[Martine Dion]: to target more points than the minimum threshold, because there's a whole review process that goes on throughout design and construction with USGBC and GBCI. And sometimes things happen. We lose credits or criteria points through something that happens during construction or through a review through GBCI. to the third party review. But per our early assessment, you know, gold is achievable. The challenge with platinum, as it used to be with, as it used to be with the platinum on their lead before, is that the difference between silver and gold is 10 points, whereas the difference between gold and platinum is 20 points. And that means you have to target 20 plus points to get platinum and it gets, It gets a bit more challenging. Next, the one additional thing that we have in terms of the lead V5 platinum is that USGBC has added additional requirement on top of the 80 points. So the building has to be fully electrified, which means, you know, basically no fossil fuel. And so there's sort of a bit of a red flag there with the platinum, depending on what happens with the pool. And we would have to follow up again, as we're doing with the incentives with MassSave, where they have a rule about you know, having natural gas on site. GBCI also has a set of rules into what's acceptable. So we'd have to follow up there. Maximize energy efficiency. So you have to have the 24% savings over the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline. And that's through a lead energy analysis that is not the typical Energy announced that they have their own set of rules and their review sometimes is cumbersome. But we have to go through that anyway. We usually get the 24% on our projects, but it's a bit different here with ASHRAE, the 2019 version of ASHRAE. 100% renewable energy, so that means full net zero installed. and 20% reduction in embodied carbon. And I think that's a target that we usually strive for in our projects. But again, with the new version 5, there's a lot of new criteria and interpretation of that criteria. We have to understand that we're going to be in a learning curve here as the reviewers for GBCI are starting to review those v5 versions. And by the time we get to the reviews, you know, it's still early in the processing of this new version. Next.
[Matt Rice]: Martin, let me just add in on the fully electrified point. You had mentioned the pool building. There's also the topic that came up at one of our prior meetings of the instructional gas use for both the CTE programs that may require it as well as the potential for science labs. So we have learned since that the local utilities, the incentive programs, do have exceptions. for vocational programs and for science labs so we can we can have those conversations with the instructors when we get to our programming meetings in the fall and understand a little bit more about what their needs are. But we can include it there and still preserve the potential for maximizing our incentives. I think what you're alluding to is we also have a separate track that we have to sort of convince or make sure that that USGBC has that same understanding when it comes to the LEAD sort of platinum certification and this this requirement for full electrification. So there's more to sort out there, but I just wanted to sort of provide that quick update from what we talked about previously.
[Martine Dion]: That's a great point to make because GBCI may not be as open To as as open with exceptions as the incentive programs are So I just want to bring that up that that yeah, um, we'll try to reason with them though, right? Right and and also when thinking about labs and natural gas, there's also the health Component to it because when you have natural gas, it's been proven even with the cooking, you know that there's the health component. But that's a discussion with the instructor, and that's going to be their decision. But it's nice to see that the incentives have sort of addressed it. So we're going to go through each of the categories now. Integrated process, so what you're going to see in these slides, you're going to see the V5 on top and the V4 in the bottom. And then we have also an explanation of what's different. So in this one category, this was sort of a fairly easy point in V4. It's just following through the integrative process and documenting it into a specific template that's set by GBCI. And so this was a point we would get. In the new version, we have three more prerequisites. So those are mandated and they're new. And then that integrative design process has been modified as well. So all of these climate resilience, human impact, and carbon assessments are going to be starting to be documented and looked into as part of the design process, you know, from now to true schematic design up to CD, up to end of CDs. And there may be some components of those that will involve, you know, the district participation, the school participation. Next. In terms of the location and transportation, excuse me, most of the credits have, some of the credits have been combined or modified. So there's less and there's a bit of less points. So for example, if you look at the V4 below where I have the green circle, surrounding density and diversity use and access to quality transit. So together, those are nine points. For schools that are on a main street or near urban areas, these two credits usually get a high score of points. Unfortunately, the location of Medford, the Medford High School, makes it really hard to get points there from the start, even in V4. I just want to mention that. We are looking at the new version and we're also looking at, you know, the bus trips is the big thing with the quality transit, which is the LTC3, the compact and connected development. So there's going to be more conversation about those. The one other is the electric vehicles. So it used to be 5% before, now it's 5 and 10%. But in order to get to gold, we need to do the 10% install. In this case, it's not a big issue because you have a requirement for 20% from what I'm understanding. So that is the, I don't know why it says 4% here, there's a typo. It should be 5%. So that's location and transportation. As we go through the design, as the parking options are being developed, as the site options are being developed, we look into this criteria and make sure and see what is needed to optimize the compliance to these credits. Next. In terms of sustainable sites, there's a couple of new. There's a lot of credits here, so we have the comparison on the next slide, the full comparison. But most of the... Most of the credits have been modified, and then we have a couple of new credits. Enhanced Resilient Site Design is one which addresses site resiliency, which, you know, your site is already addressing this at many levels. Heat island reduction is a combination of white membrane roof and, you know, as much reflect as much light colored paving as possible. And these require early calculations. When we start schematic design, we start some of these calculations to see how we're doing. And it's integrated as part of the decision process as to, you know, when you discuss materials and areas of parking and location of parkings, et cetera. Next. So this gives you a bit of the changes to the