[Martine Dion]: which is the entity that oversees the certification process, kind of changed the path and extended the possibility to do LEADv4 until June 2027. So they gave a whole year extension on LEADv4. And so LEADv5 is only mandated in 2027. And then the goal from what we, We just met with USGBC recently. And the goal from then is to have these new versions update every five years. And so I won't go into details of that, but MSBA had basically updated their policy to LEADv5 and now offer either LEADv4 or LEADv5 as a requirement. And they require silver in either version. but those versions are not equal. We'll talk about this in a minute. The MSBA funds, fully funds enhanced commissioning and fundamental commissioning under the LEAD program. And then to get additional reimbursement from MSBA, you do not have to get a higher certification level. A higher certification level does not get more money from MSBA. What gets more money from MSBA is the specialized stretch energy code, which Medford has adopted, so we will. We will comply with the specialized stretch energy code for this project, and that will qualify Medford for an additional 3% reimbursement. And then the optimized LEED material points. So there's a set of points in LEED in the indoor air quality and material and resources categories. And obtaining a certain amount of those points beyond what's required in the silver certification gets you another 1%. And that's something that we will optimize in this project as well. Next. So what we found out and we relayed to the school committee yesterday In the past few months, there's been a lot of discussion about the V5, the change and the opportunity to potentially go back to V4. And there's two sets of information here that we presented. One is we recently got some feedback from the pilot certification of some projects that have gone through the whole certification. They've gone through design and construction and obtained the certification under LEAD V5. And what we heard from them was that there were considerable challenges with the review process, which is common for when you get a new LEAD version, that a minimum of 10 plus point was denied on this project a minimum, so that's not an average, minimum of 10 points. On a lead v4 projects, we've got 10 years of experience of doing lead v4, 1 to 2 points, maybe 3 sometimes, but it's definitely not 10. What this does is it makes it really harder to get to higher levels of certification in V5. So we had established in previous meeting that LEED V4 Gold was equivalent to a LEED V5 Silver. LEED V5 Gold is obviously more challenging. Now the other information we obtained is we talked to MSBA and asked how many school projects that are currently in design or in the early process are seeking LEED V5. And basically, there were two. One of them was Medford, and the other one was a project that was actually reconsidering and going back to V4. So that piece of information we thought was quite relevant to share with the Medford team here in the committees, because basically Medford would become the guinea pig in the next two to three years under lead V5. And we felt that was becoming a bit of an impediment on top of all the information we have here. And part of these challenges are related to the fact that V5 obviously raised the bar, but they really transform the the rating system quite considerably. It has a higher stringency. Pretty much every major part of the credits have been either updated or modified, highly modified, moderately modified. And there's a considerable number of new prerequisite. The commissioning must start a schematic design. We've had discussions before about that. That was quite you know, a challenge for K-12 projects when MSBA did not want to still to assign an agent until DD, design development. And then there are all these credits that we used to obtain quite, you know, quite easily on the majority of our projects. The site assessment, joint use facilities, site master plans, those are not available anymore. So all of this together makes it a bit more challenging to go for V5 next. Matt, do you want to take this one? I think that may be best. What this represents is the project right now and its costs include a full ground source heat pump, heating and cooling system, and a structural steel frame for the new addition. And then as we completed PSR, we had these add alternates for PV, HVAC, and NAS timber.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, and I can frame it. I probably took too long at school committee last night running through all so I am not going to read out all the numbers. I'll just explain what the concepts are between the different alternates. Because as we shift forward, this is going to be one of the topics that we want to craft as an advisory team recommendations back to the full building committee on these particular topics. It's not to say that we are 100 percent locked into only choosing these options that are here, but these each set benchmarks in terms of an understanding of relative cost associated with different approaches. For the photovoltaic systems, and this is going to tie directly to our net zero energy discussion topic, As a baseline, and we have the baseline assumptions for each one of these sort of three alternate categories down at the bottom, is that as a baseline for PV, we have accounted for making the entire roof of the building PV ready and would allow for power purchase agreement to provide the photovoltaic panels that are going to be put on the roof. So there would be no capital cost to the project in terms of the PV panels as part of a base condition in the project. The alternates that were then priced out were first assuming that we would purchase the actual panels that would be on the roof as a baseline. So that's that first line that you see, the PV1. PV2 assumes that we go back to a PPA approach in terms of procuring the panels. So no capital investment for the panels, but it does add in structure for ground mounted canopies at grade. So between the roof and the ground mounted canopies, this would bring us to a full net zero energy level of energy for the building. And then PV3 really says that it's still going to keep the ground mounted canopy structures, but it means that the project would purchase all the panels, both for the roof as well as for the ground mounted canopy. So again, that's a full net zero energy approach in terms of those two price points. And I see that there's a whole bunch of hands that went up, so I must have said something interesting. Let me get through the collection of these, and then we'll flip forward, and then I think we can circle back and have a little bit of discussion on the different topics. So from an HVAC system options that were priced out, our baseline assumption is 100% ground source heat pump or geothermal heating and cooling system. So that's our baseline assumption. So for all of the cost alternates that were shown here on the HVAC side, they're all credits against the project cost. We'd reduce project cost if we go to a slightly less first cost system that may have a slightly higher energy use to them. And that's really what the LCCA is going to get at. And Martine will go into a little bit more detail a little bit later about some of the options that are there. But just as that high level overview, HVAC1 represents changing the entirety of the ground source heat pump system to an air source heat pump that is an air to water type. HVAC2 is going to change the 100% ground source heat pump system to a hybrid ground source heat pump. And I think it's roughly a 50-50 split between ground source heat pump as well as an air source heat pump system. And then HVAC 3 changes, again, the entirety of the ground source heat pump system to an air source heat pump, but a VRF system, so an air-to-air heat pump system. So those result in different initial first cost savings, and obviously there's also considerations there for operating costs long-term and energy consumption that we'll get into. And then lastly, those two mass timber cost alternatives that we have, are representing swapping out anytime we have the new addition. The baseline assumption is a structural steel frame and we would replace either 50% of that structural steel frame with mass timber members and systems or 100% of the structural steel frame with mass timber in that last one. So those these are sort of the the sustainability non-program related cost alternates that were priced out as part of the PSR cost estimating.
