I will now hand the meeting over to chair Boatright. >> Good afternoon everyone. Um calling this public meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. In accordance with the building emissions reduction and disclosure ordinance Boston City Code ordinances
um section 7-2.2, the BERDO Review Board will hold a virtual public meeting at 4:30 p.m. on June 22nd, 2026 to review the following topics in regard to the reduction of greenhouse gases from building energy production and consumption
so as to promote the public health and welfare of Boston residents. In accordance with the Massachusetts executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, we are conducting this public meeting online. The public may access this call through Zoom or telephone.
Um oh, great. Before we start, I wanted to welcome our newest board member um Samira Amadi and um board member Amadi just arrived. So um excited for very excited that um that she has joined the board and um for
her to participate in this meeting today. For the record, I am Jessica Boatright, chair of the board, and I will now conduct a roll call of board members. So if each board member could say your name in the order they appear on the slide.
And I will toss it right over um to Samira. >> Thank you so much, Jessica. Hi everyone. My name is Samira Amadi, and this is my first board meeting. Looking forward to participating. >> Stephen Ellis, and welcome uh Samira.
Glad to have you. >> Zolan Keke. Welcome board member Amadi. >> Lori Ferris. >> Phil Edmore. Yes, welcome. >> Reginald Stowe Hill. Welcome, Samira.
>> Brian Worrell, and welcome to the board. >> And now, um, is staff going to introduce themselves? >> Diana Vasquez, uh, senior policy manager. >> Hi, everyone. Claudia Diaz Martinez, deputy director of policy and programs.
>> Hello, Ziqi Chen, policy and programs assistant. >> Great. And now, um, we can look at the agenda for today's meeting. I will start with the discussion of the building decarbonization advisor program. Then, um, we have a notice of modification to the city of Boston's building portfolio.
Uh, and then we will approve the April 27th meeting minutes and hear administrative updates before we adjourn the meeting. So, I'm going to hand it over to Claudia for some information about the building decarbonization advisor program.
>> Thank you, chair. I'll be taking over this first section. Next slide, please. So, today, um, going to present an update on our building decarbonization advisor program, or BEDP, uh, but just wanted to contextualize where this
program stands, uh, in the context of BERDO. So, our BEDP program is one of the multiple ways in which we are supporting BERDO building owners, uh, in their BERDO journey. Um, as many of you know, uh, we have multiple resources
that range from our BERDO help desk via email and phone every day, Monday through Friday, uh, to one-on-one virtual consultations with city staff. We have our Mass Save 1-2-3 Connector program so that building owners can access renewable energy for BERDO
compliance. Uh, we have free engineering services, uh, for building owners that are ready to take action and implement specific building improvement projects. We're working on also developing a toolkit specifically for condo buildings. We have offered in-person
workshops where we provide one-on-one support to building owners in different Boston neighborhoods. And often times we also go where building owners are and attend stakeholder groups like neighborhood association meetings,
professional um sustainability events and other types of events where we try to meet building owners and support them. So this BEDA program exists in this sort of ecosystem of different types of technical support that we offer
for Burdo building owners. Next slide. So what is BEDA specifically? This is a technical support program that connects building owners with building science experts that have been hired by the city of Boston. And this is to help them either plan for long-term Burdo
compliance and or to achieve what we call quick win emissions and energy use reductions. So BEDA is sort of organized into two tasks that building owners can take advantage of. What we call task one is a long-term
building decarbonization planning where building owners get what we call a zero over time plan. So this is essentially a plan with steps that buildings can take from now to 2050 to reduce their emissions progressively over time, reach Burdo compliance, and achieve net zero
emissions by 2050. This first task of BEDA is funded in two in two ways. First, we receive federal funding through the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant or EECBG. This money is to be spent by the fall of
2026. And this happened a while ago, but the Bureau review were also granted $500,000 from the Equitable Emissions Investment Fund to support task one services of BEDP, which is the reason we are here today providing this update.
Then the second task of BEDP is um meant to provide quick wins and support building owners in implementing low-hanging fruit projects in their buildings that can achieve energy use or emissions reductions in the near term.
