emissions or comply with New York City’s Local Law 97 (LL97), electrification is the path.

The problem is that real buildings aren’t that simple.

Electrification means replacing equipment that burns fossil fuels, such as gas- or oil-fired heating systems, with equipment powered by electricity. This can play a major role in reducing emissions—and in many buildings, it should. But treating electrification as a one-size-fits-all solution ignores the realities co-op and condo boards, property managers, and building owners face every day: factors like hefty operating costs and limited capital, aging infrastructure, competing compliance priorities, long-term reserve planning, and disruptions for residents.

More decision-makers are beginning to recognize that electrification is not an instant solution for decarbonization, but rather a long-term strategy.

Why Boards Are Struggling 

Conversations about electrification often happen at a very high level, and the message sounds straightforward: replace fossil fuel systems with electric systems and emissions go down. Problem solved, right? 

If only it were that simple. Once you step inside an actual building— especially older building stock in New York City—complexities become unavoidable. A pre-war multifamily building with steam heat is not the same as a newer commercial tower. Nor is a fully occupied co-op the same as an empty property undergoing redevelopment. Every building has different infrastructure limitations, ownership goals, financial realities, and operational constraints that must be factored into any conversation around electrification, and that’s where the “electrification is the answer” drumbeat starts to falter.

In many cases, boards hear the word “electrification” and assume they need to replace existing systems immediately with all-electric alternatives. What they don’t always hear is how much supporting infrastructure may be required in order for that to happen.

For example, many older buildings were not designed to support the electrical capacity needed for fully electrified heating. Making that transition may require utility service upgrades, new electrical distribution equipment, work inside individual apartments, and significant resident disruption before the new heating equipment is even turned on. Then there is the operating cost side of the decision.

Electrification may reduce carbon emissions, but depending on utility rate structures and demand charges, it may also increase operating expenses. Demand charges are fees tied to a building’s highest periods of electricity use. We routinely evaluate projects where a building would actually spend more money operating an electrified system than it currently spends using gas-fired heating. That does not mean electrification is wrong for that building; it means the decision needs to be evaluated realistically, and supported by a plan that can be implemented over time.

Local Law 97 Does Not Prescribe One Path

One of the biggest misconceptions we continue to see is the belief that Local Law 97 compliance automatically requires full electrification. It does not.

LL97 was designed as a phased compliance framework, and it does not prescribe one specific path for every building. As allowable carbon emissions limits tighten over time, buildings have multiple ways to improve their performance and reduce emissions incrementally. That matters, because it creates room for strategy.

Too many boards feel pressured to pursue aggressive electrification projects immediately in order to avoid future penalties. In reality, many buildings can make meaningful progress through operational improvements and lower-cost efficiency measures long before full electrification becomes practical. Those measures might include improvements to steam-heating controls and distribution, ventilation and air-conditioning upgrades, insulation, domestic hot water strategies, weatherization, or partial system conversions.

The mistake is assuming that the only responsible strategy is to pursue the most aggressive and expensive option immediately. For some buildings, electrification may ultimately make sense 10 or 20 years from now, when current equipment reaches the end of its useful life, infrastructure upgrades are already planned, technology improves, or utility pricing evolves. 

Ask the Right Question 

The biggest risk is not necessarily moving too quickly or too slowly, but rather moving without fully understanding your building. We’ve seen boards spend substantial money designing large-scale electrification projects before properly benchmarking their building, analyzing its actual carbon exposure, or evaluating whether smaller, more cost-effective measures could achieve nearly the same compliance outcome.

Benchmarking is the annual process of measuring and reporting a building’s energy and water use. It can help boards understand how performance is changing over time, and whether further investigation may be necessary.

In some cases, once the building’s performance and emissions are fully analyzed, the board discovers it can significantly reduce future penalties through targeted improvements, instead of pursuing a complete system overhaul. That changes the conversation—and the available options— entirely. 

A good decarbonization strategy is not about chasing headlines or checking boxes, but about sequencing investments intelligently over time. Before committing to a major project, boards and owners should ask some practical questions, including:

• What equipment is already nearing the end of its useful life? 

• What infrastructure upgrades are already planned? 

• Which measures can create measurable carbon reductions today? 

• Which projects have reasonable payback periods? 

• How much disruption can residents tolerate? 

• What funding or reserve constraints must the board consider? 

• What flexibility will the building need five or ten years from now? 

These are not only engineering questions, but also questions of governance, financing, reserve planning, resident communication, and long-term asset management. A technically sound project can still fail if a board has not adequately planned for its cost, timing, disruption, and approval process.

Sequencing Matters 

A better approach— rather than framing electrification as an all-or-nothing decision—is practical decarbonization: evaluating each building individually, understanding equipment life cycles, and creating phased strategies that balance compliance, economics, operational performance, and resident impact. That strategy may include electrification, or may include hybrid approaches that combine existing systems with selective electric upgrades. It may include efficiency investments first and infrastructure upgrades later. What matters is building a strategy that works in the real world.

Co-op and condo boards are already balancing rising labor costs, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, capital reserve challenges, facade requirements, resident expectations, and other operational pressures. Decarbonization needs to fit into that reality. The goal should be to help buildings make informed, financially responsible decisions that move them toward lower emissions over time. Electrification is part of that journey—it just doesn’t have to be the entire roadmap.

Michael Scorrano, PE, is the founder and managing director of EN-POWER GROUP, an energy engineering and consulting firm based in New York City.