[Martine Dion]: So Matt, there's a question. And before we take the questions from people, there's a question in the chat. What percentage of building energy use does PV1 tier account for from SUNY? So the roof estimation now would represent between 20% and 40% of the overall school energy use. And again, this is where we were at PSR when we looked at that. So this is going to hone down now, we're going to hone down and have a bit more, you know, a bit more detailed analysis in SD. So that means that the canopies, the parking canopy need to represent between 60 and 80% of our need to harvest and be sized for 60 to 80% of the school energy use. Do we want to take the questions or go through the chat? There's four.
[Kimberly Talbot]: I think Austin has patiently had his hand up for quite some time. So maybe alternate if that makes sense. Yeah.
[Matt Rice]: Just before you jump in, I just want to frame sort of the question response. I see a lot of these questions are going to be dealing specifically with the LCCA as we get into it. So there may be some answers provided once we get into the LCCA discussion. That's true. But maybe let's take a few of them now. And also, I'm not going to cut you off and say that you can't ask your question. So we'll do that. Let's be mindful of the time also. And then maybe we'll pivot and go forward as maybe after 10 or 15 minutes if we stay here.
[Andre Leroux]: Sure. I guess I had a couple of related questions. One was partially answered, but it would be helpful to see the estimated system sizes. um that you are contemplating um you know 20 going from 23 to 48 million bucks on on a ground mount or a carport you know a canopy structure is is is a pretty substantial jump um so it would be helpful to understand some of the assumptions whether that's like a bid that you got from a from a contractor that informed that initially um So I guess my first question is, you know, system size. And then my second question is, does any of this assume a battery system, a BAS system? Or is that a whole separate thing?
[Martine Dion]: Yes, this is PV and battery from what I understand.
[Andre Leroux]: And the battery is sized based on what?
[Martine Dion]: The battery is sized based on the electrical engineer would be best to respond to that, but it's meant to service a peak load. It's not an emergency load type battery. This is really to, it's for peak load management. So it's designed to be discharged. Right, peak load management.
[Matt Rice]: For demand response, yeah.
[Martine Dion]: Demand response optimization. I will tell you, and you can do the math because I said 20 to 40 for the roof and 60 to 80. Our original estimate for the PV, overall PV size was 6.2 megawatt. So you can do a bit of the math from that. And again, the PV1 does, I think PV1 does not have a battery because it's just the roof, right? And then PV2 is just the structure and PV3 has the panels and the battery.
[Matt Rice]: There could very well be a battery provided under PV2, but it would be part of the power purchase agreement equipment that would be supplied. Right.
[Andre Leroux]: I see. Okay, so that's the primary driver is just the PPA versus owning the system out, right?
[Martine Dion]: Right. Right. And Austin, to be clear, in SD, we're going to dive in a bit more on the sizing. And we're also going to look at incentives at peak load reduction savings estimated, obviously. So some of these demand response incentives from the utility, all of this will be folded in some of these costs and sizing analysis.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay. Yeah. The CPEC program, which is run under, I guess, DOER runs that. I think they're finalizing the rules on that, but that's got a lot of favorable treatment of sort of commercial sized batteries, such as that. So.
[Martine Dion]: Right. And obviously, somebody had a question about the federal tax credits. We are, well, that's about geothermal, but there's still supposedly some for the battery, depending on when it's purchased. So, we'll cover all of that as well. We've got all.
[Andre Leroux]: Yes, they exist for the battery, unfortunately, no longer for the solar.
[Martine Dion]: Yeah, so yeah, it's sun setting. I think it's sun setting, but we have all that information so that we can sort of bring that information and explain what's there for the PV and what's not there and the savings. So do we want to take a chat question now and then go back to a hand up? I don't have a preference. I'll let Matt and Ellen decide which one.
[Matt Rice]: We can go back to the chat questions maybe in order. I think Luke's question was next in terms of why we don't have a conventional HVAC system listed in any form. And by conventional, Luke, I'm assuming that you're referring to fossil fuel.
[Martine Dion]: So I can insert that part first. So the main reason is because Medford has adopted the specialized stretch code. The preferred pathway, so the specialized stretch code really, really incentivize all electric HVAC system separate from the pool. The all electric pathway, if you go all electric, you do not have to install photovoltaic or design your infrastructure for electrification. So if you decide to do fossil fuel, you're gonna have to design and basically set and size your infrastructure for future electrification. You're gonna spend all the money for it, but you're not gonna install it. It's really, you know, the way the specialized stretch code is built and set is really to disincentivize fossil fuel. So the reason why we're only looking at all-electric is because of that. It's allowing the school to go under the all-electric pathway and not be forced to install PV and design for all-electric infrastructure. Well, basically, you're doing it without having to pay for it and having to do it later. So I don't know if that That was clear enough, but that's pretty much why we're going all electric. Then there is the motion that was approved yesterday where the net zero energy sort of preference is stated. And so all of this together sort of combined sort of directs to the all electric HVAC. One other thing I want to mention, the heat pumps, in terms of heating, are three times more efficient than a natural gas boiler. And we can talk a little bit more in the LCCA about this. And I think we've talked a bit about it in previous meetings. As we go through the LCCA, we're going to look at all of the costs of heating with electricity that's all going to be included. And then the second part, the pool. So the pool is a high energy consumer, and conventional HVAC could be more affordable. So we will have a separate lifecycle cost analysis for the pool HVAC system that's going to be parallel because it's got a heavier energy use per square foot. So we want to hone down on the pool, and then the main school will be all electric, which is what we're going to talk about in a minute.