Uh this can take many forms. So task two services have a range from equipment purchases to more detailed engineering assessments, design studies, and so on. And task two specifically has been funded through the American Rescue
Plan Act funds or ARPA, which need to be spent by the end of this year as well. Next slide. So who is eligible for this program? This is also dependent on the task that building owners take advantage of because we are
dependent on federal funding. The these different sources of funding have also different conditions attached to it. And when the Bureau review board granted funds through the Equitable Emissions Investment Fund, it was agreed that um
projects funded through the EEIF would follow the same requirement requirements that we follow for EECBG. So for task one of BEDP, which is the long-term decarbonization planning, this is specifically directed at residential condos with preference for
those with a majority of units assessed at less than $1 million per unit. Also rental buildings in an environmental justice neighborhood, and rental buildings that have different types of income restrictions from those with Section 8 tenants or below market
rents, uh with at least 50% of residents at or below 80% AMI, as well as deed restricted affordable housing. And we also uh support non-residential or mixed-use buildings that are owned by
a small small business and located in an EJ neighborhood, as well as non-residential or mixed-use buildings that are owned by a non-profit and located in an EJ neighborhood. Uh so again, that is the long-term decarbonization plan inside of BEDP. For task two services, which again are
supported through ARPA funding, uh through these we support residential buildings located in a qualified census tract as defined by HUD, as well as non-residential mixed-use buildings that are either owned by a small business or a non-profit and located in a qualified
census tract. Next slide, please. Um so, what does BEDP actually look like from the building owner's perspective? Uh so, the process or the journey that a building owner goes through is that first they fill out an application form by a certain deadline. BEDP has been
working in cohorts, so there's usually an application deadline to um participate in a specific cohort, but then applications continue to be received on a rolling basis as well. >> [snorts] >> Um after the specific deadline for a cohort, the city reviews applications
and those who are eligible and um um are accepted into the program are then matched with a specific building science firm. Um through BEDP, we work with four different building science firms: New Ecology, Green ARG, JB&B, and
Thornton Tomasetti. Um and we match building owners to consultants according to a specific prioritization process that was agreed through the procurement process. Um very complicated procurement processes with the city, so it's all done according to that.
And then uh once building owners are matched with consultants, they work one-on-one with these consultants for um um anything between four to five months if they're receiving the long-term decarbonization planning. This involves meeting with the building owner,
examining their energy reported data, site visits, energy modeling, and constant communication with building owners. This looks a bit different for task two services just because that can be very different projects, so it can take a bit
shorter time than this, a bit longer than that, and it's just a matter of both the building owner and consultants being able to find good project to implement within this time frame. Um and once a deliverable is ready, then consultants also review
the final deliverables with owners. Um for task one services, building owners receive up to $10,000 for a single building or up to $50,000 for a portfolio of two or two four buildings for task one. And under task
two, building owners can receive up to $50,000 again to a different variety of projects, anything from equipment purchases to more detailed engineering assessments. Next slide. So here is sort of the progress today and why we're coming to you with an
update. So since 2024 when this program started, we have implemented three cohorts of BEDAP which have served already 47 building owners and over 70 BERDO IDs. The reason that there's more BERDO IDs and building owners is because some of these building owners have
received portfolio level um zero over time plans. And also we always have these sort of philosophical question of what is a building under BERDO, so sometimes a physical building can include multiple bird IDs as some of you
um um may have [clears throat] suffered in your own experience as well. Um so currently we are in cohort four of B app which has kickstarted this month, June 2026, and we're expecting hoping it will serve up to 15 building owners.