site assessment, which is not required as part of the prerequisite. It used to be a point, and we did it on every project. Joint user facilities, which was very, very convenient for school projects for LEED certification is no longer a credit. That was another easy point. Site master plan is no longer a credit. There is an opportunity for the bird friendly glass offers an opportunity for extra point. That's something we may want to discuss. And then access to outdoor space is a new credit. We just talked about those two. Next. So we wanted to give you a bit of a flavor of, you know, what are all those credits and what do they mean? Accessible outdoor space, rainwater management, enhanced resilience site, heat ion reduction. So for example, outdoor learning classrooms, which we're going to be looking as part of this project, bioswales, which we're going to be looking as part of this project, those contribute to pretty much all of those credits. The roof and the bioswale do reduce and help manage the rainwater. They help reduction of heat island reduction as well. The light colored pavers on those, you know, outdoor classroom surfaces, they help for the heat island reduction. In Somerville, we did a demo rainwater harvesting system for the science program. So there's some of these concepts we can, you know, look and think about, especially for the city programs. Next. Water efficiency. So once again, there's one less prerequisite, but basically they bundle them. And then they also bundle the water efficiency, they bundle the indoor and the outdoor together. So these credits were modified, the water metering was modified a bit as well, and some of the credits went away. So that's it in a nutshell for this one. So there's less point overall in that category compared to V4. Next. All right, energy and atmosphere. So there's more prerequisites than V4. V4 is on the other slide because it was too much. So we'll talk about it in a minute. But this is focused on everything that has to do with your building systems, including the building enclosure and renewable energy, as well as your system being connected to the grid. So what's new here is they're asking for an operational carbon projection and decarbonization plan. So we have to do a carbon analysis upfront, which we kind of do as part of the MSBA process to a certain extent. So we'll be doing that. And some of the LCCA that we're going to do is going to address this. And then everything that has to do with energy analysis falls into here. It's a different energy analysis. Like I said earlier, it's their requirements are a bit different than the one we do for code, for the Massachusetts code. Energy metering and reporting. So this involves the owner. It's about the main energy meters in the project, but also you sign a commitment to report to USGBC your annual energy use. The refrigerants are as part of the HVAC system. And then what's new in V5 is electrification. And that's all electric heating and cooling, which is the type of system we're looking into here. Again, that doesn't mean we're going to get the five points because it's specific to LEED versus what we're going to end up here. If we have fossil fuel, it may impact this credit. And then reduce peak thermal loads. That's also a new credit. It'll be interesting to see how with the all electric, very efficient all electric and potentially ground source heat pump system that we're looking into here, how this is all gonna impact the peak thermal loads on top of the highly insulated and robust and airtight enclosure we have. So there's gonna be, we're definitely going to be trying to pursue this. this credit, but as you can see here, you know, we're looking at, you know, there's five points for electrification, but because of the, we're way too early now to assess, you know, if we're going to make the five or three. So we have some in the maybes. Same with the peak load. For enhanced energy efficiency, we're being conservative too, but we're obviously, we're, you know, targeting a high, I mean, a low EUI, a high efficiency, high performance building. Again, one of the challenges that we'll see here is, you know, how the fact that this is a CTE program school and how that's going to impact the overall peak loads and energy. Renewable energy, we're going to look into solar PV. So that's gonna impact and contribute to this. Again, some of these have all been, most of these have been modified from the V4. In V4, it was, if you did a good amount of PV, it was fairly excessive, it was fairly, feasible to get the three to five renewable energy points. Here it's another set of criteria. Commissioning, that's MSBA mandated. And we still are looking at the fundamental commissioning, which requires the schematic design component. And then grid interactive, basically that's reorganization of the demand response credit that was in the V4. And my understanding, and we're going to have to have a bit more discussion around this, but There's a really good national grid program, you may already be participating in it, and it's about making a plan and committing to the program. I think with the addition of the solar PV and battery storage. There's much more here that's gonna be beneficial on top of getting this credit in terms of revenues and savings. And then enhanced refrigerant management, that's always kind of tricky depending on the type of systems you go with. It's minimizing the amount of refrigerant in the building. I think between the CTE program and where we land on the HVAC, we may not be able to do the two points. So what I have at the bottom of the slide there is sort of our goal in terms of the EUI, the KBTU per square foot per year. We think that the schools with the target is 30 to 35. Most non-CTE iSchool will go from 25 to 30, but because you have all the CTE program, It's a little bit higher. And how do we get there? Well, it's about optimizing the passive strategies. I know there's been discussion about the different options, and that may have been folded in the discussion. The super insulated enclosure, robust and airtight enclosure, that's got a huge impact into your loads. Triple glazing, all electric HVAC, plug load management, and renewable energy. All together, this well, the renewable energy is not accounted for in the EUI, but all of this is going to contribute to one, the low energy consumption of your building and two, renewable energy that's going to offset your grid consumption. Next.
[Matt Rice]: Just before I jump to the next slide, I was wondering if you could just reconfirm, I may have missed it, but this first column of circles and why some are solid and some are open as we go through there. Can you just remind us sort of what those mean as just a graphic convention?
[Martine Dion]: Those are comparing to LEED v4. So the new requirements show the credits and the prerequisites that were not in LEADv4. And the circles, the empty dots, those are the prerequisites and the credits that were modified from LEADv4. So as you can see in this category, there's nothing that's from LEADv4 exactly. It's all different.
[Matt Rice]: Got it. OK. And because I opened the door to ask a question, and I saw Luke put his hand up as well, I'm just going to give Luke the opportunity to ask a question here as well.