[Luke Preisner]: So Martine, thanks for responding that. And, you know, I welcome the news that you just shared. I am disappointed that, you know, I don't find out until I ask the questions. for things like that, which are pretty important. I do, I guess, note that a lot of things have already been decided for us. I'm certainly going to sit and listen, but it's very hard to make decisions seeing slides for the first time at the meeting and being asked to make recommendations. So I'll probably abstain if it's a difficult thing.
[Martine Dion]: We're not asking you to make a recommendation on these tonight. we will bring more information for you to decide on these options.
[Luke Preisner]: So this is not the confirm and recommend meeting?
[Matt Rice]: No, that will come later. It'll come later in the process. We're just going to need these additional meetings to be able to talk through these topics, to give the advisory team enough time to formulate the recommendations and arrive at them.
[Martine Dion]: Okay, apologies if there was confusion. Introduction of where we are now at the beginning of schematic design.
[Luke Preisner]: Can I ask a favor? I only have the planned meeting schedule that was presented, I don't know, at the December meeting. And at that time, only four MEP subcommittee meetings were planned. There was the December 16th, the January 15th, And then two others, one called the confirm and recommend and then. the last one called the reconvene. If there's an updated meeting schedule, can I ask that that just be shared? Maybe it even appears somewhere in these slides, but I would like an update if we're either changing the number of meetings or adjusting the subject of meetings. It would help, at least myself, kind of plan ahead of time. Thank you.
[Matt Rice]: We will circulate that, Luke. I'm happy to do so. Sunny, I see you have your hand up as well. We can go back and forth between our written comments and our hands.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Thanks, Matt. Can everyone hear me? Yes. I just have a follow-up from Luke's question, and it's not because I want fossil fuels on the building, but I think I think we'd be doing our community a disservice if we didn't show them the specialized stretch energy code with the dual fuel pathway. I think that's something that will be a lot of people that will be looking for. And I just think that we should reconsider whether or not that's part of the lifecycle cost analysis.
[Martine Dion]: So that's fine to discuss tonight, actually. That's something we wanted to talk tonight. The lifecycle cost analysis for SD, for MSBA, requires three options. And I suggest that we go through the LCCA and then we come back and decide those three options. The baseline, unfortunately, is not fossil fuel. I'll have to see. So I'll have to double check because it's ASHRAE. Now it's after 2019, and it used to be all electric. So let me double check, because if the baseline is fossil fuel, then we could use that. And we would price that. So I'll get back to everyone on that. We'll double check. There's a chance that we're already planning to do that by comparing to the baseline. Point well taken, I can understand what you're saying.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: For folks on the call too, I just think the importance of it is to just prove out that like with these additional incentives, it's worth going this direction, right? So like, we've done plenty of these on many of our projects, but I just think that our community would be really upset if we didn't even show that it's not worth it to do that.
[Martine Dion]: And the one big, point that needs to come across, and I guess it will with dollar signs soon if we integrate it in the LCCA, is the fact that if you decide to go fossil fuel, you will still have to pay and install the fuel, the full electrical infrastructure that would be necessary for an all-electric system.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: So I'm totally with you. And I also think that costs are worth it. Like, they'll have to get like, how frequently we have to pay a bunch. Like, I'm with you, Martine. I want this.
[Martine Dion]: No, I know. I know. I know. And that's what that's what I totally agree. And that's what we're going to do. We're going to put the dollar sign on that, basically. And we're going to compare so.
[Matt Rice]: So I saw that Paul's hand just went up, but I also, I'm just looking at the time. Why don't we move forward? Cause I think we can potentially head off some of the questions that have been in the chat, but we can also circle back Paul, if you don't mind. And you can just answer the question after we get through the rest of the materials.
[Martine Dion]: And I read the other questions and I think we can address some of those during the LCCA because they're about incentives.
[Matt Rice]: Right. And so this that's up on screen right now talks a little bit, I think, to what Luke was starting to allude to, and we'll put some dates and specific organization to this. Some of it was informed by the motion that was made at the school committee last night. So we're circling back and just going to make sure that there's a good logical path laid out around the recommendations, but Eventually, we will need to have the advisory team provide the recommendations back to the full building committee on these specific topics that are listed at the top that are organized around those cost alternates that were put out there. And then generally, if we circle back to the motion that was made, we're going to try to organize our discussions here around these four topics that were included in the motion. initially that net zero energy, the red list free materials, as well as the indoor air quality credits that are wrapped into LEED in order to maximize our MSBA reimbursement, the additional incentive points that come with that, the focus on water efficiency and stewardship, and that's both indoor and outdoor water use, as well as minimizing the overall total cost of ownership, as Martine noted, both from a operations and as well as maintenance perspective moving forward. So why don't we dive into LCCA now?
[Martine Dion]: So in terms of the LCCA you're going to see here, I want everybody to understand this is very high level because we were at PSR. At the time of completing the LCCA, the final option was not selected. We had still 27 whatever number of option and maybe it was down to six.
[Matt Rice]: It was down to six or seven.
