Uh, and I will now hand the meeting over to Chair Bite. >> Great. Thank you. Um, good afternoon everyone. I'm calling this public meeting to order at 4:37 p.m. In accordance with the building emissions reduction and disclosure ordinance,
Boston City Code ordinances section 7-2.2, the Berto review board will hold a virtual public meeting at 4:30 p.m. on April 13th to review the following topics in regards to the reduction of greenhouse gases from building energy
production and consumption so as to promote the public health and welfare of Boston residents. Uh, in accordance with the Massachusetts executive order suspending certain provisions of the o open meeting law, we are conducting this public meeting online. The public may access this call
through Zoom or telephone. For the record, I am Jessica Boatright. I will now conduct a roll call of board members. Board members, please say your name in the order that they appear on the slide. I am Jessica Boatight. Stephen Han Farooqi.
>> Lori Ferris. Yeah, a lot of more reg. >> Great. Thank you. And uh staff, can you introduce yourself, please? >> Hannah Payne, director of carbon neutrality. Diana Vasquez, senior policy manager.
>> Martinez, deputy director of policy and programs. Oh, >> Ziggy, you're muted. You're not muted. I think you're just having some sound issues though. We can't hear you. >> Okay. Well, for the record, Ziggy Chin is also present.
>> Great. Thank you. Um so we'll look go to the next slide and look at the agenda for today's meeting. We're going to start with a discussion and vote on um a proposed update to Berto policies and procedures. Then we will discuss and vote on an extension for this year's
reporting deadline. Next, we will have a notice and vote on modifications to the city's city of Boston's building portfolio. And afterward, we'll approve the March 9th meeting minutes and hear administrative updates. Finally, we will adjourn the meeting. So, our first
agenda item is about proposed updates to the Berto policies and procedures, and I will hand it over to Claudia. >> Hi everyone. Um I'll get us started with the first item of our agenda today. Uh we are going to propose some updates to the policies and procedures uh which
I'll present in the next slide. Okay. So as a reminder last year the air pollution control commissions during the 2025 regulations update delegated the authority to the berto review board to um adopt updates to policies and procedures. Policies and procedures
provide more specificity or clarified requirements that are already set in Berto by the ordinance and regulations. And the purpose of policies and procedures is not only to clarify those regulations uh and ordinance but also um be able to adapt more frequently respond
to changes in energy star portfolio manager changes in factors that might impact Berto implementation and the Berto review board being the the public body that is most often in contact with Berto. Uh it's a great fit to make these types of changes. So this will be the
first time we're bringing a policy and procedure update to the border review board. Um the specific update we're proposing to you today is to update appendix A of policies and procedures which uh matches uh different property types according to energy star portfolio
manager to the building uses that are used to determine emission standards under Berto and therefore uh that determine emissions reduction requirements for building owners. Um here on the right you can see the red line of the changes that we're
proposing. First we are proposing to remove the property type called senior care facility as this is no longer a property type that is available under energy star portfolio manager. So building owners are not able to choose that as their property type. Um and the
second update that we are proposing is to move the property types residential care facility and senior living living community from the lodging building use to the health building use and I'll explain why why we are proposing this
update in the next slide. So first what are these property types? uh we have presented here a summary of the definitions that are available under energy star portfolio manager and Berto uses these definitions uh that are set at a national level to match building
uses to property types. So senior living community is defined by energy star portfolio manager as buildings that house and provide care and assistance for elderly residents specifically homes with skilled nursing facilities and assisted limit living facilities. Uh a
key uh factor here is that this is not meant to um describe or um yeah describe um buildings that are used as retirement homes. Uh the the distinction between a retirement home and a senior living
community would be that aspect of providing care and assistance um for elderly residents. On the other hand, residential care facility refers to any building that provides rehabilitative and restorative care to patients on a long-term or permanent basis. So there's
also this healthcare component to the description of this property type. Under energy star portfolio manager, uh these two property types could be categorized either under lodging or healthcare. Meaning that under energy star portfolio manager, we could have paired these
property types under either of those building uses. However, now that we have been um collecting more data to Berto, we believe it is appropriate to change from the current classification under lodging to healthcare. Uh we had found that at the national level, the median
energy use intensity for both of these property types is higher than all other property types that are under lodging. And when we uh compare that national le level data to the reported data that we have to Berto today uh we this suggests
that healthcare is also a better fit for the senior living communities and residential care facilities that we have in Boston and that are covered by Berto. Next slide please. Here you here you can first see um national le level data from energy star
portfolio manager. So you can see uh the healthcare and lodging uh building use categories and their property types that are um uh included in in each of these building uses. Uh on the red box you can see residential care facility and senior
living community and you can see that their energy use intensity at the national level is around 213.2 2 kilob BT use per square foot which if you see all of the other property types that are under lodging is almost two times higher than any of the other property types
which are staying all uh closer to the 100 kilob use per square foot. Next please. On the upper side of this table you can see all the property types that can be categorized under healthcare. You can see that uh residential care facility
and senior living community are also included here. And in particular, you can see that the energy use intensity of those property types at the national level is more closely aligned to a medical office rather than all of the other lodging property types. Next
slide. Um at the Boston level, we have done some data analysis with reported data that we have gathered from Berto buildings. Uh this is an analysis we have made with 2025 2024 reported data.