[Luke Preisner]: Great. Thanks, Matt. So this is to Martine and to Matt. In terms of PD and offsetting, I'll say like operational usage costs. What is a ballpark for this subcommittee to keep in our minds as a feasible target? Before you answer that, when I went to visit Arlington, they described a plan that was phased with an initial deployment that was gonna be later augmented with additional panels. And I believe their end target was an offset of about 30% their anticipated electric load. Are those the kinds of numbers we should anticipate, or should we anticipate something else? Over.
[Martine Dion]: We are going to show you what is in sort of what is needed for probably more than 30%. Usually our solar PV assessments look at 50 and 100%. We're going to look at your site capacity. Because you have a higher UI, and you'll see in my next slide, I'll talk a little bit more about that. There's a slide on solar. So I'll probably answer questions a bit more about that. But we're going to look above 30%. Yes. We think your site has the capacity for a bit more than that.
[Matt Rice]: There's an interesting connectivity there, Luke, in terms of the eventual site solution that we end up with for parking. Because if we have at-grade parking, that's a real great fertile opportunity to install PV panels over the top of. But if we're putting fields over the entirety of our parking, we sort of lose that opportunity and we're forced to look elsewhere and think elsewhere on the site because our roof surface will not be able to provide anywhere near the 100 percent of electrical capacity generation from the PV panels. So we'll need to look on the site. We don't know sort of the full resolution of that yet, but as we get to the point of evaluating sort of the pros and the cons, of sort of our parking approach, we'll want to take that into account as well.
[Martine Dion]: And we have started to have discussion with our solar consultant about this so they can start looking at the, I believe, a couple of the preferred options, the ones that differ with the parking. So we've started engaging and we hope to have something to share fairly soon, hopefully. Next. Okay, you are next. You did it, Matt. Basically, in V4, the threshold for the savings, we're talking about 24%. Our V4 projects that were all electric in the past seven, eight years, would get into the 35 to 45% savings over that ASHRAE baseline, because it was V4 at ASHRAE 2010. If you had registered the project before 2024, 2020, I forgot they did an update in 2022, maybe, but Now, the threshold is ASHRAE 2019 or 2022. We've actually ran, for other projects, we ran comparison between the two ASHRAEs. There's not a big difference, actually, between the two, which is probably why they give the choice. But that threshold is much higher than the 2010. So those 40% savings may be much lower. And then equivalent to points, you know, we used to get pretty much the 16, 14 to 16 points in V4, but in V5, there's actually less points. And then we also need to be at this time to be conservative. We talked about electrification and reduce peak load. We talked about the commitment for commissioning and the demand response. So we've addressed that. Before we go to the other category, I don't know if there's any other questions. I'm happy for this section. We can take maybe a few minutes if needed.
[Matt Rice]: And I'm happy to go back and forth between the two since there's a lot here, different sides.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah. The, uh, like, as you can see, the energy efficiency is just 10 points, you know, and it used to be 16. So again, more challenging to get to the 80 points of platinum. And if you don't have question and you, something comes up later, we'll go through everything and then we can circle back.
[Matt Rice]: I did just want to mention that there's a little bit of back and forth in the chat as well, which is great if people want to use that to have a little bit of dialogue as we keep going. There's just some commentary there about Arlington and sort of the presence of a PPA being used for the installation of the photovoltaic system there. And so that's something that we will get into as well. I think it probably plays in less to the credits that we're going to achieve through LEAN and it's more going to play into sort of the financial realities of how the PV system is afforded and installed. Definitely something that we need to circle around on and that we'll make clear in the cost estimating options that come up for those for the photovoltaic panels, but just so folks are aware of that. I think that's true, right Martine? Absolutely. Your JVC is agnostic on PPA versus purchase, right?
[Martine Dion]: They're not totally agnostic, but they've adapted the credit to, you know, allow both. But PPAs, they have a certain set of criteria for PPA, like there's a minimum contract year and that type of stuff. But they've improved it so that it can be one or the other. And we're going to assess both. And we're going to show you the impact of both, not only in terms of lead, but also in terms of, as Matt said, in terms of financials, the upfront costs, but also when you own the system, you also get advantage, a higher advantage of directs, you can sell, you have potential annual revenues, whereas a PPA, they'll hold all of that for themselves. So that those things are going to be important for your, you know, your team to consider in terms of deciding which way to go. Um, so I think that's it. Let's go to, um, I saw the question about, there was another question. Hold on. No, I forgot.
[Matt Rice]: There was the PPA and just the fact that Arlington does not have, has neither programs nor a pool. Right.
[Martine Dion]: Exactly. Yeah.
[Matt Rice]: We'll drive up the UI a bit.