[Martine Dion]: It was down to six. And so we elected, we compared two options and two HVAC system. The two design options we compared were the ones that were at each end of the spectrum. So we had option B.1.2, which was the sort of the heaviest add Renault, with a good chunk of Renault, and then we compared it to option D.1.1, which was full new construction. So the other options sort of fell in between. So when you see the results at boat hand, you understand that, you know, the other options would be, results would be in between. We also looked at two separate types of system, I mean, both are electric, but we looked at, we compared the full ground source heat pump to an air to water full air source heat pump. The LCCA is 50 years timeline. And it included initial costs, replacement costs, maintenance costs, energy savings from utility costs. It's a 50-year LISASCO 3% cost escalation. And then we're going to show you sort of high-level incremental cost payback and incentives. So we have started looking at mass-save incentives. This doesn't include yet the federal tax incentives. And I just, so that sort of answers two of the incentives questions there. Next. So on the left here, you have design option B1.2, which represents sort of the heavy Reno add. And on the right, you have the new construction. In previous advisory group discussions during PDP and PSR, we had addressed the predicted energy use intensity at 35 as a goal. And just to refresh everyone's memory, this was with consideration to the CTE programs. There's a bit more compared to a typical school, which is 25 to 30. 35 is more representative of a school with a CTE program and a school that's highly used by the community. Next. So, what we're going to show you here is the result of the LCCA, the energy modeling, looking at and comparing the energy use intensity. I'm assuming everyone's familiar with EUI, but just in case, EUI basically takes all energy use, the lighting, the heating, the cooling, the plug load, the kitchen, anything that's using electricity and or fossil fuel, if you're using fossil fuel, is included in here. And just a note that this was done in the school only, not the pool. the pool could really skew the numbers here. At the time, it wasn't really clear where the pool was going to end up. For example, option D, the new construction had the pool separate, so we decided at the time to keep the pool outside of the analysis. So basically, all options reduce the energy use per square foot by 60 plus percent. And that's what this really shows here. Ground source heat pump, if you look at the table on the left, you'll see that ground source heat pump is a bit lower than the air to water heat pump in terms of energy use per square foot per year. And that's because it's a bit more efficient. But in all of those cases, it's much better than your current school. And this is the school without full air conditioning. Next slide. So then from some of our results, we looked at the cost per square foot, because that is something your new school is going to be larger. And the goal is to reduce the energy use per square foot and reduce the energy use cost per square foot. So this gives you a bit of a flavor of order of magnitude on how basically on how the cost per square foot would be lower than your existing facility and we ran a bit of a calculation as if your existing facility would have full AC because remember your new school would be fully air conditioned your current school is not so Even with your non-fully air conditioned current school, the new school would cost less per square foot with the all electric. And there's a bit of numbers here, basically 40% to 50% cost reduction. This cost does not include the solar PV system, whether you would put a PPA, you would enter a PPA and your dollar per kilowatt hour would be lower. Right now, we just had the straight utility rate. Depending on the selection of your pathway for PV during the design process, you could save more on this cost per square foot. Owning is going to probably save you even more than the PPA, but we're going to be looking at that in the next months. Next. So I'm not going to go through each and every one of these costs. Maybe the cost in bold is what we want to focus a bit here. And then to the right, you can see the mass save column. So we've integrated. the mass-save incentive here. There's a lot of subnotes at the bottom. All of our assumptions are there. But basically, again, the ground-source heat pump, because of the upfront installation costs, which is higher than the air-to-water heat pump. comes out after 50 years at a higher. This is really what drives it. I mean, the replacement cost is a bit lower. The maintenance costs are fairly equivalent. And then the energy cost is a bit lower because it's a bit more efficient. But the challenge with ground source is really the bore, the wells, the field of wells upfront cost. And they're similar, but not exactly. It's a bit more expensive in the B1.2 because this is out of the design and the volume. And I think the new construction is a bit more compact. So in a nutshell, this is what that sort of you know, resulted in. As you can see, the massive incentives help. They're about, they're capped at $3 million. So they help a bit. They help a bit in the upfront cost, but even if you apply $3 million to the upfront cost, it doesn't cover the, you know, $29 million gap there. Next. So incremental cost between the ground source and the air source, like I said, it's close to $29 million. Mass save incentive, when you include mass save, you take out $3 million something. And then we have the incremental cost and the annual energy savings. The annual energy savings basically here are not enough to make up the gap. What this doesn't have here is the federal IRA incentive, which is something that we are going to introduce in more detail with the schematic design LCCA. Next. So this is a summary of what we just talked about. I'm not going to go through all the bullets. Ellen, correct me if I'm wrong, but this PowerPoint will be shared after the presentation? Yep. We typically share the PowerPoint and the notes. OK, so the one thing, the one sort of takeaway here that we want to discuss today is for this more in-depth LCCA and in schematic design, we have, like I said, we have three system options that we can compare. And I know that there's a real interest for the full ground source heat pump. We are suggesting that you consider a hybrid ground source heat pump. And then the third, as we had all priced in PSR, the third can be a full air source heat pump, depending on the baseline being fossil fuel. And we'll check that. So we'll have to see here if we want a full separate fossil fuel in the case the baseline is all electric. Next. So just to give you a visual of when we look at the project and its energy use per square foot and how we get it to net zero, basically we need to you know, install and size solar PV system that's equivalent to that 35 EUI, which is what I mentioned earlier, you know, estimated at this time at 6.2 megawatt. Next. So we did a bit of, we talked a little bit about this earlier on when I gave percentage. So 20 to 40% It depends on the roof. Our estimate for basically a solar PV installation on the roof is 20 to 30%, depending on how much low angle roof or high canopy roof we install. Obviously, high canopy roofs will provide for much more potential energy harvesting. And then for the ground-mounted, it's pretty significant, you know, 50 to 80 feet or 60 to 80. And what we did is we looked at what does that mean in terms of an equivalent square foot of parking, and it's pretty significant. This would mean that pretty much the full parking in some other areas of the site would need to have PV canopy. In this schematic design phase, we can hone down more on that. Basically, when you have a canopy structure, the energy per square foot that's harvested by the panel is much higher than those low angle canopy roof, so the low angle roof solar PV system. There's also an option for what we call BIPV, building integrated