which is the entity that oversees um the um the certification process um kind of changed the path and extended the possibility to do lead v4 until June
2027. So they gave a whole a whole year extension on lead v4 and so lead v5 is only mandated in 2027. And then the goal from what we um we just met with USGBC
recently um and uh the goal from then is to have these new versions update every five years. Um and so I won't go into details of that but MSBA had basically updated their policy to lead v5 and now
basic now offer either lead v4 or lead v5 as a requirement and they require silver in either version but those versions are not equal. We'll talk about this in a minute. Uh the MSBA funds
fully funds enhanced commissioning and fundamental commissioning under the lead program. Um and then this to get additional reimbursement from MSBA. You do not need you do not have to get a
higher certification level. A higher certification level does not get more money from MSBA. What gets more money from MSBA is the specialized stretch energy code which Medford has adopted.
So we will um we will uh you know comply with the specialized stretch energy code for this project and that will qualify Medford for additional 3% reimbursement and then the optimize lead material
points. So there's a set of points in in lead in the indoor air quality and material and resources categories and um obtaining a certain amount of those points beyond what's required in the silver certification
um gets you another 1%. And that's something that we will optimize in this project as well. Next. So, what we found out and we relayed to the school committee yesterday, uh, in
in the past few months, there's been a lot of discussion about the V5, um, the change and the opportunity to, you know, potentially go back to V4. Um, and there's there's two sets of information here that we presented. One is we
recently got some feedback from the pilot certification. um of some projects that have gone through the whole certification. Um they've gone through design and construction and obtained the certification under lead v5 and what we heard from them was that there were considerable challenges with the review
process which is common for uh when you get a new lead version that a minimum of 10 plus point uh was denied on these project a minimum. So that's not an average minimum of 10 points on elite V4
projects. You know, we're so we're, you know, we've got 10 years of experience of doing lead V4, one to two points, maybe three sometimes, but it's definitely not 10. What this does is it makes it really harder to get to higher
levels of certification in V5. So we had established in previous meeting that lead V4 gold was equivalent to a lead V5 silver. um lead v5 gold is obviously more challenging. Um now the other
information we obtained is we talked to MSBA and asked how many school projects that are currently in design or you know in the early process are seeking lead v5 and basically there were two one of them
was Medford and the other one was a project that was actually reconsidering and going back to V4. So that that pieces of information we thought was quite relevant to share with with the Medford team here in the committees
because basically Medford would become the guinea pig in the next two to three years under lead V5. Um and we felt that was becoming a bit of an impediment on top of all the information we have here. And part of these challenges are uh
related to the fact that V5 obviously raised the bar but they really transformed the the rating system quite considerably. Uh it has a higher stringency. Um pretty much every a major
part of the credits have been either updated or modified highly modified moderately modified. Um and there's a considerable number of new prerequisite. Um the commissioning must start a schematic design. We've had discussions
before about that. That's that was quite um you know a challenge for uh K12 projects when MSBA did not want to still to assign an agent until DDD design development. Um and then there there are
all these credits that we used to obtain quite you know quite easily on the majority of our projects. The site assessment, joint use facilities, site master plans, those are not available anymore. So all of this together makes it a bit more challenging to um to go
for V5 next. Uh Matt, do you want to take this one? I think that may be best. What what what this represents is the project right now and its costs include a full ground source heat pump heating and cooling
system um and a structural steel uh frame for the new addition. Um and then as we completed PSR, we had these add alternates for PV, HVAC and mass timber.