[Martine Dion]: So a bit more about solar. A lot of projects go with sort of the more affordable, low-angled, low-roof PV. There's parking area. We talked about this. We could do parking canopies, whether it's on the ground canopy or on a parking garage. But if you have the sports field on top of the parking garage, it may get a little bit more complicated to do canopy there. We also, you know, we can also look at high canopy on roof in over HVAC, etc. And, and we've done that in other projects. There's, you know, outdoor classroom learning, that could be patio sort of areas. And then there's also building mounted, what we call BIPB, awnings on wall and roof screens. The vertical ones are not as efficient as the right angled PV systems. The gist of it is that with the EUI-35, the amount of energy that the building at the current square footage would be planned to use, we're talking about a 6.2 to 6.5 megawatt at 100% net zero. So if you want the whole site to be net zero, that's sort of the range we're looking at. And of course, we're in PSR right now. So we're going to follow through the design progress. and look to sort of massage this a little bit. But that's sort of the big ballpark range here. And those are the numbers we brought up to mass save and the utility in terms of planning. Next. Those are examples of some of our projects. On the left is parking canopies and then at the Lincoln School. And then on the right, we have done in some of our projects, we have done demo projects. We showed rainwater harvesting. This is a bit older, but it's a Quincy High School, which was in the early 2010 era. where they had a CTE program and we worked with the CTE teachers and we had like a small wind turbine and we had a small solar thermal demo system there. And they ended up putting PV on the roof as well. Next. So the materials and resource category. A lot of this is around reduction, reuse, recycling, and recycle content of materials, as well as the content of material in terms of the healthy materials criteria. Low-emitting materials used to be in the indoor air quality, and it's now in this category. So all of those, there's a couple of new ones that again, embodied carbon used to be a credit and by doing the analysis and achieving certain threshold, you would get points. You had three to five points under V4.1. But here, there's a prerequisite in terms of doing the analysis. There's also a new, well the modified recycling program is now the zero waste operation. You need to do a planning for zero waste operation. That's going to involve us discussing with you your current waste stream management is for the school, and how the new school project would go for, and then the planning for zero waste in the future. Building materials and reuse, that's also a new credit. Embodied carbon, so you could still get, by reducing embodied carbon, there's a set of threshold, you could still get points there. We're going to talk much more about this in the next, in schematic design. low emitting material, that's pretty much, there's a bit of modification, they moved it around, but it's pretty much equivalent to LEED v4, and we usually target most of the points, but the process through going through procurement and construction, so we have one point in the yes, one point in the maybe because of that, because there's always things that happen. We always are mindful of the three equals because the whole approach here is not to add cost. All of this is applying to your project design on budget. Building product selection and procurement. So that's new. That includes red list materials, which we've applied on other projects that used to be more of a innovative point in the previous LEED v4, because it's borrowed from another green building standard that's called Living Building Challenge. And then construction demolition waste, we always target 95% diversion goal. This has been modified again a bit. And usually the 95% would get us an innovation, but I don't think it does anymore, that whole category has been modified. I'll talk about it in a minute. So basically the, you know, EPDs and HPDs have been sort of combined into this building products section, procurement and building and material reuse. It's all combined. So again, there's pretty much as much similar point totals, but very much modified. Next. I think we have a little bit of a summary there. Yeah. Explaining a bit of the zero waste planning, which is the added requirement. The embodied we talked about. So building material and reuse, I think it combines the attributes and the reuse together. And it used to be 15. And before, I think it was 15 and 20. Now it's 20, 35, and 50. And so we're, again, being conservative in saying we may not be able to get 50. Building product disclosures. So that's the combination of EPDs and HPD. And then low emitting. Next.
[Matt Rice]: Martín, let me just point out as well that there are some of these credits that will be determined or easier to achieve or more points to achieve available depending on the option that's chosen. So for instance, the B1.2 option where we're looking to reuse the majority of the existing structure as much as possible, that has a higher likelihood on this particular billing materials and reuse credit, yeah, to achieve a higher point total. So there will be some variability inherent in the different alternatives that's eventually chosen.
[Martine Dion]: I would say there on you know, there's obviously there's impact on some of the sites, there's impact, but I think in general, they're fairly other than these one or two different ones, they're fairly equivalent. Like, I wouldn't say that the existing would get us 10 more points, for example, right? It's probably just one or two point difference. I just want to clarify that. And, you know, in light of your decision process.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, I think that's a good point. So maybe we can just point out where those few people are aware.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, exactly. So. There's a lot here, but we just wanted to give you a flavor, you know, of reducing body carbon loyalty materials and EPDs and HPDs. In terms of reducing body carbon, We look to obviously to do high recycle content in steel and concrete, and that still weighs in there. We look at low carbon insulation, brick in some cases. Again, we try to be mindful of the three equals, and there'll be conversation around that. And all of these also get impacted by the red list, the set of red list materials that we're going to target. We look, there are some material selection in terms of interior materials, the flooring, the finishes, the gypsum that can be selected to be low carbon. However, we found out that The gypsum low carbon is thinner and so has a bit less acoustical performance. So there's a little bit of attention that needs to be paid to some of these opportunities and material selection options. Removing ceiling, like having exposed ceilings really help because it's material versus no material in this case. The red list components, obviously we look at the red list per the credit of LEAD, but we also pay attention to the six classes of harmful chemicals database, the common materials framework. And from our experience, the majority of these materials that are going to be contributing to the red list and the lead credits are interiors within the air barrier. Next. So indoor environmental quality, again, same sort of, you know, if you look at from LEED v4 to LEED v5, most of the credits have been modified. There's some credits that have been combined. And so the ones that are the three new dots, the first one, occupant experience, this sort of combines a set of criteria in addition to the old LEED v4 thermal comfort and daylight optimization all in one. It's a lot of points, but when you look into it may not be as much as in the old lead version. Accessibility and inclusion, new point. There used to be a pilot that was Similar to this, and so we've looked into it in the past, but this obviously is a bit more