PV, which are installed vertically on vertical facade. The challenge with that is you want it to be high because you don't want any school property activity, including balls to hit. So high facade is the best there. And that's something we can explore in schematic design. However, those panels are expensive, more expensive, and they produce about half the energy that the roof panels produce. Next. And then what we looked at is what we refer to as total carbon, where we look at the operational carbon and the embodied carbon. So we also did a preliminary analysis of embodied carbon. Some of these results were used as part of the discussion in the selection of the preferred design option. And so we looked at the embodied carbon of the reno add and the embodied carbon of the new construction, and we totaled both the embodied carbon and the operational carbon of each. Next. Great. Oh, a little too fast. So basically, just for assumptions, so in case people have questions, the Renoad was a little bit bigger than the new construction, 13,000 square foot more. We included, as part of the embodied carbon, we included full gut renovation. So what the embodied carbon in the Renoad includes is the the existing embodied carbon is the existing structure, because everything else, there would be a new insulated enclosure, a new interior, and we also included the modular classroom. The new construction included low embodied carbon concrete, steel, and insulation. And we assume an option with 10 to 15% mass timber structure, because at the time, you know, there's going lead V5 would have required a minimum of mass timber. Next. So this is what it resulted in, maybe, you know, it may be a lot to take in for people that are not familiar with this, technically familiar with this, what these represents in blue is operational carbon. We have the existing building, the option, the renovate option for both the ground source heat pump and the air to water heat pump, and then the new construction option, the ground source heat pump, the air to water heat pump. The embodied carbon, the existing embodied carbon is below the zero line in this light orange. And then the new embodied carbon is in that darker orange above the zero. And then for the option D1.1, we have some hatch area that shows the reduction impact of mass timber, which would reduce the embodied carbon and by association reduce the total carbon. As you can see here, they're fairly you know, equivalent across. They're close enough, we find, across the board. Obviously, the existing embodied carbon makes up a bit for the higher operational carbon of the Renault hat. That's one of the takeaways. This is over 60 years, by the way. This looks at the embodied carbon and then 60 years of your operational carbon. Next, I think that's the last. Yes, that's the last. So I'm assuming we have a lot of questions.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, why don't we go back? Paul, I think you had your hand up before we started. And I'm not sure if we can dovetail into where we landed here. We can circle back. I think either is fine.
[Paul Ruseau]: We don't have to move back. I just want to support Suni's idea of having the fossil fuel based system. I just want to make sure that no number is ever presented that does not include all of the required PV prep that is required because the community is going to see this low number. It just can never appear on a slide. The actual cost, including all of the added PV prep that's required, has to be the only number for a gas-powered system. Yes. But we absolutely should show that. I mean, I think it would be a disservice because I went from a gas-based system to an electric system. And believe me, my utilities went through the roof. And anybody who's done it knows this. I would still do it again, of course. And I knew it going in. But that's not.
[Martine Dion]: Did you super-exploit your house?
[Paul Ruseau]: Yeah, it's already been super insulated, but I mean, for heating and cooling. Yeah. I mean, and I know that my house is not an equivalent type of a scenario to what we're talking about, but that people still have their own experiences that they're going to read into that. And they're going to be, they need to know that, no, actually the gas system is dramatically more expensive.
[Martine Dion]: Yes, so totally point, well, totally taken, Paul. And so what you're saying, I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So the fossil fuel heating system would require the installation of PV. And that cost has to be in there, because that's code requirement. So when we do that, yes, you're absolutely right. The cost of the PV structure, it can't be a PPA. You have to install. And all of this is going to be in there.
[Paul Ruseau]: Thank you so much. And thank you, Suni, for that, because I was totally not on board till you explained it. And I agree.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: I just want to quickly tell everyone, since I hope to see you in the community, that you pronounce my name Sunny.
[Martine Dion]: Sunny, I keep saying, I apologize because I keep saying Sunni and Matt has corrected me a few times. And Sunny, I've known you for many years and I apologize because I've called you Sunni a lot of times.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: You get it right like 50% of the time, so I don't usually correct you.
[Kimberly Talbot]: You can chart that on a graph. You need a little sun emoji in front of your last name. Yeah, we'll work on it. Okay.
[Matt Rice]: Maybe if we want to circle back to, I know Austin had a question in the chat that I tried to respond to, and you brought up an acronym that I'm just not familiar with, Austin, in terms of an IA submittal. Can you just explain that a bit?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I guess it's interconnection agreement or an interconnection application. And I'm just wondering, you guys had met with National Grid. uh a number of months ago and i'm wondering what if any feedback they have given both in terms of cost and also schedule uh to to um potentially upgrade, they would likely have to upgrade a number of distribution feeders into the school to account for this increased electrical load. And oftentimes those costs are very, very expensive. So I'm wondering if that, do you guys have a placeholder budget for now? Like how are we starting to think about that?
[Martine Dion]: Do you want to? I can say that we have talked about the process with them. There's obviously what they call a load study that needs to happen. So we've started engaging the process. The load letter is going to be sent, I believe, It was sent. It was sent already. OK. And then the timeline, I can't remember exactly, but it's six to eight. It's more than six months, if not. So that's being built into the schedule, if I'm not mistaken, Ellen, right? We're starting to include that as part of the process. When we mentioned 6.2 megawatt, it's um had an impact yeah and they don't care that you're going to use most of it right they they assume that at some point you're going to you're going to exactly a hundred percent of it and then they have to model that they have to model that ridiculous yeah yeah and and you know even though there's going to be a multi-megawatt battery storage, right? That's going to store a big chunk of it. So yes, you're absolutely right. But the conversation with them, the discussion with them has started. And we've also started the incentives discussion. We're about to complete the MOU. And so that's ongoing as well.
[Andre Leroux]: Got it. Okay. I guess I mentioned this in my initial questioning a few minutes ago, but it would be helpful to see the cost broken out a little bit more. A 6.2 megawatt system at 60 million bucks is more than triple than anything I've ever seen. And I've done a few dozen carports in my life, so it would be it would be helpful to have that number flushed out a little bit more just for the benefit of the budget, the benefit of the community. Because I think people will see that and think that that's a very high number.