So that that was reported in 2025. And you can see the average and median emissions intensity for all property use types that are currently uh under the lodging category under Berto. And you can see that residential care facility and senior living community both their
average and their median emissions intensity is higher than all of the other categories that are currently under um this building use category. Next slide. Uh yeah, so our proposal is to make the
update as described and uh happy to answer any questions from the board. >> Great. Um thank you for that um for that presentation. I'll now ask each board member if they have any clarifying questions or
comments. Um I it was a really helpful presentation. Um good information. So, I'm gonna um uh pass on questions this round and give it to board member Ellis. >> Thank you, chair, and thank you,
Claudia, uh for that presentation. Um just want to seek a few points of clarification. Um can you actually go back to the slide that had a larger description, the narrative right here? So just so I'm understanding
you know with Energy Star portfolio manager an entity an owner or whoever is using the portfolio manager for that matter has the ability to essentially determine where they want to be placed whether it be in the lodging or the healthcare but
the through the development of Berto the city had initially placed all of these uh uh different property types of senior living uh community and residential care under health I'm sorry, under lodging originally and you're trying to shift that all over to healthcare. I do
appreciate the the call out here that it's not intended for the retirement homes cuz I think that's where there's going to be a bit of confusion. So, I just wanted to acknowledge that. Now if you can actually go down to the next slide. One thing that I am um thinking about here as I'm looking at the energy
use intensities and and the subsequent slide that sort of gets into the um the emissions per square ft is I'm starting to wonder how this will affect the overall emission standards um across the boards and can you talk a little bit
about that? I can ask more specific question, but can you talk about how this is going to affect the emission standards for both the lodging and the healthc care uh portions of of Berto? >> Yeah, happy to answer that. So, this will not change the emission standards
that are currently assigned under Berto for healthcare or lodging. However, what this would mean for residential care facilities and senior living communities is that they would be shifted from lodging to healthcare. So they would no longer be subject to the emission standard that we have for lodging. They
would be subject to the emission standard that we have for for healthcare which is higher meaning that they will have more flexibility or not flexibility but their emission standard is higher. So they can emit more emissions than an launching um property type.
>> Okay. So this leads into my my next question. the um and just to give you context of where I'm coming from, the emission standards that were set by Berto were based on the data for historical reporting under um Berto 1.0
or the original version of Berto. And so the shifting of these properties makes me wonder, did we need to recalculate all of the emission standards given that the the base information for where the living facilities had been aggregated
for lodging is now being placed in healthcare and therefore lodging would also need to be updated in my opinion. But I I guess I'm wondering what the environment staff has thought about the updating from from the shifting because I can see the numbers in my head and I'm
like, well, something needs to go down and something needs to go up and and where where is that going to occur? >> Yeah, I happy to answer that. I would say these two property types, residential care facilities in your living community are very special cases
because energy star portfolio manager itself allows them to be categorized under two building uses. This is very rare. This is not something that we see with other property types. So, uh yes, the original emission standards were
based on historical data for all of these different property types and matching them to their building uses. But we have to remember that residential care facilities in your living community are very uncommon buildings. So I think we have a handful of these in Boston
that are covered under Berto. So shifting five of these buildings from lodging to healthcare would not have an impact on the emissions profile for the general category of healthcare which includes uh hospitals for example and medical offices that have clear
emissions profiles and for which we also have more data. So at this moment this shifting for uh you know a sample size of five buildings does not warrant updating the whole emission standards for lodging. That being said uh
reviewing um the ordinance in the emission standards is built in in Tubberto. So this is something that we will continue to review periodically as we implement this ordinance to see our demission standards still making sense based of better and new data that we're
collecting through Berto 2.0. going on. >> Okay. And so my final question, I think we're we're we're walking together on this path. When is the next time the environment department will be doing a review of the emission standard for BERTO? >> So the ordinance calls for an
implementation review of every 5 years. Um the ordinance was passed in 2021, but first implemented in 2022. Uh so next year would be the first time that we could look at the Burto holistically. This does not necessarily mean updating
emission standard, but it means reviewing how the implementation of the ordinance is going. >> Okay, no problem. I think we're we're good cuz I I was counting from 21, but if we're counting from 22, then I have no further questions at this time. So, thank you for your update. I'll turn it
back over to the chair. >> Thank you. Um, board member for Rookie. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, my questions are similar to those of board member Ellis. I just wanted to clarify that you said there are five buildings that fall within these two building use types. Is that right, Claudia?
>> We have a handful of buildings for which we currently have data that are under these property types. Uh it is possible there's more Berto buildings under those categories that haven't reported for example. >> Got it. Okay. But it's ballpark similar to that number. I mean it's not a
substantial number of buildings >> but the importance is for example office buildings we do have a very large sample size of that for Berto. So if we were to say, oh well, office now needs to be a different category, that's a different conversation of
uh making a shift based on thousands of buildings versus adjusting property types for which we have a very small sample size and for which Energy Star portfolio manager allows the flexibility to move between building use categories.
>> That makes a lot of sense. Yeah. Okay, that sounds good. Yeah, this seems like a fairly um small, you know, edge case for building. So, I'm uh I don't have any objections to moving in this way and um so I'll yield back to the chair. Thanks.
>> Thank you, board member Ferris. >> Thank you. Yeah, I I have one question which is also similar, but um I'm just wondering, you know, you mentioned that the the um CEX or the the um yeah, that the use types are kind of differentiated
here in a way that they weren't originally in Berto for this use um but doesn't happen often. But I'm just wondering if there are maybe other cases um in which doing this sets precedent for other building owners to say, "Oh, but I might I also have a fringe use and it doesn't align." And I'm just curious
if you anticipate um any other similar or where or where you could kind of proactively determine um that there may be other um more kind of nuance differentiations between uses than had originally been identified. If you've seen any instances where that may be the case.
>> Yeah, we have done analysis based on reported data that we have so far. And again, this is the caveat that there's still buildings that have not reported to in general. uh this is the main category where we see a misalignment between how they were classified under
burrow and where there is this flexibility coming from energy star portfolio manager to change the classification I think there's other building categories that often come to mind as oh this is not the perfect building use for me however this is a
special case in which we are seeing clear data across all the different buildings that are under this property type there's other buildings that are just so different even between each other where like there cannot be a change for a group of buildings or where
like individual flexibility makes more sense and where addressing an emission standard might not make sense but rather leading building owners to apply for an individual compliance schedule or a hardship compliance plans. I think again this case we have very clear data that
is leading us to switch from lodging to healthcare. we have that president from Energy Star portfolio manager. Uh so it feels um like a unique case at this point based on analysis we've done so far. >> Yes, that makes sense. Thank you. That
was my only question. >> Thank you board member Latimore. >> Um I think the my other board members have asked the questions or ask some good questions that help me. But I just wondered is this um change which I'm
fine with um but if this change was initiated by a proponent in one of the categories when they were trying to put themselves or uh or you meaning was there advocacy um by proponent or was this just the city having one one entity
say hey I don't fit well and decided maybe it's time for some change just curious where it emanated if there was any advocacy for change. >> Yeah, I can also answer that. So, there wasn't a specific advocacy from a group of senior care facilities that came to
us and make this request. However, through our regular programming like building consultations and all the technical assistants that we have done, we have talked to building owners that either manage or own these types of facilities and that are really
struggling to figure out compliance even in the near term. Uh so it was sparked by talking to building owners and then coming to the data and that's why we're proposing the change but there wasn't a specific you know organized request if that makes sense.