Um so so far the first three cohorts of B app for task one services, we have been fully using uh the federal funds that we received through EECBG. The reason we started with these federal funds is because they have a spending deadline by the fall of this year. And
uh with these fourth cohort, we're actually going to completely uh use up all of the funds from EECBG. Uh so we are for the first time transitioning to also use funding from the Equitable Emissions Investment Fund to support
task one services for B app. Um so in this table you can see the money that has been spent. So for cohort one to three, EECBG has already supported 43 building owners for task one services. And ARPA funding has supported 11
building owners. The reason this doesn't sum up uh exactly is because some buildings that received task one services also have received task two services. And there's also building owners that have only received task two services, which is why the total of 47
doesn't add up from 43 and 11. And for cohort four, again we're in the initial stages of these um the remaining uh almost 20,000 that we have from EECBG will support almost two building owners. Again, it's 10K per
building owner, so almost that remaining uh money will support two building owners for task one. And um the other six building owners that have been accepted into cohort four for task one services will now be supported through the EEIF. And uh we're also expecting to
support two to five building owners with the remaining funds that we have from ARPA. Um the reason task two is more of an estimate is again because it really depends on whether building owners and consultants are able to find that specific project or equipment purchase
that can feasibly be done in the time frame that is required by ARPA. Um so after cohort four, which is expected to run between June and October of this year, we would have completely depleted
all of EECBG funds, and we would have around 390,000 uh dollars from the Equitable Emissions Investment Fund, which should uh be able to support um more than or around 30 building owners in future cohorts, and
hopefully we would have also spend down all of the ARPA funding for task two services. Next slide. So in terms of looking forward, uh given that we are now spending money from the Equitable Emissions Investment Fund,
which again third-party review board granted to the city um in 2024, we will continue to provide updates on the progress of on the progress of cohort four of PEDAP, um and we anticipate to kickstart cohort five in October of 2026
uh only with task one services, given that we expect to have depleted all of the service uh all of the funding available for task two Next slide. And I believe that's all from my presentation, but happy to answer any
questions from the board. >> Great, thank you. Um I will ask each board member if they have any clarifying questions or comments. Um first I just wanted to ask um two questions. One, is there um
is there any possibility that you won't be able to spend all of the ARPA-related funding by the deadline and that we'll lose some of it or do you think it's all going to get expended on time? >> I think we will be able to spend down all of that money. In reality, we have
more building owners that are eligible for test to services than the ones we're able to support with remaining funds. Um it's a matter again of being able to match the specific projects, but given that we have a good number of building
owners in the potential pipeline, I think we will be able to spend those down. >> Okay. And then my second question was um uh I I know we've talked a little bit in here when we talk about the annual
funding awards about sort of timeline on the EEIF funds. So, do you does the city have a sense of um with the remaining 391, like what the timeline is for the future cohorts, like when you
project that that'll be fully expended? >> Um so, um the next cohort we expect to begin in October and that run for another four months and then 2020 seven is when we would expect another cohort. We
generally do 10 to 15 buildings per cohort. Um so, at the very least I would expect another two cohorts to be able to be funded through the remaining EEIF funds, but it will depend uh how many building owners we admit in
each cohort. >> Okay. Thank you. Um all right, I will now turn to the other board members. Uh board member Amadi, do you have any questions? >> I don't have any a specific question at the moment. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Board member Ellis? >> Yes, thank you, Chair Boatwright. Um, I and thank you, Claudia, for your presentation. Uh, I you one of my questions were already answered regarding um how many additional cohorts do you foresee and that that was the two. Um, but my
follow-up question to that is do you or any of the other city staff foresee a need for additional funding for to support B that beyond the the six cohorts, so to speak? >> Um, that is a great question. Um, I
think B that is a great program that has tended to a very real need that building owners have, which is how to get started in thinking about long-term Burdo compliance. Um, I think as we are finalizing these
other cohorts, we want to also be able to take a step back and see how could we improve this program? Um, do we need to change anything about this program before coming back to the board to request more funding? Um, so yes, I think we
always want more funding to be able to support building owners in long-term compliance. I think it will look exactly the same way. I don't know at this time because we want to be able to review this program um and see what to change, what to keep. And so
>> Got it. Thank you. And in your current review of this program, um do you have a sense of the demographics of um you know, building owners like what types of buildings and what types of um sort of spaces uh we've been supporting through this program so far?
>> That is a great question and actually Jaylene, our fellow who's here today, has been working on analyzing all the zero over time plans that we had provided for the first two cohorts and we would then have to add on cohort three to that analysis, but so far we
have overwhelmingly supported mainly multi-family housing. Uh, a lot of mainly multi-family housing that has income restrictions. And then there has been a few small small businesses, offices, um
assembly and education buildings. But mainly it has been um multi-family housing for the first two cohorts across 16 neighborhoods. Um but I I expect that once we have these analysis finalized and added on to
cohort three that we can share all of these specific metrics with the board. >> I do look forward to that and I appreciate you answering my final question on how many neighborhoods. So those are all my questions for today. I'll turn it back over to the chair. Thank you.