than what that pilot was in the past. Resilient spaces also combines a bit of things, including the operable windows in occupied space, and then air quality testing and monitoring that's similar to the V4, a bit modified. And enhanced air quality is also similar to V4, but modified. Next. So one of the different things in one of the prerequisite is the fact that they also, they added mandated no vehicle idling as part. It used to be the non-smoking prerequisite. Now they added the no vehicle idling in. in that. And then the construction IAQ management plant, which used to be a credit, is now a prerequisite. Low-emitting materials, it moved to materials and resources. And then we talked about the bundling of thermal comfort. And then The air quality testing and monitoring is one of the credits that's required by MSBA. So MSBA's green policy requires lead silver minimum, but they also have a set of minimum IAQ and MR credits that you need to meet. And then there's an additional 1% reimbursement with an additional set of MR&EQ credits. If you comply with those and they get awarded through GBCI, then it contributes to that additional 1% reimbursement. So that 1% reimbursement, we keep track and we will keep you updated on how we can achieve it and its value alongside the school construction costs and the total reimbursement by MSBA. Next. So a bit of a flavor again of what all of those credits and criteria mean. You know, daylight and quality views, abundant daylight is something that designers and I know your team is keen on. And so what we're gonna, that's gonna be well integrated into the design. At the same time for the lead, we need to do what we call a daylight modeling. There's a simulation that's done to see if we meet the thresholds of lead. Environmental acoustics as well, very important. Um, and then combination of daylight and interior lighting, which is now, which used to be two credits and now it's into one credit and V5. Next. And then accessibility and inclusion, this addresses sort of the differentiated space or the, you know, that support the different learning styles, the multilingual, multicultural, all of this is part of that credit, which is something that's already part of your project. And then the last category, so they used to be an innovative in design and a regional priorities, they kind of took off the regional priorities, which was a kind of a you know, good, a good category, because if you made certain thresholds within, you know, for example, if you made eight points in the energy efficiency, you got an extra point in regional, that's gonzo, they took that out. So that that was four points. And we usually targeted at least three of those four points, depending on the you, you could choose There were certain attributed credits per zip code, yet a set of six, and we, you know, were able to get three to four of those six points. That's gone. So now you can still get 10 points, but it's pretty much they're called project priorities. And it's pretty much a set of exemplary and innovative design and what they used to call pilot credits that are all bundled together. And they've removed some of the ones that we used to do that were pretty feasible. We've, so joint user facility is there. It was a credit and it's now there, but it's been modified a bit. Design for circularity is something that we're looking into. That used to be, that was a pilot credit. So there's a set of nine that we're going to target for your project because we want to optimize those as much as possible. Next. So yeah, the exemplary performance for EPD and HPDs, which were two credits in the materials category, we used to get those on every project, two extra points, and those are no longer available in that category. So we have to go, like I said, we have to go for different ones for those nines. So in late V4, we used to do the low mercury lamp, the exemplary, some of the pilot credits, and then that 95% construction waste management. We didn't achieve it in every project. Always depends. There's always conditions that may keep from achieving it. There's asbestos and hazardous material that sort of impacts the total waste management percentage, but we always target it in some projects we did get it, but that's not available anymore. It's sort of folded back into the credit. And the regional, those are the ones that are gone. Next. So just bringing back the tabulation of silver, gold, and platinum. As Matt mentioned, MSBA requires the silvers, so that's a given. Achieving at least 57 is something we think silver is achievable with the buffer of seven points. To get to gold, we would need another 16 points. And we think that's achievable. Platinum is a bit more challenging. at 80 points. So I think that's my last slide, if I'm not mistaken, and we can open some discussion here. Yeah.
[Matt Rice]: I'll just leave this one up as well, unless people want us to circle back to any other prior slides.
[Martine Dion]: There's a couple of hands up, good.
[Matt Rice]: I think I saw Brenda's hand go up first.
[Brenda Pike]: So just to clarify this slide here, is this showing what you think you could achieve or you would hope to achieve if we were going after the different categories with the designs that you're considering now?
[Martine Dion]: Yes.
[Brenda Pike]: OK. And for the ones that are, especially for the ones that are striving for platinum here, what would the difference be between the gold and the platinum, for instance?
[Martine Dion]: So for instance, you probably would have to do 100% net zero. And some of these will have to fully vet in terms of the, you know, the electrification, for example, can we have the natural gas, right? What if we have the pool and can we have the natural gas for the labs? So we would have to do the electrification. We would have to do 100% renewable energy. I think that, again, the natural gas, the fossil fuel really impacts we'd have to check the renewable energy. I would need to check and make sure if you get the full five points, if it's installed, or if you could get the full five points with the PPA. And then, because we haven't done those evaluations yet. And then if you go PPA and you don't really fully get the the grid interactive you would get with the energy storage if you would own it, that may impact that grid interactive point as well. So there's sort of a cascading effect of some of the decisions that would impact the platinum. I think there would have to be more on the indoor and outdoor portable water, the water enhancement. I know that rainwater vesting systems for portable water in in the projects where we've installed them came back from the feedback we got from the facilities managers, it's considerable maintenance. And so it's an investment, it's got a cost, and then there's the maintenance. I think some of those would have to be considered though, to get to platinum. As much as we're optimizing all the materials points, we would have to obtain them. So it's really obtaining all the maybes that right now, and the challenge here is the review of GBCI, because very few of us have gone through a full V5 review right now. And so that's why there could be a strive for platinum, but there's a lot there that may play into getting platinum, because platinum is another 20 plus points. What we can do from here, if there's still some appetite for platinum, we can definitely track the exact criteria and then As we do in schematic design, as we do, there could be, I'm not sure in schematic design, Matt, right? Because I think we would have to do this now. In terms of costs, if there's any items that are involved cost and sort of, you know, specific design impact. One of your challenges, the fact that you're not getting as much points from, because there's not enough bus routes. you know, bus hours route, and there's not like a T station right there, you know, that impacts some of the sustainable location transportation points. And that makes it even harder to get, you know, it's, you got to make do with some somewhere else to get those extra 20 points.