>> Got it. Thank you. And I when I think about this building type I think about and I don't know if you're familiar with Roger House Clauddio or anyone else. Is that the that would be the type of entity that would fall in this category? Correct. Just curious. Sorry, which one did you
>> Roger Roger House is a senior care facility that provides a lot of um you know kind of skilled nursing and other type of services that I assume that would be it that they would fall into. Okay, thank you. I have no other questions.
>> Thank you. Uh board member Sovel >> I don't really have too many questions. I just was um is it because of the amount of equip um medical equipment that's why they they they had to be reclassified? Is that part of it as well? Um that's that's the only question
I really had. Everything else it was answered. So >> yeah, in this case uh the the distinction or the driver for energy use is because of those specialized health care services. So like having medical equipment, there's nursing services that
make these types of property types just have a larger energy use than just for example an elderly home or something that would be more on the residential side or lodging side. >> Okay. All right. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to hear you say. Thank
you. Um I have no further questions. >> Thank you. Um does anyone else have any questions or discussion that haven't been addressed? All right. >> Motion to approve as is. >> Great. We have a motion from board member Ellis and a second from board
member Vladimore. Um on the motion >> to approve the city's proposal as is. How do you vote? >> Um I vote in favor. Board member Ellis >> in favor. >> Uh board member Ferky >> in favor.
Board member Ferris >> in favor. >> Board member Latimore >> in favor. >> Board member Stoell >> in favor. >> Great. Um the eyes have it. The motion passes. The Berto policies and procedures
uh will be updated to reflect the city's proposed changes. So, our next item is a discussion and vote um on the 2026 border of reporting extensions and um or sorry, yeah,
extension deadline and I will um give this to Hannah to share some information. >> Great. Thank you. Um next slide. So, um we are coming and requesting for
the board to um consider voting to extend the reporting and compliance deadline for this year. Um a bit of reminder of context here that the board has discretion to set alternative reporting dates for owners experiencing extenduating circumstances as long as
it's not later than November 15th. And in the past, we've typically done extensions that are for 3 months at a time. Um so why are we coming to you with this now? Um uh we are bringing an update to the regulations to the air
pollution control commission this Wednesday um to allow make a change to the regulations that would allow building owners to purchase um 2026 massclass one racks for their 2025 emissions compliance. Um, so this would
really make it a lot easier for building owners who complete their reporting, find they're above their limit, and want to come come into compliance with renewable energy to be able to access that. Um, whereas right now they're pretty limited in their options other than making an alternative compliance
payment. So I think we've we've spoken to you about this before. Um so the timing with the air pollution control commission schedule would be that we would introduce those changes this week should the board um commission vote to um open a public comment period. The
soonest those could be adopted would be midmay. Given that and kind of that opening up a number of questions um with reporting and compliance um we think it's most appropriate to just give everyone an extension for 3 months um so
that there is kind of more certainty um with their reporting and compliance options um so that that that change can be in place when they're finalizing the reporting. Um in addition, there are still um some updates that are continuing to be made to the Berto
reporting portal um including our roll out of um emissions compliance and ACP module. So how people can actually make those payments. Um we expect those to be in place in the next week or two. Um but again giving people a little bit more
time as those are still um coming out. And then again, just like navigating the first emissions compliance year continues to present challenges for smaller building owners who have less capacity. Um, we're we're getting people reporting now. They're completing their reporting and third party verification.
Um, but you know, some more time for people to wrap their heads around the submissions compliance we think will be useful for everyone without kind of opening up a you know, major loophole with compliance or anything like that. Next slide. So, our proposed procedure um would be
um or the proposal we have is to grant a 3month extension for reporting. So, shifting the reporting deadline for all buildings to August 15th. Um, if the board did approve this, we would then change the reporting deadline um, in the Berto reporting portal and notify owners
of that new reporting deadline through email, newsletter, updating our website, all of those things. Also, I want to note that if the regulations are adopted after May for any reason, if we get a lot of comments um or you know the commission doesn't
approve them um in that time period, then we may come back to this um the review board to consider a further extension. But at this time, we think this timing would make sense given the timeline that we're on with the regulations update. And given that
they're very straightforward proposal that we're doing, we we don't and it's granting kind of more flexibility, um we are hopeful that it will be a pretty quick um procedural update for the commission. And I can't remember if there's another
slide which then this is just a um language should you choose to consider this. And I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Um I'll now ask each board member if they have any questions or comments. Um
and I I'll start with my first question which is just um I understand the you know the complexity and newness of Berto and th this being our this
first reporting cycle. I am curious if the staff has thought about how we'll communicate out sort of making a series of exceptions in the first year but not planning to necessarily make an exception every single round.
>> Yeah. So I mean I think that this the regulatory update that we're making that would be kind of going forward so we wouldn't have to be making that every year is the first one. Um so I think you know we would we would notify people and say that you know this is being extended
for this year only. Um in the p and like in the future extensions will be granted only for extenduating circumstances as we have before. I think in our view this kind of what we found with this this wreck purchasing mismatch um and then
the the timing it just took to get it to the EPCC um does kind of constitute an extenduating circumstance that is of our own doing like it's on um the environment department on that timing and so we think it's only fair to grant that extension for this year but we we
can we'll try to kind of message that in our um outreach >> and would it so the the reporting deadline for this year would be extended but we wouldn't be changing the clock
for the next reporting cycle, right? >> Correct. Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you, board member Ellis. >> Yes. Thank you. I I want to make sure first off, thank you, Hannah, for the presentation. And I just want to make sure I'm wrapping my head around this
correctly because as the board, we're allowed to approve extensions, you know, you know, every year. I think what I just want to make sure I'm understanding clearly is what exactly are we asking the Air Pollution Control Commission? Um, so that I I can can you give me in
layman's term because I saw the slides and I found myself a little bit confused. So, um, right now building owners, um, if they want to come into compliance or reduce their emissions from, um,
electricity, if they want to go buy renewable energy to do that, their options are pretty limited if they haven't taken action already. So larger entities, people who have been planning for this may have already signed a power purchase agreement or be getting net
metering credits or have solar or have enrolled in BCCE. But all of those options are not available after the end of the compliance year. The only option that is still available is buying mass one rerecks for the for the most part.