[Martine Dion]: And the impact on the decision. This is good feedback.
[Andre Leroux]: Absolutely. Yeah, yeah.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah, and also it's worthwhile restating just the fact that as we go through the schematic design phase that we're in now at the end of this phase, cost estimates will be updated to reflect more specifically the megawatt target that we're after in terms of the panels, as well as a more specific design for the canopy structures themselves. So that added level of specificity will help provide some clarity, I think, that you're looking for, Austin. But we can certainly share what the assumptions were in the prior numbers that were issued, just so there's a little bit more transparency into that as we go through the decision-making process and the recommendation process.
[Andre Leroux]: Okay, and I don't, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be a time hog. My final sort of observation as someone who only really approaches the renewable side and not necessarily sort of the building and policy side is how the committee frames net zero ready sort of versus net zero and the implications that that has on a PPA versus owning the system outright. I think a little bit of a descriptor on that might be helpful, especially if people are only viewing this or will be likely to view it primarily through a lens of cost, that saying, yes, here is the cost, they differ, but this is why we have a citywide goal or a citywide ordinance that we must meet. I think that that would do the project a great service to sort of show, provide that context to the numbers and sort of what each means, even if you know, the physical widgets on the roof are going to be the exact same.
[Martine Dion]: Right. One thing, you're absolutely right. And when we do our LCCA, we also showed the greenhouse gas emission reductions. and the impact both of the reduction of, you know, the different HVAC system, the overall 35 UI, but also the greenhouse gas reduction that will be provided through the PV. So that ties with probably with the city discussion. And I think you have a good point about PPA and the perception of PPA versus own and how the greenhouse gas reduction are interpreted between the two. Sunny and then Jessica.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Thanks, Martine. I have like, there are three really quick points. Well, two really quick one question. One is to follow up on Austin's dislike for the community. There are a lot of things that have gotten us to this point. And I think we're on the advisory team, so we kind of understand that. I have a slide that I can send to you that you should use for this community just to say that like, LEAD requires this, MSBA requires LEAD, like all of these things that are like, these are all required, that's why we're doing them. Just so the community has that backup so that they're not like, Yeah, like that just might be really helpful as the like, this is why we're here, this is the goal, and then the goals, right? So I think that would be just super helpful to lead into this for whatever slides end up on the internet. There, oh, the other really quick question was whether or not you had engaged with, is this Engrid?
[Martine Dion]: Yes, we have.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. In any sort of pilot program for battery backup or battery storage? I know they're starting to do this. I don't know if Engrid is. I know that Eversource is though. So it might just be a, are you doing this? Can we do it sort of a conversation?
[Martine Dion]: We have the programs that we've experienced with Eversource and battery storage is mostly the demand response program.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Sorry, Martina, just we're working on a pilot project with Eversource currently on our Needem projects, which is why I'm wondering if there's also a pilot project for Angrid.
[Martine Dion]: I don't think there's a pilot project in Medford, and they didn't bring any of that up, but we will ask the question.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, that would just be with MassSave, right? And then I think I heard you say you're signing an MOU with MassSave. Which path are we going?
[Martine Dion]: Oh, good question. So because they, it's PAT-2. Even though we're doing, because it's bigger than 25 and they wouldn't make an exemption at the beginning of the discussion with them, they were talking about potentially making an exemption because it's not a typical high school with the CTE. So 25 is not feasible. And in fact, we're finding out that a lot of the high schools regular high schools, even though we've heard from the utility that they're all making 25 in reality. They're not performing. So, but that aside, so it's PAP 2, which still allows the verification. They clarified that.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. Oh, I have another follow up, but I'll hold that one. But I was really curious and just wanted to suggest, I saw that VRF was as an HVAC option. And I would vote to not even consider VRF. Putting refrigerants throughout the building seems like not a super great path and also not super resilient long-term. If we're going to do air source heat pumps or air to water heat pumps, that's a way more resilient path for us in the future and just sort of a healthier environment. So I think I would love to see that move forward or that sort of recommendation or conversation be had when these decisions are being made.
[Martine Dion]: So, Sonny, it was priced. It doesn't mean it's recommended, but we priced it for the same reason we're going to do the fossil fuel. But then your comment, and if there's other on your advisory committee that shares your comment, then we want to hear about that because we could recommend to remove it.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: So maybe for the folks that are on the call, I can give like a little bit more about the using gas as the dual fuel system. And I think some of the things that we've done on past projects is to use that gas to sort of knock off that peak load, which can often be where like ground source and air source heat pumps can get more expensive. And so if you're just knocking off that peak load and using it as a backup, it can often make the system more efficient. That way you're still primarily being an all electric building. And then just as far as the like carbon goes, when peak plants are running, they're often using like worse energy. And so you're like having it on site and just sort of shaving that off the top can make a sort of better, more resilient building. That's why we've considered it.
[Martine Dion]: My point was about the VRF. If you want to recommend not, because we have three systems, right? We're going to have the ground-source heat pump 100%, the hybrid, and then the third could be all air-to-water, or it could be VRF.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: Can I ask a quick question? I know MSBA requires a minimum of three, but that doesn't mean or preclude us from doing four, right? Why could we not just add that in?
[Martine Dion]: We could. My question is, if you're saying you do not recommend the VRF, we could explain why we're not doing the VRF and decide not to do it now.
[izVdDtzaCdw_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, it's... Carbon emissions are terrible for the world. We don't want them running throughout our building. They're going to be in all the other systems anyway, but it just won't be as much.