>> Yeah. And I can frame it. I probably took too long at school committee last night running through all. So I am not going to read out all the numbers. Um I'll just explain what the concepts are between the different alternates. Um because as we shift forward, this is going to be um one of the topics that we
want to um craft as an advisory team recommendations back to the full building committee um on these particular um topics. And it's not to say that we are um 100% locked into only choosing these options that are here um but these each um set benchmarks in
terms of an understanding of relative cost um associated with different approaches. So for the photovoltaic systems and this is going to tie directly to our net zero energy um discussion topic. um as a baseline and we have the baseline assumptions for
each one of these sort of three ad alternate categories down at the bottom is that as a baseline for PV um we have accounted for um making the entire roof of the building um PV ready um and would
allow for um power purchase agreement uh to provide the photovoltaanic panels that are going to be put on the roof um so there would be no capital um cost to the project in terms of the PV panels as part of a a base um condition in the
project. The alternates that were then priced out um were first assuming that we would purchase um the actual panels that would be on the roof um as a baseline. Um so that's that first line that you see the PV1. Um PV2 um assumes
that we go back to a PPA approach in terms of procuring the panels. Um so no capital investment for the panels but it does add in structure uh for ground mounted canopies um at grade. Um so between the roof um and the ground mounted canopies this would bring us to
a full net zero energy um level of energy for the building. Um and then PV3 um really says that it's still going to keep the ground mounted canopy structures, but it means that the project would purchase um all the panels both for the roof um as well as for uh
the ground mounted canopy. So again, that's a full net zero energy um approach in terms of those two price points. Um and I see that there's a whole bunch of hands that went up, so I must have said something interesting. Um let me get through the the collection of these and then we'll flip forward and then I think we can circle back and have
a little bit of discussion on the different topics. Um so from an HVAC system um options that were priced out our baseline assumption is 100% um ground source heat pump or geothermal heating and cooling system. Um so that's
our baseline assumption. So for all of the cost alternates that were um shown here on the HVAC side, they're all credits against on the project cost would reduce project cost if we go to a slightly less first cost system that may have um a slightly higher energy use um
to them. And that's really what the LCCA is going to get at um and Martine will go into a little bit more detail a little bit later um about some of the options that are there. Um but just as that highle overview, HVAC1 um represents changing um the entirety
of the um ground source heat pump system um to an air source heat pump that is an air to water type. Um HVAC 2 um is going to change um the the 100% ground source heat pump system to a hybrid ground source heat pump. And I think it's
roughly a 50/50 um split between ground source heat pump as well as an air source heat pump system. Um and then HVAC 3 um changes again the entirety of the ground source heat pump system um to an airsource uh heat pump but a VRF
system. So an air-to-air um heat pump system. Um so those result in different initial uh first cost savings and obviously there's there's also uh considerations there um for operating cost long-term and energy consumption that we'll get into. And then lastly um
those two mass timber um cost alternatives that we have um are representing swapping out um anytime we have the new um addition. Um the baseline assumption is a structural steel frame and we would replace either
50% of that structural steel frame um with mass timber members and systems um or 100% um of the structural steel frame with mass timber in that last one. Um so those these are sort of the um the
sustainability um non-program related cost alternates that were priced out as part of the PSR cost estimating. So Matt there's a question in before we take the questions from people there's a question in the um in the chat what
percentage of building energy used of PV1 t PV1 tier account for um from Sunni um so that the roof estimation now would represent between 20 and 40%
of the overall school energy use. Um, and again, this is we're we were at PSR when we looked at that. So, this is going to hone down now. We're going to hone down and have a bit more uh you know, a bit a bit more detailed
analysis in SD. Um so that means that the the canopies the parking canopy need to represent between 60 and 80% of uh or need to harvest uh and be sized for 60 to 80% of the school energy use.
Um do we want to take the questions or or go through the chat? There's four more. >> I think Austin has patiently had his hand up for quite some time. So maybe alternate if if that makes sense. Yep. And
>> um sorry, just before you jump in, I just want to frame sort of the question response. I see a lot of these questions are going to be dealing specifically with the LCCA as we get into it. Um so there may be some answers provided um once we get into the LCCA discussion. Um
but >> but maybe let's let's take a few of them now. And also I'm not going to cut you off and say that you can't ask your questions. So um we'll do that. I just let's be mindful of the time also and then maybe we'll pivot and go forward as uh maybe after 10 or 15 minutes if we stay here.
>> Sure. Um my I guess I had had a couple of related questions. one was was partially answered but but it would be helpful to see the estimated system sizes um that you are contemplating. Um you
know 20 going from 23 to 48 million bucks on on a ground mount or or a carport you know a canopy structure is is is a pretty substantial jump. Um, so it would be helpful to understand some of the assumptions whether that's like a
bid that you got from a from a contractor that informed that initially. Um, so I guess my first question is you know system size and then my second question is does any of this assume a battery system a system um or is that
a whole separate? Yes. is PV and battery from what I understand we would >> and the battery is sized based on what >> uh the battery is sized based on the I the electrical engineer would be best to
respond to that but it's it's um it's meant to service uh a peak load uh not it's not an emergency load type battery. This is really to it's >> so it's designed to be discharged,
>> right? >> Y >> peak load >> for demand response. Y >> demand response optimization. Um I will tell you and you can do the math because I said 20 to 40 for the roof and 60 to 80. The our original estimate for the PV overall PV size was
6 2 megawatt. So you can do a bit of the math from that. Um and and again the the so PV1 does I think PV1 does not have a battery
because it's um just the roof, right? >> And then PV2 um is just the structure and PV3 has the panels and the battery.