Um when we did the wreck connector program um with green energy consumers alliance through that process we learned that the um kind of window to buy Rex which are currently restricted by the regulations
to only be allowed from the year before the compliance year or during the compliance year. So 2024 or 2025. the deadline to buy that would really like they needed to know by the 1st of March to be able to buy and retire those wrecks. So, what we're proposing is
extending that so you can use wrecks that were generated in those first 6 months of 2026 for your 2025 compliance. So if you do your reporting, you figure out what your BCCE credit is from the renewables in your building and you find you're still over your limit, you can go
buy mass one racks kind of on the market as a compliance option so that there's you're so that there's another option besides making alternative compliance payments. >> Got it. Okay. So what I'm hearing is like the way the regulations is written, we cut off that timeline for people to
purchase wet. >> Yeah, >> that makes sense. Sorry, it makes sense what you're saying. Um it's unfortunate, you know, that the the deadline was March in that case. So allowing for more flexibility that people can purchase say May 15th, you know, next year would be
something that I I think would be worth approving. So one thing that I just want to clarify, you know, I think this is a great opportunity to allow folks to be able to um procure and purchase this additional energy. I suspect that there will be a commenting period. Typically,
how long is a commenting period with something like this? >> 21 days. >> 21 days. All right. Um, I did have another question um, which seems to be escaping me right now, but if I remember it, I'll ask again or maybe one of my
board members, fellow board members may have it. So, I'll I'll pause for now. But thank you for that explanation. >> Thank you. Um, and board member Ellis, just let me know if you remember your other question. Um, board member Faruki. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Hannah. This is great. Um, am I right in understanding that the timeline for uh the city collecting alternative compliance payments based on this change would then become August, September, and then the timeline for um
collection of fines would be probably sometime in like Q4 or Q1 of next year. >> Yeah. So I think that you know for people who are doing their reporting now and um have like are as we assess
compliance over the next um you know few months like they could be making alternative compliance payments before that deadline um if we have kind of everything reported and again we already have people who are doing it early right um we have several hundred people who have already reported and done their
third party verification um so I do think we'll get some alternative compliance payments before that date. Um I think we will get some after that date also. Um I don't think it's going to really materially change when we um it
will it will push back when we begin to start issuing past due notices. Um, fine collection. I frankly don't think we will actually begin collecting fines until because we have so much process sending
past due to notices, multiple of them, sending a notice of probable violation, sending a notice of violation. It's likely going to take us to next spring, early summer >> before we begin collecting fines. >> So that people will have so much time to
come into compliance. We're going to get 100% compliance by the end of this. >> Perfect. Yes. Not a single dollar of fine. >> We're only ACPs only. >> Exactly. Exactly. Yes. That is the goal. And on these fines, the fine collection
is separate from the tax collection, right? It wouldn't happen on the same bill. >> Correct. >> Okay, sounds good. So, in the case of a condo, um, is there a single fine that's levied on the entire condo building and is that going towards like the the trust
or the association management or is it actually being levied on the specific units too? >> So, any any and all compliance for Berto happens at the building owner level and so for a condo that would be at the condo association level. >> Excellent. Okay, good to know. Great.
Okay, great. Oh, I support this change and uh thank you for all this and I'll yield back. >> Thank you, board member Ferris. >> Thank you. No additional questions for me. >> Board member Latimore. >> Thank you. Yeah, I I'm still trying to
make sure I understand because I I listened to the um the uh mass the wreck uh recording. Um and I understood that um March 1st was the deadline through the rec connector program with mass with
green energy consumers alliance. But I'm so I thought well that must be the reason there must be a reason for that. They must have some the market must work in a certain way. But it sounds like now there's still an opportunity for people beyond this March 1st deadline to purchase these racks. Is that it sounds
like that's one reason not not all the reason but one reason why the reporting deadline should be extended. But is that the case? >> So it's not the case currently. It is that that would be the case should the
APCC vote to amend the regulations and allow Rex generated in the first 6 months of 2026 to be used for Berto compliance. So then we could go back to green energy consumers alliance and and
reopen the rec connector program and then people could also use purchase wrecks elsewhere. So that's >> that's what we are trying to fix um >> with this regulations change. >> So the the the brags up until now were at the first quarter by by that time
frame. Now it's okay. Got it. Because that was confusing to me. I was trying to understand. >> It is it's it is confusing. So happy to clarify. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I'm just looking at my notes because I know I had another question related to this. Yeah. And and
I was also a little um not clear on the comment on the I think it was the second slide when you started the presentation had to do with or maybe it was a third that had to do with like may come back for another hold on uh >> extension. So I'm like maybe I
misunderstood that. Um, >> so I think the other piece that um is I will and maybe I haven't mentioned this but the I can't remember if it's in the ordinance or regulations. Basically, if
we're updating the regulations, we should give 3 months before a reporting like a deadline. Um, and so that's another reason. So we're trying to like hedge it ahead of time. We think that we we will get this we hope we will get this approved. Should we this extended
deadline would be in line with that. If for whatever reason there's kind of a longer timeline or other extenduating circumstances, we may come back. We don't expect to. This is not what we're planning. I just wanted to put that in there to like let you know that there's
um because the board can approve extensions out till um November 15th. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Um that that is an option that we may come back for. We are not planning on it at this time.