>> Thank you, board member Faruqui. >> Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, Claudia. This is very helpful. Um how many building owners are applying for support relative to how many are getting served? >> Um so for example well it varies by cohort, but I can speak to cohort four
which is the one we just received applications for um and that we have selected building owners for. So in this instance we received 28 applications. Of those six were not eligible. Um and for example some were like the
BERDO ID does not exist or it was previously in the covered buildings list but it it was determined it was not a BERDO building or they did not meet the specific criteria presented on for residential buildings, small businesses, and nonprofits. Um and then um we also
prioritize buildings that are projected to be out of compliance either in 2025 or 2030. So those who weren't selected into this cohort but would otherwise be eligible is because they're expected to be in compliance
until at least 2035. But we We have a lot of good performing buildings are the ones who also are more eager to do more. So, we do have buildings that apply, but they're actually expected to be in compliance until 2040 or 202045.
And for now, we're not accepting those building owners into the program because we're trying to prioritize those who need it the most. >> Excellent. Okay, cool. Thank you. That's very helpful. I think that speaks a little bit to Board Member Morales' question as well about what additional funding could do if there's, you know,
clearly some interest from building owners who are not being served. Um, so, okay. That sounds good. Um, my other question is, I know in believe it's slide 10, you described it's approximately two building owners who
can get support from the EECGP funded um, program track. Is it helpful if we just do like a supplemental appropriation from the equitable emissions investment fund just to get that to the full 20K so that the both building owners can get the full
10K amount? >> Sorry, I was muted. Uh, no, so building owners will get the full 10K amount. Uh, it's just I didn't put two because technically those 19K doesn't fully cover building owner the two building owners,
but they are receiving the full amount just like one of them will have a little bit from EIF. If that makes sense. >> Oh, I see. Okay, got it. All right, that's what I was. All right, cool. Um, and then I know you mentioned that there'll be like a full analysis coming
soon of the first three cohorts and um, how it's performed. Uh, will that also include a list of which building owners have been served? >> Uh, yeah. Yeah. >> Okay, excellent. Um, I'm similarly curious to see how this is working. But thank you. This is very helpful. I'll
yield back to the chair. >> Thank you. Uh, Board Member Ferris. >> Thank you. Yeah, this is really helpful. I have maybe one question one question comment, but my my question um is if there's any um kind of condition with the funding that the
recipients um like share lessons learned from implementation or something to help support other building owners? >> There there isn't a conditions attached to BELAB. Um in practice, however, a few of building owners have
um um consent is the not the right maybe agreed to share their zero over time plans publicly so that other building owners can see what it looks like to have a plan to get to 2050. Um and
uh we have we hope to do a few case studies and and presentations on some of these buildings, but there's no formal conditions attached for building owners that receive support through BELAB. >> Yeah, thanks. I think that would be really helpful both to um I mean, I
think publicly sharing the plans is a a huge resource, but then also um you know, maybe check-ins in 3 years or something because these plans are speculative, right? They're they're plans. So, I think following through to understand how implementable they were, what what challenges or barriers had to
be overcome through implementation, um maybe not as a condition of the funding, but just as a request would be really helpful. Um and then my other question, which I think I know the answer to, so it's a comment also is uh is if any if is
I suppose for building owners who have historic or, you know, kind of eligible older properties, is there can this funding be used toward a um you know, a preserv- a qualified preservation consultant to ensure that the that the plans align or any of these
kind of low-hanging fruit interventions are compatible with um you know, long-term stewardship of the structures. >> Yeah, I would say that is probably not in currently in the scope of the services of BAEV
and it's only services that the four building science firms would be able to provide. So for example, task two services we work specifically with greener you and new ecology and they have either purchased equipment or done more like actual level two audits and
domestic hot water engineering studies. So I don't think that more specific historic preservation focused studies are in the realm of their contract as it is currently scoped.