There could very well be a battery provided under PV2, but it would be part of the power purchase agreement equipment that would be supplied. >> Right. >> I see. Okay. So, that's the primary driver is just the PPA versus versus owning the system out. Right.
>> Right. Right. And and Austin, to to be clear in SD, we're going to dive in a bit more on the sizing and we're also going to look at uh incentives at peak load reduction savings. um estimated obviously. So some of these
demand response incentives from the utility um all of this will be folded in some of these cost um and sizing analysis. >> Okay. Yeah. The CPC program which is run under I guess DOER runs that um I think
they're finalizing the rules on that but that's got a lot of favorable uh treatment of of sort of commercial size batteries such as this. So, >> right. And um and obviously somebody had a question about the federal tax um
credits. Um we are well that's about geothermal, but there's still supposedly some for the battery depending on when it's purchased. So, we'll cover all of that as well. We've got all >> Yes, they exist for the battery. Unfortunately, no longer for the
>> um Yeah. So yeah, it's sun setting the I think it's sun setting, but we have all that information so that we can sort of bring that information and explain what what's there for the PV and what's not there um and the savings. So do we want
to take a a chat question now and then go back to a hand up? I I don't have a preference. I'll let Matt and Ellen decide which >> we we can go back to the chat questions maybe in order. I think Luke's question was next um in terms of why we don't
have a conventional HVAC um system listed in any form. And by conventional, Luke, I'm assuming that you're referring to fossil fuel. >> So, I can insert that part first. So the there's there's there's the main reason
is because uh Medford has adopted the um the specialized stretch code and um the preferred pathway. So the specialized stretch code really really incentivize all electric HVAC system separate from
the pool. um the the all electric pathway if you go all electric you do not have to install photovoltaic or design your infrastructure for electrification.
So if if you decide to do fossil fuel, you're going to have to design and basically set and size your infrastructure for future electrification. you're going to spend all the money for it, but you're not going to install it. It's really, you
know, the way the specialized stretch code is built and set is really to disincentivize fossil fuel. So, the reason why we're only looking at all electric is because of that. It's allowing the school to be
um to go under the all electric pathway and not be um forced to install PV and design for all electric infrastructure. Well, basically you're doing it without, you know, without having to pay for it
and and having to do it and later. Um so I don't know if that that was clear enough. Um, but that's that's pretty much why we're going all electric. Then there is the motion that was approved yesterday where the net zero energy um
uh sort of preference uh is stated. And so all of this together um uh sort of combined uh sort of uh directs to the all electric HVAC. Um, one other thing I
want to mention, the heat pumps in terms of heating um are three times more efficient than a natural gas boiler. And we we want we'll go let we can talk a little bit more in the LCCA um about this. And I think we've talked
a bit about it in previous meetings. Um as we go through the LCCA, we're going to look at all of the cost of heating with electricity. that's all going to be um included and then the second part the pool so the pool is a high energy
consumer and conventional HVAC could be more affordable so we will have a separate life cycle cost analysis for the pool HVAC system um that's going to be parallel because um it's got a heavier energy use per square foot. So,
we want to we want to hone down on the pool and then the main school will be all electric, which is what we're going to talk about in in a minute. Um, >> so Martine, um, thanks for responding that and, you know, I welcome the news that you just shared. Um, I am
disappointed that, you know, I don't find out until I ask the questions, um, for things like that, which are pretty important. Um I do uh I guess note that a lot of things have already been decided for us. Um I I'm certainly going
to sit and listen, but um it's very hard to make decisions um seeing slides, you know, for the first time at the meeting um and being asked to make recommendations. So I'll probably abstain if it's a difficult thing that >> we're not we're not asking you to make a
recommendation on these tonight. we will bring more information for you to decide on these on these options. >> So, this is not the confirm and recommend meeting. >> No, that that will come later. It'll
come later in the process. Um, we're just going to need these additional meetings to be able to talk through these topics to give the advisory team enough time to formulate the recommendations and arrive at them. >> Okay. >> Apologies. introduction of where we are
now >> at the beginning of schematic design. >> Uh can I ask a favor? I only have um the planned meeting schedule uh that was presented uh I don't know when the at the December meeting and at that time um
only four uh MEP subcommittee meetings were planned. There was the December 16th, the uh January 15th. Um and then two others, one called the confirm and recommend, and then uh the last one called the reconvene. Uh if there's an
updated meeting schedule, c can I ask um that that just be um shared? Maybe it even appears somewhere in these slides, but um I I would like an update. Um if we're um either changing the number of meetings or um adjusting the subject of
meetings, um it would help uh at least myself um kind of plan uh ahead of time. Thank you. >> Yeah, we will circulate that, Luke. I'm happy to do so. Sunny, I see you have your hand up as well. We can go back and
forth between our written comments and our uh hinge. >> Thanks, Matt. Um, can everyone hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, I I just have a followup from from Luke's question, and it's not because I want uh fossil fuels on the
building, but I think I think we'd be doing our community a disservice if we didn't show them um the the specialized search energy code with the dual fuel pathway. I think that's something there will be a lot of people
that will be looking for. And I just think that we should reconsider whether or not that's part of the life cycle cost analysis. >> So that's fine to discuss tonight. Actually, that's that's something we wanted to talk tonight. The the life
cycle cost analysis in for SD for MSBA requires three options. Um and I suggest that we go through the LCCA and then we come back and decide those three options. If if you the the
baseline unfortunately is not fossil fuel. Um I I'll have to see. So I I'll have to double check because it's ashray now it's ashray 2019 and it used to be all electric. So let me double check because if the baseline is fossil fuel then we could use that.