>> Uh okay. Thank you. I understand. I think I understand. Um just I know last month when uh the council the last time we met when the counselor talked about the I guess I can't remember what if it was a vote or just some
>> Yeah. someone on the council wanting to kind of ext um furer Berto um and you know kind of implementation for five years or something that on the one hand I understand things have changed with this new administration at the federal level and the access to resources for
energy um you know clean energy but just wanted to you know when I heard these changes I just wonder was that influencing this and it sounds like it's not No, no. And this would not, you know, change any compliance requirements
under Berto. It would just be giving folks three more months to get their reporting in, report their um renewable energy, do their third party verification, but they would still have to meet the same requirements. >> Thank you. I'm all set. No more questions. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you, board member Stell. >> No, I have no further questions. I'm kind of for it. Great. And um I know board member Ellis has one other question. >> Yeah, thank you uh chair and you know Hannah, thank you for the explanation. I
think you know I was missing that March language. I think it would would have been helpful for me was just to see like what is the existing form of the regulation and what are the words that we are trying to change. I think that's where a little bit of the confusion was happening here um for understanding like
why why this and what happens. But thank you for the explanation nonetheless. I one thing that I was curious about um if we approve the 3 months extension today uh what I'm gathering from what you're saying is that uh if the APCC either
delays or does not uh approve the regulation update the extension still holds because the board has has the authority over the extension essentially. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. I you know I look I I'll try
to attend the the regulation meeting because I think that's where we'll probably get into more of the weeds of what you're referring to. Um but all in all I do think that this makes sense. There are contractual timelines for purchasing Rex. So I'm glad that the the environment department is able to recognize and um bring that suggestion
not just to us but also to the commission. Um I maybe towards the end of of this call I want to circle back on um you know the comment that uh board member Latimore made about the counselor. I I don't think it's uh necessary for this purpose
right here but um when we get to the staff comments piece at the end. Um I I want to be able to circle back on that. So just FYI that's all. No further questions. Chair. >> Thank you. Does anyone else have questions or comments? Okay.
>> Motion to approve the extension as presented. >> Second. >> Great. Second. All right. On the motion to approve granting a 3mon month extension for the 2026 reporting year and extending the deadline for all building owners from May 15, 2026 to
August 15, 2026. Uh made by board member Latimore and seconded by board member Stoll. Um, I'm gonna do a roll call to find out people's votes. I vote in favor. Board member Ellis >> in favor. >> Board member Furky >> in favor.
>> Board member Ferris >> in favor. >> Board member Latimore >> in favor. >> Board member Sevel >> in favor. >> Great. The eyes have it. The motion passes. All building owners have been granted an extension for the 2026
reporting year from May 15, 2026 to August 15, 2026. So, um, third on the on the agenda is notice and vote on the city of Boston building portfolio modification.
Um, and I just want to say before we kind of get through it, just to give an update that um, because this is a um, is a modification um, and not a a full um, a full plan.
We'll we do we don't do a roll call vote on this. We'll do a I don't know what the correct uh Robert's rules term is up for the vote we do, but we do sort of a a call of hands rather than a individual roll call just so folks aren't surprised
uh when we get there. So I am going to um pass this over to Diana. >> Thanks chair. Um I will uh lead us in our city of Boston building portfolio modifications. Uh so next slide.
Um starting off just wanted to provide some background. This is the first I believe this is the first modification for a build for an already approved building portfolio coming before the review board. Um so just wanted to highlight some of the language from our regulations. Um so in terms of removing
a building from an approved building portfolio, notice to the review board is required if an owner is removing a building um due to change of ownership or uh because the building is now vacant. Uh in terms of adding a building
to an approved building portfolio, uh the review board shall vote to approve or deny requested modification um at the next regularly scheduled public meeting. Um but the decision shall be based on whether the building portfolio is at the time of the request in material
compliance uh with Berto and any requirements uh associated with the building portfolio. So next slide. So just some quick reminders because I know it's been a while since the city of Boston's building portfolio came before the
review board for a vote. Um some quick highlights. uh the city of Boston's building portfolio. This portfolio here does not include Boston Housing Authority. So Boston Housing Authority has its own separate building portfolio. Um but this is everything else within
the city's uh that the city owns. Um all city of Boston buildings are subject to Berto regardless of size. So within the city of Boston's portfolio, there are buildings that are uh less than 20,000 square ft. Um the portfolio includes all
types of of uses as you can imagine. Uh and the buildings are located all in all neighborhoods across the city. Uh and then just a reminder of what some of the conditions that were included when the building portfolio was approved. So the
city of Boston must submit an emission standard compliance plan by January 29th, 2027th. 2027. Uh the review board requested within that emission standard compliance plan um that the city include sort of we
called it a ranking system but sort of like um some of the criteria that the city takes into account when deciding capital projects. Uh and then any sort of disclosure um regarding plans to engage Boston public school students um
in future like decarbonization course work um as well. So just a quick reminder to give us uh to set us on the same foot around the city of Boston's building portfolio. Next slide. Um so for the notice, the city of Boston is removing uh one
building with the Berto ID 107182. It's in one Franklin Park Road. Uh it was an assembly primary building use. So this building uh and that's sort of the rationale behind it. This building is actually not occupied, operated or maintained by the city of Boston. Um,
and the building itself has a GFA or a gross floor area that is less than 20,000 square feet. Uh, so due to this change of ownership, this actually makes this building no longer subject to Berto. Um, if it was, you know, if the city of Boston still owned the building, it
would be subject to Berto just because the city um includes all buildings, even those that are less than 20,000 ft. Uh, but with this change of ownership, this building is actually no longer subject to Berto. Next slide. Uh, and then the city of Boston is
requesting to add three Berto IDs. Uh, so I'll just read each one here quickly. Uh, Berto ID 108220900 Washington Street uh, in Chinatown. It's the Quincy Upper School. So, uh, being a school, the ed the primary building use
type is education. Uh, and this school is a new construction. So, it's a new building that just received its certificate of occupancy in November of 2024. Um, and just to highlight in Berto, uh, you're required to report on a new building after one full calendar
year of that building being in operation. So, this means that in November of 2025 would have been one full year uh, of the building being in an operation. Uh, the second Berto ID is 108224
or 35 Freeport Way in Dorchester. Um, this is a services primary building use type. Uh, and this is a new long-term lease for the city of Boston. So, the city of Boston is the lei. Um, but because it's a long-term lease, the city is is taking on responsibility for Berto
and Berto emissions compliance and Berto reporting. Uh, the third Berto ID is 104696, also 35 Freeport Way in Dorchester. Uh, this is an office primary building use type. Uh and similarly to the last one,