>> What about task one? The the >> So task one is specifically just for zero over time plans. So that does not include an additional necessarily an assessment of historic preservation. >> Yeah, I guess my comment on that is that
to in in order to achieve zero over time that interventions will quite often impact the fabric of the building and you know, things like moisture movement things that building scientists could assess like moisture movement across the wall or uh you know, air tightness of windows that
may be restored rather than replaced. So I I suppose what I'm my comment is that I would encourage in future rounds that there be maybe even a requirement but at least an allowance for not not distinct preservation services but
that that qualification as an overlay to the zero over time plan so that it's really kind of stewardship aligned. That's my my comment. Thank you. >> That's good. >> That's all for me. >> Thank you. Board member Latimore. >> Yes, thank you. I appreciate the
presentation and very very helpful. And most of my colleagues on the board um, already asked the same questions I have written down. Um, but just to kind of further, cuz I would love to see and think it would be
helpful resource to see those zero over time plans, um, for the public as well as for this board. And also know the names of the recipients of the BEDP funds. And, um, but the the the the baseline for eligibility is that you have to be a
BERDO eligible property, correct? >> That's right. Right. So, this is not support uh buildings not covered by BERDO. >> Okay. And, uh, thank you. And then I had again the same questions as my colleagues about, uh, how will funds,
uh, be, um, continued after they're depleted, but, uh, sounds like you have some thinking to do there. Um, the other question that follows along the lines, uh, gets into a little bit more detail from the questions that my colleagues have asked, is, um, the feedback from participants
so far. Um, partic- with those who've gone through and completed the program, especially task two. I- is there any feedback, um, from or has the city asked for feedback or is it still too early for that? >> So, I believe, uh, there has been
surveys that don't have a great response rate response rate, um, but I, um, the following up with building owners down the road. So, what happens after they receive their zero over plan time.
Understanding what was it actually helpful or was it a report that is just put on a shelf. That is the type of follow-up we want to do, um, again, as we're thinking about what is next for BEDP. Is it BEDP 2.0? Does it have to be
a different thing if we find out zero over time plans maybe weren't exactly what building owners needed. So, we do have the desire of having that follow-up with participants, um, as the has passed after receiving the zero over time plan. Yeah.
>> Yeah, so that's helpful. I think it would be great to you know, get that feedback and maybe even tie some of the feedback like if there's a way to hold back a piece of the final payment until you get the survey results of the question, you know, have them respond to I think that's that would be really valuable
information to factor into all the things we've been talking about already, which is the future of the program as funds are depleted and the feedback from folks. The only other thing and it goes along the lines of what some of my colleagues have said also is metrics being tracked as people are
getting any other Is there any thinking about energy efficiency and decarbonization metrics that are going to be tracked post completion of the program? And so it's kind of trying to understand the impact, so just a question.
>> Yeah, so as part of the analysis that our fellow has been doing, we are tracking what ECMs or energy conservation measures are recommended by building sorry, by the building science firms for each compliance period. We're tracking what
are the expected emissions and energy use reductions of the zero over time plans as well as expected utility cost savings with some asterisks on these because there's different ways that each of these vendors calculate utility cost
savings, so we cannot actually compare sometimes apples to oranges. Um but in terms of the improving performance of the building is something that we would be able to see through annual reporting to Burdo as well. Uh so
while Burdo we don't require or we building owners do not report any building improvements that they do in their building as part of reporting, we are able to see the changes in energy use and emissions over time. >> Right.
Thank you. Those are all my questions. >> Thank you. Uh board member Stovall. >> Yeah, I just I [clears throat] just have one question. I How many nonprofits have actually applied for the funding and are they
are they engaging like all the other um building owners? >> Um I would have to take a I think we had maybe like three nonprofits that applied this
last cohort. I would say applicants tend to be more in the multifamily housing sector uh which is reflected on the building owners that we have um approved into BEDP. Um
but I can get back to you on the exact number of nonprofits that applied last cohort. >> All right. Thank you. You did a great job for the presentation. I did appreciate it. >> Thank you. Um counselor Arroyo, do you have any questions? >> Uh thank you, chair, and thank you for
the presentation. No questions. Um all my colleagues have asked all the great questions and um all my questions have been been answered. Thank you. >> Thank you. Does anyone have any further discussion or questions? All right. Thank you, Claudia. That was
very helpful. Um and we can move on to our second agenda item which is um the notice of the city of Boston's building portfolio modification and I will hand it over to Diana to um report on this.