[Martine Dion]: And we actually did on another project, we did an evaluation of the refrigerant greenhouse gas emissions over 50 years, or 60 years actually, including the replacement of the systems. So, but I, you know, we can do it, but then if everybody agrees they don't want refrigerator in the building, there's no point in including it. We just priced it to, you know, for the sake of pricing it so people under, you know, people saw what the value of it is, first cost. But so I think, You don't have to decide this today, but I think the advisory committee may want to discuss and come back to us and make a recommendation not to include the VRF.
[Matt Rice]: I'll go out on a limb, Martine, just based on the fact that there's a lot of comments that have come through supporting what Sunny was suggesting, that it sounds like we should not have the VRF system included as part of it. And in terms of the feedback that we are looking for this evening, trying to get those types of comments in terms of modifications to the LCCA parameters is really what we're after. So I think we can take that as an outcome from this meeting that will sort of exclude that from the list of systems that we're looking at.
[Jessica Parks]: Great.
[Matt Rice]: Jessica, I think you've had your hand up.
[Jessica Parks]: Just two quick things. I think for the second bullet down, we may be re-looking at that because it may have been misheard at last night's meeting. I think it was adding that but still keeping on the red list in healthy materials for all materials except for MEP and fire protection. Um, just kind of expanding upon it to make sure we capture the reimbursement. But, um, really focusing in on the overarching. Healthy materials. Right. Throughout, so I just wanted to make that 1 point, we're going to revisit it at the next month's meeting just to make sure we have it captured correctly.
[Martine Dion]: So, what you're saying here is. We're seeking the 1%, which is prioritizing the lead credits, but we're also prioritizing the red list except for MEP. Yes. We'll keep that and then you'll officially update it next month. Okay.
[Jessica Parks]: Yes. And then also, is it possible the slides that Sunny was talking about, you know, that have things broken out into stretch code requirements also then kind of building on that and doing, you know, city of Medford requirements slash SBC, just to kind of see it all laid out, like turn it into one comprehensive slide. Yep. And then I think that was all. And I just want to make one point because I know we talked about commissioning and I don't, I'm not fully clear. We talked about it some yesterday and I know I talked about its importance to me. But, and we talked about kind of the stages that it is not part of when we don't do lead V5, but I'd like to hear maybe from Ken as well, because I think I kind of said his name last night. Let me clarify. I want to make sure that commissioning is central to this project throughout, because I do think it's critical to making sure this building operates properly. And that's part of the whole operating and maintaining a cost-effective building.
[Martine Dion]: So LEED mandates commissioning. There's fundamental commissioning for MEP. And then to get to the silver and actually under MSBA, it doesn't matter the version. So you're getting commissioning of mechanical, electrical, plumbing. You're getting commissioning of the building enclosure. There is also a criteria in LEED for ongoing commissioning. There's an ongoing commissioning plan that's part of it. Depending on if we install solar PV, if we do and we want to claim the renewable energy credit, we need to make sure the PV system is commissioned. And then there's another component of commissioning with the demand, the preparation of demand response for the MEP system. All of this is included, whether it's Lead V4 or Lead V5. The difference with LEAD v5 is that in LEAD v4, you can start the commissioning, and MSBA starts the commissioning in DD, and the commissioning agent is hired in DD and reviews the schematic design package, makes comment, and they are all basically integrated in DD. In v5, they are- They bring them on an ST. And that sort of became an issue because MSBA didn't want to change their policy, or couldn't change their policy in time, and they didn't want to pay for it. And it, you know, it created all kinds of challenges. But the projects will get considerable and full commissioning throughout under V4. Okay.
[Jessica Parks]: Thank you for that point of clarification. Ken, do you have any thoughts on that? I mean, is that something?
[Andre Leroux]: On the commissioning?
[Jessica Parks]: On the commissioning and SD versus DD.
[Andre Leroux]: It's a standard requirement of the project.
[Jessica Parks]: No, no, no, I know all of that, but I'm talking about, did you have any strong feelings about SD versus DD? I know DD has been traditional. But I also know a lot of projects and my former boss would tell you that you bring them on before SD. But that's because he runs commissioning.
[Andre Leroux]: I think we have to follow what the guidelines are based upon the lead we're choosing and earlier the better as far as I'm concerned.
[Jessica Parks]: Okay.
[Matt Rice]: I think one of the main advantages of bringing them on earlier is the requirement to generate the owner's project requirements earlier on in the process. And there's nothing that will preclude us from taking that on as a task and trying to collect as much knowledge as we can and establish those. And I think that would gain some of the benefit that you typically see about bringing the commissioning agent on earlier.
[Jessica Parks]: OK, so we can do the OPR from kind of start building the OPR out in SD and also. So the MSBA won't even reimburse at all for commissioning during SD. OK, just checking, thank you.
[Kimberly Talbot]: We've been pushing and prodding and trying to get some attention to that, It's a ship that turns slowly, I think. As V4 is phased out, I hope that they will change their policy and their contracts with those agents.
[Martine Dion]: OK. OK, and I'd like to confirm that when we compare the proposed design HVAC system to the code baseline, the code baseline is a fossil fuel baseline. I just checked, Sunny. So we're going to see, and so that code baseline will have to have default PV. So we'll be comparing to a fossil fuel system.
[Matt Rice]: I think I saw that Luke had his hand up.
[Luke Preisner]: Oh, I did. Thanks, Matt. Hey, to member Parks. So you just mentioned that your former employer ran a commissioning business. Are you currently employed in a commissioning business? Just curious.
[Jessica Parks]: I am not. And he, well, he ran the commissioning program for MIT. So it's my current It's my current employer, but he no longer works at MIT. And we no longer have a commissioning program at MIT. So there's that.
[Luke Preisner]: OK, yeah, I just wanted you to clarify.
[Martine Dion]: Thank you. Luke, you had a question about the megawatt hours for the existing?
[Luke Preisner]: Yeah, I heard the 6.2 megawatts.