this is a new long-term lease for the city of Boston. Uh so the city is the lei. Uh but because it's a long-term lease, the city is also becoming responsible for Berto reporting and Berto emissions compliance. Next slide. Because here's an updated blended
emission standard. Uh you'll see that there actually isn't a difference in the standards themselves uh because it's it's just adding three new buildings and removing one building. Um, so there's no changes to the blended emission standard itself. Uh, but this if approved, this
new total of Berto IDs would bring the city of Boston's building portfolio to a total of 368 buildings. So it's a but still a pretty big substantial portfolio. Uh, and wanted to highlight that the building portfolio is currently in compliance with all reporting and
emissions requirements um at the time of submission and and currently today. I believe that's it. Yes, I'll hand it back over to you, chair. >> Great. Thank you. Um, so thanks. This is It seems
relatively straightforward. Um, but I want to hold space if there are any questions, so I won't do a roll call, but if anyone has uh questions, uh, let me know. Raise your hand virtually or your real one. All right. Oh, uh, I Okay. Board member
Ellis is raising a hand. I think board member Latimore is raising a hand as well. Okay. So, board member Ellis, why don't you go alphabetically first? I >> I'll let board member Latimore go first. I I I talked first too many times, so I'll let Mark.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Board member Ellis. Um, yeah. I just couple of questions. uh with the one Franklin Park Road, was the building previously owned by the city and sold or was it previously rented and now no longer rented? That's I'm just
curious about that. Just a general question. >> Yeah, that's a good question. Um so it seems that that building was included in error because it's a it's a building that's owned by a trust. Um and so there are certain uh number of trusts in the
city where um the trust is actually technically the building owner but the city may like maintain it or or um occupy the building. And so >> uh just for some background context, uh the city has sort of raised its hand and say we're going to do Berto with all of
our buildings. Uh sort of lead by example. Uh but the turns out that we actually the city does not occupy or maintain or operate in this building. So >> got it. So this is the one that uh it was the Robert was Robert with Johnson or something like that that um that
>> Yes. Yes. Actually >> property. Okay. Yes. Correct. >> No, I remember now. Yeah. Thank you. Um and um so the the Freeport uh way um properties are new. That was I I So,
thank you. That was one of my questions and I said, "Wow, that's is that a um it's a very lucrative lease." Wow. Um I wondered um it it sounds like if I'm not mistaken, that's the school bus maintenance yard. Is that what it is?
>> Uh uh it is a a bus maintenance yard. I don't know for sure if it's a school one, but it is for bus maintenance. >> Okay. Yeah. No, I I really don't have any questions. I was just like, "Wow, I got to get in the business of owning 600,000 square feet of land. I guess you
can make good money off of it." But in any case, that's just my commentary. So, sorry. Um I I have no other comments or questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I'm going to keep going backwards alphabetically and go to board member Ferris.
>> Thank you. I also I guess I have a comment rather than a question, but I um you know given the the importance of the city's portfolio as a demonstration and a kind of leadership opportunity. I just think it's very exciting to see the um to see this flux within the portfolio in
action as a demonstration of how these portfolios are going to change over time and particularly that transition from new construction compliance with energy code to to Berto compliance that the handshake between those two policies. Um I it's just uh it just feels like an
achievement to have that that moment where we're starting to see this maturation of the the ordinance. So that that that was my uh my comment. I just wanted to kind of applaud. That's all. >> Thank you. Um board member Fer Ellis, sorry.
>> No worries. Um thank you chair and I I second uh board member Ferris's comments here. Um, I was also curious about the 35 free port just the same way as uh board member Latimore a second ago. I I guess I was surprised because I I didn't
know that leases were um a part of the purview, but because it's a long-term lease, is that why the city is adding this as a property? I just wanted to confirm that. >> Uh yes. So, within the ordinance, uh and I'll ask
for the team to keep me honest here. I believe it's at least if the lease is at least 15 years. Um >> okay, >> tenant. >> That sounds >> tenant could be designated as owner. >> Yep. This sounds right to me, but I'll let the city if they have any comments on that.
>> I would say I think it might actually be different for city of Boston buildings and we have our energy manager. I don't know, Colette, if you if I can put you on the spot if you can comment on the other leases that are included. >> Yeah. Um I can definitely comment. I
will say for the transdv locations that we're talking about, it's actually written into the lease language itself that it's assigned to the city of Boston. So kind of regardless of the length of the lease, we are still kind of beholden to that agreement. Um, so
>> thank you, Colette, and thank you Hannah and thank you Diana for that response. Um, so I this might be a little bit unorthodox because it may come up in in in again in the future, but can you go back to the slide explaining um the the role for removal and adding cuz I think
what board member Ferris started to to get at is something that I'm I'm just interested to hear um should it come up again and I'm sure you all will explain it again. under the second section about an addition. What I I I think this is where I'm not entirely clear as to what
would we be doing and maybe I'm just the way I'm reading the language is particularly in blue is not really um making particular sense to me. So, is this here to say that if there is a building portfolio where a building owner is adding a building and we just
are not liking it, not not interested or think it's inappropriate, this is where we have the power to say no, you cannot change your building portfolio. Can I I'm just looking for from clarification on how exactly would we as a board be operating in the future um on something
like this. I'm not saying that I'm here to say no to the city of Boston. And I think what they have it makes sense but I'm I'm trying to understand the language that is written here in front of us. >> I can start. Go ahead D. >> Um well I I can start and feel free to
add anything. Um so in all regulations where there is a review board approval there is well first the part where there's a definition. This is something that the review board can approve. But there's also always limitations on what are the criteria or basis that the
review board can use to make an approval or denied an approval. Um in this case because this is a building portfolio modification the basis on which the review board can make a decision is pretty limited is based on whether the building portfolio is in compliance or
not with the ordinance. So in some ways it is more an administrative approval but I believe that the language is there for to not allow building owners just to change building portfolios willy-nilly without any oversight and um to not do
it if their portfolio is not in compliance. So for example they decided to have a certain portfolio and then they realize is out of compliance. So now I want to add all of my new buildings that weren't there before. In that case, if they're out of compliance or they stop reporting for
certain buildings, the review board could deny. Uh but it's not the purpose for these to for the reviewer to deny um building portfolio modifications based on any other basis. >> Okay. Thank you. And one extra
clarification here. If say the city of Boston had acquired this lease or acquired this building uh well in this case we're talking about leases uh and the building was already out of compliance when they acquired it because the previous owner or whatever the case
may be did not you know report or did their due diligence. What happens then? uh is it the responsibility of the build in order to get that building into compliance before adding it to the building portfolio or is there some level of flexibility that the the the
environment department offers? >> I can also start but anyone feel free to jump in. So under Berto there is also regulations for change of ownership and one there is once there is a change of ownership all Berto compliance regulations rely on the new owner.