>> Thank you, Chair. Uh yes, I am back with a a new notice for the City of Boston's building portfolio. Uh you may remember a couple of months ago uh the City of Boston modified their building portfolio. Uh it turns out the
team did find one more BRDO ID that they are removing from their building portfolio. Um so it's BRDO ID 106916 or 350 Jamaicaway Street in Jamaica Plain. Uh the primary use type for this building or this BRDO ID is office
space. Um and the reasoning to remove why the city is removing it from its building portfolio is that the the building is not occupied, operated, or main- or maintained by the City of Boston. Uh and it does have a a gross floor area that is less than 20,000
square feet. Um therefore, it's not subject to BRDO um as a standalone building. Um and so this because of the change of ownership, uh where the building is no longer subject to BRDO. Uh and just for a little bit more context, it is a property um that's
associated with the Emerald Necklace Conservancy, uh which is a nonprofit stewardship uh program. So it serves as a office space for a nonprofit that the city does not occupy it, operate the building, or maintain the building. The building is part of a trust.
Next slide, please. So any uh this would result in no updates to the blended emission standard. Uh so the overall emission standard will be the same for the City of Boston's building portfolio. Uh and
the new total number of BRDO IDs within the building portfolio will be 367. Previously, it was 368. Um and the building portfolio is still in compliance uh with uh reporting requirements um
and will be in in compliance with emissions requirements. Um and then I believe that's all I have. I don't think we have a Q&A slot. Oh. >> Yeah, I don't think we do Q&A cuz it's just a notice.
Um but I think it's our first one. So, if anybody has any questions about the process speak now. All right. All right. >> Sorry, I actually have a quick question. I'm sorry. Thank you, chair. Diana, just order of operations because it's a notice. I'm I'm just I was
sitting here in my brain. I'm like, wait a minute. Are we going to have to approve this? But if there's a change to the size of the portfolio, the building portfolio, then we would have to approve it, correct? >> If there's an addition to the building if there's like an add like a property that's being added to an approved
building portfolio, the review board would need to approve it. If it's a notice, it's more just an informational notice. And a notice can happen if there's a change of ownership or if there's a sale of the building. If an owner is removing
a building for any reason other other than uh selling the building or change of ownership um or a vacancy. I guess I should mention a vacancy as well. Um then the building uh the modification would need to be
approved by the review board. So, additions and then uh a removal that doesn't fall within the sort of like standard standard business as usual. >> Thank you for the reminder. All right, back to you, chair. >> Thank you. Um so
seeing no other unmutes, um I'm going to move us on to approving um the previous meeting's minutes. Um so, does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the meeting minutes? All right. Um I make a motion to approve the April
27th meeting minutes. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. Um on the motion to approve the board meeting minutes, board members may vote in favor, oppose, or abstain. Um
board member Amadi was not in attendance at the last meeting, since this is her first meeting, so she may vote to abstain. Those in favor of approving the meeting minutes, please say I or raise a hand. >> I. >> I.
>> Great. And um any opposed? Abstentions? Great. Thank you. Um the eyes have it. The minutes have been approved, and um I will hand it over to Ziggy for some administrative update. >> Thank you, Chair.
Um is my audio working? Yeah, okay, great. Uh so, we have no new submissions uh for flexible measure at this time. Uh but I did want to give an update um since the regulations were updated on May 13th um
by the Air Pollution Control Commission. So, I I want to talk about the REC Connector program. So, now RECs purchased through the Mass Class 1 REC Connector program are now eligible to be used to meet emissions compliance this reporting year. As a reminder, the city partnered with Green Energy Consumers Alliance to
create this program to make it easier for building owners to purchase a small amount of RECs for better compliance. And so, now the new deadline to purchase RECs for 2025 emissions compliance is October 31st. And if anyone needs more information, you can find it at
boston.gov/berdo-recs. And then, our next Review Board meeting is scheduled for July 13th. And that's all for me, Chair. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> So moved.
So moved. >> We have a second. Okay. So that was board board member Latimore a second from board member Ferrucci. Um Uh so same as our minutes. If you are in favor, please say I or raise your hand.
>> I >> I >> I >> I >> Um any any nays? All right. The eyes have it. This meeting is adjourned and I will see you all in July.
>> Great. Thank you. >> Have a good night. >> Thanks. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you.