[Martine Dion]: And that's not the 6.2 megawatt is not megawatt hour 6.2 megawatt was the size of the PV system, which is equivalent to the new project, not the existing
[Luke Preisner]: Okay, but that's like the instantaneous power production under certain conditions of the PV system. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that because megawatt hours should be a lot higher.
[Martine Dion]: Okay, thanks. Yes, a bit higher. Yes. And we'll have more details when we present the PV system, we'll have the megawatt hours. So you'll have those numbers once we get into the SD analysis.
[Matt Rice]: I think we have about five minutes left. I did want to see whether or not there was any other thoughts regarding the LCCA before Martine and the team sort of launch into that effort. And we've got some good feedback already, but just want to make sure that we touch on that particular topic with the remaining time if we have it, unless there's any other questions, but that is an important piece for us today.
[Luke Preisner]: So, Matt, I guess on that topic, can I ask Martine just to give a quick overview of what to expect in the upcoming life cycle cost analysis? Just as a wrap up, I know we discussed a lot of things. There's been a lot of questions in between. But just in terms of bringing it home, what can this committee or this subcommittee expect in the upcoming update?
[Martine Dion]: So we're going to look at the whole building in LCCA, the building electrical enclosure will be at the net zero level, and we're going to compare that same enclosure and other end use to three HVAC systems. The baseline will be the code baseline. The code baseline will have a fossil fuel system and will meet all the requirements of the stretch code, including the PV, the specialized stretch code, The three systems per what we discussed today will be one system. Option one will be a full geothermal system. Option two will be a geothermal and air source, about 50% each load, 50% ground source heat pump, 50% air to water heat pumps. That's going to be option two. Option three will be 100%. air-to-water heat pump. This would include initial cost, replacement cost, maintenance cost, and energy savings. And then to that, we're going to add, we're going to include as a separate line item, the incentives, the mass save incentives, national grid, the IRA incentives, those that still apply. and then potential DOER incentives. On top of that, we're, well, this is that. Then, separate from that, we're going to look at the, we're going to develop and start sizing and hone down on the PV system. For the PV system, we're going to be looking at the difference between building the structure, but leasing your roof and your canopies to a PPA. And what does that look financially? And how does that impact your overall system cost and savings? That doesn't get any incentives. And then we're going to look at your solar PV system as if you fully buy it and own it, including the battery storage. And we're going to look at the incentives applicable to that and your cost benefits as well. Your, you know, energy savings, both ongoing energy savings and peak load energy savings. And for that, there's also some state incentives. I mean, Austin was bringing up a fairly new, and there's also, for the heat pumps, there's also some incentives around the alternative energy certificates. And we also look into that, wherever that's going to be. So all of this is going to be sort of line items that are going to show the financial benefits of this. And in addition to that, we are going to do a life cycle cost analysis of the pool, whether we go fossil fuel for the pool or all electric. We've seen a couple of recent all-electric pools being designed. They're not constructed yet, and we were very, very happy to be invited to a presentation that was done by Tufts University to, I think, Ken, your team, and other people. So there are all-electric pools that are being designed, and we're keeping an eye on that, and that's going to be part of that third LCCA.
[Luke Preisner]: So with the all-electric pools, it's one thing to build it from the ground up. It's another thing to try to retrofit a 50-year-old pool. So hopefully, some of the planning factors and other decision-relevant factors will be introduced as part of that presentation.
[Martine Dion]: Yes.
[Luke Preisner]: And then also related to the ground source heat pump, I guess, concept, will there be some statements made about, I'll say, land use permissions, since you're going to need a 12 to 15 acre plot, which probably coincides with the restricted land on our eight acre parcel. So a status of where things stand related to DCR and feasibility and if there are any cost and schedule implications related to trying to use that land for ground source heat pump. Thank you.
[Matt Rice]: So, Luke, we do expect that there should be an update in the very near future from DCR. We know that they're actively working on it. We're just awaiting their response and they should be able to give us some insight as to the potential. use of the de-restricted land for geothermal. I will say that that's not our only option. We also have the ability to install the geothermal wells below the new parking lot that's established in the southern field, which is on the non-de-restricted land. In those scenarios, there would need to be temporary heating and cooling plants installed because we can't get access to that until the existing building is demolished for a lot of it. So there would be some cost implication to that from a temporary phasing perspective on the HVAC system. But again, hopefully in the very near future, we'll have a read on that from DCR and can move forward. We are at 630, we're at 631 right now. I just wanted Martine to clarify one piece as you were going through. You mentioned the IRA incentives would be included Martine, unless I misheard you.
[Martine Dion]: The IRA incentives will be a separate line item. We always show, well, both mass save and IRA are showed as separate, but we will not bundle the IRA with the mass save because we know that, you know, they're subject to change more than the mass save.
[Matt Rice]: Yeah. Volatile is the word I would use.
[Martine Dion]: Volatile is the word, yeah. And just about the, so the costs The installation cost of ground source heat pump usually include, you know, the cost of a temporary plant and all of that, depending on the location. And there's going to be a different cost between the hybrid and the 100%, obviously, because it's using less, right? So that all is going to be included in the cost.
[Matt Rice]: Okay, but I think it was a good opportunity to wrap up on that point. So thank you, Luke, for prompting us there. And I think we are just about all set.
[Kimberly Talbot]: I would just like to add, Matt, that we will, in the minutes, include the next meetings where certain actions are being taken. This group doesn't meet again until late September. However, before that happens on the 17th, the next community meeting is, in fact, a sustainability charrette. So hopefully this group will be there and help represent and help us out potentially with that. And then the big date of 10-6 at the SBC is where we really want all these scope items finalized one way or the other. So we'll add that to the meeting minutes from today's meeting.
[Unidentified]: All right. Thank you, everybody.
|
total time: 1.41 minutes total words: 138 |
total time: 3.3 minutes total words: 287 |
||