However this if this scenario were to happen what would likely happen is that our team will work with the building owner to bring that building into compliance before we even take it to the board. So, we wouldn't be necessarily bringing you a case where like they just
haven't reported just to bring it and then you denied at a public meeting. I think um we would analyze the case, help them come into compliance if that is the case. >> Thank you. All right. Since this was the first time we were doing this, I just wanted to make sure we I at least
understand how this works um when it comes up. So, I'm glad that there are some uh uh things behind the scenes regarding out of compliance buildings and how to get them there before adding them to a building portfolio. I have no further questions. Thank you. >> Um if I could, sorry, chair, if I could add on to that.
>> Yes, please. >> Yeah. >> Um I think that's a great clarifying question. Um because you know uh on the administrative side the city does try to bring what we consider only complete uh sort of complete applications to the
review board sort of to spare your some you know your time as well. Um so understandably we try to make sure that everything feels complete. So it may feel like a pretty straightforward administrative process, but I think uh sort of what Claudia was was speaking
to, it's also helpful so that building owners and applicants um realize that you know there is some oversight in terms of like modifications that are happening in the building portfolio as well. >> Sorry, since Diana said that chair, I'm just going to jump in here. Um, I I appreciate it and one of the reasons why
I was asking these follow-up questions because it does seem like you have things in place here and this administrative aspect is one of those moments where I start to wonder should you just have the power to make the changes if it's purely administrative. But we're not discussing that right now
and today um since this is the first time. But I think over time this might be something to debate whether or not certain building portfolios that are purely administrative and do not have strong objections uh depending on the communities where these buildings are
being added and removed from uh that it could be under the purview of the environment department so that we're not holding up time for you to get the approval. I recognize we have the power, but administrative power is interesting to me. Um, nevertheless, so back to you, chair.
>> Thank you. Um, and I think that's a really good comment. Um, I, uh, I see board member Ferki has a question or comment as well. >> Yes, thank you. On a similar line, u just on the background of these modifications, does the review board
also have the authority to change special conditions or add special conditions at the modification stage. And if you don't know yet or if you don't feel comfortable answering, we can follow up later. This is certainly, I want to make clear, not relevant to this portfolio and I don't intend to make any
modifications to the conditions of this portfolio. >> Yeah, I think it's a good clarifying question. Yeah, I can I can jump in. So, I believe the only scenario where additional conditions could be added is if the the
approved portfolio was first uh pathway one portfolio. So the ones where you can only like it's basically a proof is the building is in compliance and the addition of the new building makes them a pathway to building portfolio or
padway tree portfolio at that case because then that modified building portfolio would be subject to an environmental justice uh requirements that would be I believe the scenario where there's an opportunity to modify
conditions for a modification Um, but looking at Diana or Hannah to confirm that >> that seems right to me and we could probably follow up in writing just to to the board to make sure that's clear, but
that that seems right to me based on my quick review of the regulations. >> Excellent. >> That'd be great. Thanks, board member Latimore. >> Thank you. Yeah. Um somewhat along the lines of what uh board member Farooqi said, I had a question about um you know
if if it's at all possible, I know we we approved the city of Boston's or any u proponents uh portfolio with conditions and the conditions were I think on the previous slide or maybe it's the slide after this. So my my I was just wondering you know um is it appropriate
to kind of get an update at some point on those conditions? I know they on those approval special conditions. Um yes, thank you. Um but I I I know it's not due until the emission standard compliance plan is, you know, put before
the board, but I just wondered if it's possible to get an update on uh those those requirements from any proponent. Am I am I correct in understanding that if there
I thought from the beginning of this conversation that if there were any compliance issues that would come up as part of this conversation. Is that not the case? >> Uh yes. If there were any if someone
came before the board requesting to add buildings to their building portfolio and let's say for some reason they were not um reporting let's say maybe one of the buildings hasn't been reporting um we would reach out to that owner or you
know whoever is sort of doing the the modification on their behalf to work with them and say hi actually you're not meeting this eligibility criteria what's going on let's get that building into compliance. Um, and just I want to make sure I understand board member
Latimore's question. >> Yeah, this is a my my comment is separate from the issue of rather they're in compliance and more just the issue of >> we did uh the last bullet on this page, you know, we just we did approve with special conditions. I just wondered
outside or rather any proponent is in compliance or outside of compliance. Of course, if they're outside, that's a serious problem. But just wondered, you know, if there are special conditions, if it was possible to get an update on the status of those special conditions. Totally separate issue, meaning just as
a standalone issue. That's >> right. Right. >> Um I mean, I'll let others chime in as well. There's there's no there would be no obligation from the building owner to provide that. I mean they could if if we
um if we wanted to reach out you know and there and they voluntarily would like to they they could do that. They do have to report each year. So they still have to report each individual building. Um so we still get an understanding of how their general emissions performance
is. Um but I you know just to be clear there is there's no sort of like obligation on the building owner's behalf to to report early. They could they could just do it early if they wanted. >> Yes. and and that I can understand. No obligation whatsoever. I think I'm
thinking about, you know, some of the conditions and I think m maybe a good number of the uh any special conditions. We don't have many that I can think of that we put on building owners, but you know, they're they're kind of equity based. And so I think that for me it's
important to always kind of you know keep those on the screen with us with ourselves as well as with the proponents um or the um building owners. And so just having you know that request put to them may be a reminder to them to take a
look at those special conditions as they approach the time frame for whatever that time frame is for submitting their admission standard compliance plans. I just think it's just for me personally, it's a good thing to ask for an update
and not force it, but ask for an update. That that's just my opinion. >> Yeah. And that actually made me think we we are planning on sending sort of um a reminder because, you know, uh the emission standard compliance plan, building owners have two years to sort
of put it together. Um and recognizing sometimes people leave organizations, you know, two years is a long time ago. So, we do plan on um sending reminders in addition with the language that was associated with their with their approvals um cuz that is sort of the the
tricky balance with um especially like more sophisticated building portfolios. Sometimes they have staff but sometimes staff leave and the institutional knowledge may get lost. Um so we do uh plan to have like touch points or reminders with some of those owners. >> Thank you. I I I think that would be a
great practice. So I appreciate that. Thank you. And I don't think we've made many special conditions. So, we set many special conditions. So, but I appreciate that. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Thank you. Thanks. Um, board member Ellis. >> Sorry. Uh, minor requests. Um, is
because this slide is up here and we were talking about um different pathways when uh board member Farooqi asked a question. Just uh for the future when these do come up, if you don't mind including the pathways that was approved, um that would just be helpful.
