From what you wrote, it sounds like your board is trying a reasonable approach to meeting the potentially draconian requirements of LL97. LL97 can have very serious financial consequences if the efficiency limits are not met. I read some of the Cozy Covers website, and their approach to improving energy consumption efficiency makes sense.

To answer your question about under what law does the board have the right to do what it is doing, I recommend you read about the "Business Judgment Rule". The BJR gives boards very wide latitude to impose rules and guidelines as long as the imposition is done in good faith and applies to all shareholders.

In your case, the board is attempting to meet the dictates of LL97 using a low-cost solution, and the BJR gives your board the right to use whatever measures are available to them to obtain full compliance. The alternative for your building may be a major heating system overhaul or replacement and believe me, you do not want to see the maintenance increase or assessment for that.

Please don't consider the measures your board may use to achieve full compliance as "punishments", but look at them as a form of "fiscal attitude adjustment."

Thanks steven424 for your response. The only thing I'll add is that the bullying,dictatorial nature of the threatening notice,we received is disturbing to me, but I appreciate your insight.

You're welcome. Without meaning to sound facetious, have you considered running for the board, or putting together an opposition slate of candidates? I know in some buildings the incumbent boards try to put up roadblocks to any challenge of their power and authority, but that is really the only way to change the status quo.

Good luck to you!

In the case of our 12-building co-op, the Cozy covers have now been installed in at least 80% of the units. Thus the Co-op has met the standard of the law and need not worry about being out of compliance. Despite that, as shareholders we agree that the board has the right to require Cozies to be installed in remaining units, if it so chooses. However, this would means requiring some shareholders to demolish thousands of dollars of custom woodwork and other installed renovations — shelves, cabinets, etc, and in one case, a wall. The board is saying that individual shareholders must bear the cost of demolition and replacement alone, and to accept the corresponding reduction in value of their units and the loss of habitability and enjoyment during this work. It is saying that individuals must find and contract for these changes and complete them by Jan 2023. Moreover, it has established a near deadline (July 1) for committing, beyond which shareholders will be fined. It threatens legal action against shareholders who do not meet these deadlines, and has refused thus far requests for a meeting with those affected. We regard this policy as a wildly inequitable special assessment on a minority of shareholders, requiring them to pay far more than their proportionate shares for a co-op–wide project. We hope that the board will reconsider granting exemptions to shareholders who can document their built-in renovations, saving the co-op as well the unnecessary expense.