[Matt Rice]: And Martin, I think it's just worth noting the same way that you explained that we would want to be targeting over the 50 points for silver and over the 60 points for gold. While you're listing 80 points there for platinum, we would need to be targeting a higher than 80 point total to have some confidence that we could achieve the platinum after the fact, right?
[Martine Dion]: Right. And per our assessment, it was, that's why we put 80 there because per our assessment, it was really hard to get beyond 80 with, you know, with where we are with the site and everything else that we need to be done.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah. And to answer your earlier question that was posed to me, I think, yes, we would need to try to identify or want to identify what that cost premium might be. I know that it's a tough thing to try to put a number on, but thinking about overall where we are in the project would be something that I think we'd want consideration on sooner rather than later. So let me just take the hands in the order that I saw them popped up. So I think Luke is next. And then between Sonny and Ken, I'm not sure who got first, but Ken, okay. All right. We'll go in that order.
[Luke Preisner]: Okay. Not if you can hear me, I had to change locations. Okay, great. So, let's see we have eight categories under lead v5. Those are kind of like the row headers, and we have six different designs for the high school. Between those eight categories, the rows, I imagine that some are sensitive to which concept is selected and others probably aren't. Could you, for our committee, identify the lead V5 categories that are most sensitive, and if you can, most sensitive to the concept. And then if it's possible, give us an idea of which direction, whether they go in a negative direction or a positive direction based on the concepts. I'm not asking every category here to be kind of
[Martine Dion]: walk through in that manner but if there are some uh highly sensitive uh to you know the concept can we know about those yeah we we talked about it a bit maybe you you in your transition you missed those those points so in general at the stage where we're at and in general for our projects the reno ad and the new construction are very equivalent in achieving whether it's lead gold or lead silver or lead platinum, where we see a couple of point differences. Um, is the, uh, we talked about this, the materials and resources category as a point with building reuse. And of course your reno add, we'll have more building reuse, but we haven't done the calculation yet. So I want to make sure everybody understands we haven't done the calculation. So we, you know, I don't want to advance it's one, two or three points more because it's probably a small amount that could be. probably captured back in the new construction if, you know, with looking at meeting the carbon reduction, you know, we're going to be looking at potentially matte, right, embodied carbon reduction, mass timber in some areas, and that could contribute to outweigh that point from the Reno add. So that's sort of, you know, one area. The other area is between the between the options would be the impact of the parking on the urban heat island. Although if you do a synthetic field on top of your parking garage, it's not accounting for reduction of urban heat island. So, again, it's nuances you know, unless you put the big PV canopy on it and you shade it, which you would do on the surface parking. So I just want to say that I, you know, it's, it's going to be, it's not going to be a major impact between those, between those options. I think all of those options are, will feasibly attain gold and or platinum in the same manner. with the same challenges.
[Luke Preisner]: So, I guess, could I interpret your answer as none of those categories, apart from maybe materials and resources, are very sensitive to the concept selected?
[Martine Dion]: Yes.
[Luke Preisner]: Okay, thank you.
[Martine Dion]: That means you understand what I said in a long, long detailed way. So I'm glad.
[Matt Rice]: All right. Ken, you want to go ahead?
[Kenneth Lord]: I think you might have answered this in Luke's question, but does a new pool versus renovating the existing because it's not part of the MSBA project have any impact on this?
[Martine Dion]: Yes, because, and we've dealt with this on another project where The new pool was completely separate and not included in the LEED certification. And it was, it was being built like, you know, six months apart or a year apart. So we were able to do the whole LEED certification without the pool. And that had, we didn't have to deal with the pool. So the impact of the pool was not imposed on the school.
[Kenneth Lord]: Do you think that was because of the schedule or just the fact that it was a new separate project?
[Martine Dion]: This, I believe this was a new pool without having an existing pool on that site. So it was a committee that said, we're going to build the school and the pool. And there was no existing pool. So it's a bit different than your situation where you're deciding between the existing and the new.
[Kenneth Lord]: So it could or couldn't, it's not clear.
[Martine Dion]: Right.
[Kenneth Lord]: Okay. Okay. Thanks.
[Matt Rice]: All right. Sunny and then Sarah, we can take you after.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Thanks for doing this, Martine. I don't know how much work this is. My question maybe isn't just for you, but for this group as a whole, but maybe first for you. Based on everything that you've heard from this group, what goals do you think we've made specifically will help drive up our ability to meet higher certification levels in B5? And what sort of strategies would we need to implement to create that sort of level up? And then I have one more question. So maybe just if you can answer that one first.
[Martine Dion]: I think you're, I mean, you know, the specialized stretch code that's, you know, sort of contributing, you know, indirectly to some of the energy goals. The fact that you, you are looking to do geothermal and or what, you know, geothermal and all and or all electric also impacts like there's no, um, you know, there doesn't seem to be, and I don't think there needs to be a specific percentage because we have an EUI target in terms of energy. In terms of water, we're, you know, looking at, there hasn't been any specific, you know, potable water goals, but we're looking at our typical schools with very low fixtures and et cetera, like, you know, appliances. The embodied carbon is one that would be good. I know we had brushed on it on some of the previous advisory and looking for maybe a target from you. We've, you know, we've heard from other communities, 20 to 25, that's usually even some of our corporate clients, that's usually a target. So that would help. That will help having a goal there. And then, you know, we know you're interested in sort of the net zero, whether it's a PPA or an own solar system. And that's really helping as well, I think. It's, you know, we're all integrating this as part of the assessments. In terms of materials, Suni, you had mentioned, you know, an appetite for, you know, circularity. we have the red list in terms of lead, but I don't know if this group is interested in going beyond the lead for red list, you know?