um cuz if we're there's any EJ communities under purview or under consideration here, I just want to make sure that we're at least reminding ourselves of that. So just a minor request to include the pathways um when this summary is great. It's just one additional point. That's all. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any additional comments? All right. So, I um am going to make a motion to approve the addition of three Berto IDs to the city of Boston's building portfolio. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Great. Um so on the motion to approve the addition of three Berto IDs to the city of Boston's building portfolio, board members may vote in favor, oppose, or abstain. Those in favor of approving the addition of the Berto IDs to the city of Boston's building portfolio
should either say I or raise your real or virtual hand. Um so those in favor, it looks like we have a unanimous vote in favor. Um so the eyes have it. Uh the addition
of three BTO IDs to the city of Boston's building portfolio has been approved and um and I think we will look to the minutes. I think there were some really good comments about ways to um improve upon the presentation and discussion moving forward to just give
board members the full picture. Um the fourth agenda item is to approve the previous meetings minutes from March 9th. Um is there a motion? >> Motion to approve.
>> Great. And I can second that. Um, if you're in favor, uh, say I or raise your hand. I'll go through the abstensions and nays as well. So, in favor, one, two, three, four. All right. Um,
any abstensions? Board member Ferris is abstaining. The eyes have it. The minutes have been approved. So, uh, hopefully Ziggy's audio is working for our administrative updates. >> Can you hear me now? Okay, great. I
don't know why my mic decides not to work and then work. Um, sorry about that. Um, so for flexibility measures, we have not received any new applications at this time. Um, and then we are hosting our last in uh, Berto Inerson workshop this of this year on
May 5th in Roxbury at the Brucey Bowling Building. Um, the event page is linked here and um, RCP is encouraged but not required. We're also we also wrapped up our webinar series. So all the recordings and slide decks are now available at boston.gov/berto under past events if anyone wants to
check that out. We have one on renewable energy, the launch at 226 reporting vertical reporting season, third party verification and one on flexibility measures. And then also we want to give an update that we have launched the 2026 application for the fund um that has
been shared through the Berto newsletter and the review board newsletter and has and the website has been updated to reflect this year's um application cycle priorities and um amount that we had the review board has released. So, we're going to host uh two information
sessions. Uh one on April 15th at 10:00 a.m. and the other one on April 30th. Those event pages are available now. And then uh we're asking uh applicant interested applicants to register beforehand. And that is on the um fun
website under events under the information sessions. And then we're also just to give more information about um the presentation before the APC on this Wednesday. So again, this um is to present the
proposed regulation updates related to mass class one Rex the timeline requirement. So this is happening this Wednesday. The public notice is now posted and uh with the registration links for for interested parties to join it. It's at 2:30 on Wednesday. and then
I'll pass it over to Hannah to give one more um administr admin update. Um sorry, I was not expecting that. Um the I think we can circle back to the question that um Stephen raised um about
the counselor or the um council and I think um board member Latimore also raised this question um about um the I resolution that was introduced to the city council um about delaying the
implementation of Berto and the um uh believe was the the net zero zoning. Um that was introduced and discussed but was not brought to a vote in the council. So we don't foresee it going
anywhere. Um and don't have any updates beyond that. >> And then the next uh meeting is April 27th. I think that's all from us. Thank you. Um, can I just want to ask one question and then I'll give it to board member
Ellis. Um, question being are applicants for on the equitable emissions fund are applicants required to go to an information session in order to respond or is it optional? >> Uh, the information sessions are completely optional. They're just more
meant to, you know, if if you're someone who prefers asking a person to staff directly instead of, you know, via email or whatever, um, you're welcome to to attend an info session. Uh, and then just one quick, I think, correction for the record. I think Ziggy might have said the second info session is on April
30th. Uh, it's recently been rescheduled to May 6th. Um, so the second info session is actually scheduled for May 6. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, board member Ellis. >> Yes. Uh, thank you. And thank you Hannah for um some of the insights there on on
what the environment department is aware of with respects to what went on with the council. Um my understanding is that the the resolution was forced or pushed to the um oh goodness the name of the
committee the environmental justice resilient and environmental justice resiliency and parks committee uh for them to discuss it. I have not seen it come up on the docket for them. So, I'm I'm assuming it's one of those things
where it's not just it's not being entertained. Um is how I'm interpreting that. So, I just wanted to put that out there because I know yes, they did not vote. However, it was strongly worded to have it be pushed to the committees uh to have it be on their agenda for a
discussion. So, I don't know if the environment department has any other um thoughts, terms, or information that is worth sharing. Um, but again, thank you for what you had so far. I I I'm I'm watching the agenda items, but I haven't
seen that come up on the agenda item. >> Yeah, I I am seeing what you are seeing, um, board member Ellis, that it's not um on an agenda. I think we will continue to track it in the council and work with um our intergovernmental relations team on coordinating with the council on any
next steps. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any additional comments or questions? Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I will second.
>> Great. Um in all of those in favor uh please say I uh with the raise of hands verbally. Great. Um it looks like it is unanimous. So um our next meeting will
be on April 27th. Uh the eyes have it in the motion to conclude the meeting. The meeting is adjourned at 5:51 p.m. Thank you everybody. >> Good night everyone. Good night. Good night. >> Thank you everyone.