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: I think that's, yeah, I mean, that's a pretty good list. I feel like maybe to that point, it doesn't feel like we have any sort of driving. True north.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: And so I like just sort of pulling in the experience that I've had on other projects, like, a project that cannot get the site credits is going to struggle unless they really figure out how to find a drive. So if there's water efficiency, we have to do better than just low-flow fixtures. We've got to go composting toilets. So I'm just trying to figure out from this group, what is the drive to get us to these higher levels of certification? Because currently, it doesn't seem like we have it, for one. And if it's really just that lead platinum sounds really awesome, then Maybe this is the second question. Why don't we just sign up now, risk it, and does the timeline work? Can we still meet V4? If that's really the drive, I feel like I'd prefer we go V5 and have true measurable... We've already decided on V5.
[Martine Dion]: That's been decided upfront. We've already decided we're going V5. The question is, is it gold or platinum? Because I think the SBC and the whole team, your advisory group, they had an issue with understanding the difference between lead V4 platinum and what does that mean for lead V5. And that's what we tried to show today.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: I think you did a really good job with that. I just feel like I'm worried that we're going to say we want V5 platinum and we have no roadmap to get there.
[Martine Dion]: So I think that's why I was suggesting showing what it entails to get there versus what we think gold is a feasible goal. I mean, there's still a lot to, as you know, Suni, there's still a lot to experience with GBCI on V5. That's my main concern in terms of how are they going to push back on reviewing some of these things and the nuances and the interpretation. And we were, you know, Sarah, you and I are all familiar in how they address V4. you know, review of all the criteria, but this is new charter territory.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I mean, Sarah, you and I need to go.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, so that's sort of the dilemma here is, you know, gold or platinum, right? And
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Are you looking for this group to make a recommendation today, just so that you can bring that back to the SBC? Do you, like, I guess I haven't necessarily seen that interaction to understand, like, I have heard that we're going V5, and I think that's great. I think that's the way to go. We will get a better school if we go V5. I just would love to stress, like, this will be sustainable and great no matter which certification level we're going after. And if we don't have any strong water goals or, I mean, I love energy and atmosphere, but we talk about it so much. We need so many other things beyond that.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, I think, Suni, that there's a lot happening with the site that is gonna sort of be embedded in sort of the lead criteria. But there's a very, I think, interesting discussion around site and connectivity to the fells and the outdoor classrooms. I think that and then obviously the, you know, the management of the site water and storm water, all of this is going to bring in You know, resiliency, bioswales, the strategies that are going to be used are going to obviously be very sustainable.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: I have one more question and then I'll mute. But I guess I'm just wondering, like, do we even have enough information to make this decision right now?
[Martine Dion]: It's a good point, Matt. I mean, it would, you know, what we've seen, In other communities, when there's that sort of dilemma, there's a target and an aspiration. And there seems to be appetite for platinum here. We know it may be very challenging to get there. We're going to show what it means to get there in a bit more detail, because we just talked about this earlier. And so that could be, you know, something you consider, you know, you want to go beyond silver, I think that's pretty clear that, you know, everybody wants to go beyond silver, you know, is it gold aspiration, platinum, that sort of thing, something to consider.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, so I'll pivot over to Sarah but I just want to offer maybe a different way of thinking about it in sort of where he may be started and potentially wasn't clear enough in terms of how I was explaining it but there was the guidance from the school committee that the project under version four. should be a platinum level project. And so if we just think about what that means in version five, and I think Martine, what you've laid out is that there's sort of an equivalency to gold, but I didn't hear you say that explicitly. So I want to make sure that's a true statement, but if it is, I think we could at least suggest a recommendation that we're trying to acknowledge the fact that the version four platinum Rating would be an equivalent to lead version 5 and yes, there's there's a lot that we have to do to figure out exactly what that means and what the strategies we're going to use to get there are. But I think we could at least state sort of that equivalency and make that recommendation back to the full building committee as a starting point, but I can. Sarah, why don't you go and you can touch on that, or you can go back to your original question. I'm sure you had a different thought there as well.
[Martine Dion]: Just before you start, Sarah, I just want to clarify that, you know, that's just, yeah, I think from what we know now, yes, I think we can say, although it's hard because it's such apples to oranges, it's hard to really assess it. But I, you know, I agree with what she said, man. I think, you know, the closest equivalent is probably gold. Like, I don't think silver is equivalent to platinum, you know, platinum V4. I don't think silver V5 is platinum V4. I think it's closer to gold. Just want to say that. Go on, Sarah.
[UdfiATpNBs8_SPEAKER_12]: Sorry, I had a couple of thoughts. One, I agree with Sunny, you know, I, Platinum's lovely, but it's not about the certification. It's about the project. And we have to think about who the building is for and who's going to be using the building and in that building for four years of education. And I'd like some focus to be on the students. And no matter what, the building's going to be sustainable. It can't help but be. That's great you know and you know and someone who works in the space you know of course we love to aspire to higher levels of certification, but I don't know that that should be like the end goal. And that it's. You know, it's, it's about the, the students and, um, I'd like, you know, that to be part of the focus. Uh, and honestly, you know, again, as someone who works in this space, lead V5 platinum is extremely difficult. Um, even if we're doing like all the right things and net zero and, you know, all electric and all that stuff, it doesn't mean that we're there. There's a lot to do. And so I also am concerned about costs. The cost of building schools is going up exponentially day by day. So recognizing that there's a budget and there's limitations around that as well. And again, thinking back to what's going to be best for the students and sustainable simultaneously. I think that that's a critical piece of our thinking. And then also, I guess, along those lines is that the MSBA hasn't addressed LEED v5 yet, and we don't know specifically what their reimbursements are going to be. We can make some pretty good assumptions. As in the past, they have focused on the interior environment, the learning environment, and materials pretty heavily. but who knows what they're gonna come back with and maybe we'll get a nice big reimbursement just for being lead silver. We don't know. So we're also kind of struggling with that piece of things. Hopefully they'll make some decisions around that soon.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, Sarah, there was a draft or there is a draft. There is? Yeah, I think there was something at some point that I saw. I don't have it, but I thought I saw something.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: It's just an email, Martine.
[Martine Dion]: OK, that's what it is. You got it too, Sonia. Probably couldn't find that email again. But it's Lead V5 Silver, but my understanding is that they're going to keep with the, and correct me if I'm wrong, Suni, but they're going to keep with the 3% reimbursement for the specialized code. And that 1%, so there's no additional reimbursement for Lead Silver. That's the base. That's for your main reimbursement.
[UdfiATpNBs8_SPEAKER_12]: It's similar to what they have now.
[Martine Dion]: Similar to what they have now, exactly. It's pretty similar. So lead silver is not additional. It used to be in the past, but that changed in the 2015-17 green school policy. But basically, the main reimbursement is tied to this lead silver. And then additional reimbursement is the specialized code and stretch energy code. And then the 1%, which is for healthy material points, which goes into the MR and the EQ points, it's a little bit different than the previous one, because we have a different set of points. So that is what I'm not sure that that's all finalized, Sarah.
[Matt Rice]: So I want to just give a quick time check. I know, Paul, you have your hand up. We have about four minutes remaining, so we can certainly use up until 530. I will just remind people if they want to put questions they're not able to ask into the chat, we can find a way to respond to those after the fact, if needs be. But I'll stop there and let Paul take a little bit of time. And then I saw, Brenda, you had your hand up as well.
[Paul Ruseau]: you. I really liked what Brenda had to say in the chat. I think that platinum should be aspirational and gold at a minimum. I don't really care about a plaque on a building. I care about the next 50 years, what we're saddling future generations with, as well as, you know, I feel like we don't actually ever include the costs of the actual emissions that we're going to create with this building. I mean, even if it's completely electrified, there are still emissions. And, you know, that doesn't get calculated in the true cost. So I think, you know, If we can get gold, I don't care. But I mean, I think that having an all electric building to me is shouldn't even be a conversation point at this point. I mean, I think it's kind of insane. The state would even contribute a nickel to any infrastructure in the state for building anything that depends on fossil fuels. So I don't want to use the last of our two minutes. And I want to hear from Brenda.
[Brenda Pike]: Oh, I may I put my comment into the chat actually trying to save time, but it was just basically pointing out that there's upfront cost and operational cost considerations and so net zero will have significant operational cost considerations long term.
[Matt Rice]: And as a quick preview, just, and Martine, maybe you were going to say the same thing, but on the May 20th meeting, when we're going to be sharing the cost estimates, which are sort of our first cost, Martine is also on track to be sharing some life cycle cost analysis information as well, so that we can start to understand those long-term cost implications as well as operational costs.
[Martine Dion]: And there's a comment by Luke that's talking about 20 years. So Luke, we actually do a 50-year LCCA. That's the minimum required by MSBA. So all of these will be looked at on a 50-year time period. So it's going to be the initial costs, the maintenance costs, the replacements costs, and the energy cost savings. And we also do an equivalent carbon analysis alongside that. And since we had our incentive meetings, I'm hoping to have that by May 20, but we may have like a sort of a ballpark incentive line item. So you can see that as well.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Martín and Matt, just for the cost estimate, is there any way to create some sort of hierarchy or structure of net zero provisions for this building? So if we do 100% solar, how much extra would that be if we do 80%? I don't know which percentages we want to look at or what you might want to look at, but I would advocate for something like that so that the school building committee could see that sort of break it down and understand how that might also then impact the operational budget.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah. So I mean, we did do that at the last round. I don't think it was as clear as it can be. So we'll work on trying to make sure that the information is transparent. And I think that the way that we approached it, and maybe I'll get my percentages off, we had a baseline which was essentially covering the entirety of the roof with photovoltaic panels. And understanding what percentage that gives you is sort of a resultant percentage. And then certainly the 100% percentage as well and what that means in terms of ground canopy structures and that type of thing. I think we had a 50% in there as well, Martine, but I can't remember if it was 50 or 75 or if we just went roof and pole.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, I think we went roof. I think we had originally 50 and then we just decided to do the roof because the sort of challenges of the parking options.
[Matt Rice]: Right, but I think we can do that for 50%. It becomes simpler math at that point once you have the extremes known, right?
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, the roof is going to give us a percentage, Suni. Once we get that, we'll know, and then we can do another tier if needed.
[Matt Rice]: Okay, thank you. We are at 531 and I definitely appreciate everybody's time and want to respect everybody's time and really want to thank everyone again for participating in the discussion and we certainly will get together probably not again until the fall at this point unless something comes up and there's an urgent need to meet and then we can certainly coordinate something along those lines. So thank you everybody.
[Martine Dion]: Thank you very much. Thank you everyone for chiming in. Thank you. Thanks. Bye.
|
total time: 1.15 minutes total words: 124 |
|||