>> Okay. >> And and we would price that. So I'll I'll get back to everyone on that. We'll double check. there's a chance that we're already planning to do that by comparing to the baseline. >> Okay. >> Point well taken. I can understand what
you're saying. Yes. And >> and for folks on the call too, I just think the importance of it is to just prove out that like with these additional incentives, um it's worth going this direction, right? So, like we've done plenty of these on many of our projects, but I
just think that our community would be really upset if we didn't even show that that it's not worth it to do that. Mhm. And the the one big point that needs to come across and I guess it will with
dollar signs Sunni if we if we integrate it in the LCCA is the fact that if you decide to go fossil fuel, you will still have to pay and install the fuel the full >> electrical infrastructure that would be
necessary for an all electric system. So, >> I'm totally with you. And I also think like costs are worth it. Like they'll have to look at like how frequently we have to pay a bunch more. Like I'm with you, Martine. I want >> No, I know. I know. I know. And that's
what that's what I totally agree. And that's what we're going to do. We're going to put the dollar sign on that basically and and we're going to compare. So, >> I I saw that Paul's hand just went up, but I also I'm just looking at the time, but why don't we move forward because I think we can potentially head off some
of the questions that have been including the chat, but we can also circle back, Paul, if you don't mind. Um, and we can just answer the question after we get through the rest of the materials. >> And and I read the other questions and I think we can address some of those during the LCCA because they're about
incentives, >> right? Um, and so th this that's um up on screen right now talks a little bit I think to what Luke was starting to allude to and and we'll put some um dates um and specific organization to
this. Um some of it was informed um by the motion that was made at the school committee uh last night. Um so we're circling back and just going to make sure that there's a good logical path um laid out around the recommendations. But eventually um we will need to have the
advisory team um provide the recommendations back to the full building committee um on these uh specific topics that are listed at the top um that are organized around those um cost alternates that were put out there. Um and then generally if we
circle back um to the motion that was made, we're going to try to organize our discussions here around these four topics um that were included in the motion. um initially that net zero energy um the red red list free materials um as well as the indoor air
quality um credits that are wrapped into lead in order to maximize our MSBA reimbursement um the additional incentive points that come with that um this focus on water efficiency and stewardship and that's both indoor and outdoor water use as well as minimizing
um the overall total cost of ownership as Martine noted both from a um operations and as well as maintenance perspective moving forward. So why don't we dive into LCCA now?
So in terms of the LCCA you're going to see here I want everybody to understand this is very high level because we were at PSR at the time uh of of completing the LCCA the final uh option was not selected. We had still
27 whatever number of option and maybe maybe it was down to six. >> It was down to six or seven. >> Yeah, it was down to six. Um and so we elected uh we compared two options and two HVAC system. Um the two design
option we compare were the ones that were at each end of the spectrum. So we had option B12 which was the uh sort of the heaviest ad rena uh we get with a good chunk of Renault and then we compared it to option D1.1 which was
full new construction. So the other options sort of fell in between. So when you see the results at both hand you understand that you know the other options would be results would be in between. We also looked at two separate
types of system. I mean both all electric but we looked at we compared the full ground source seat pump to an airto water full air source seat pump. The LCCA uh is 50 years um and uh
timeline uh and it included initial costs, replacement cost, maintenance cost, energy savings from uh utility cost. Um it's a 50-year life cycle, 3% cost escalation. Uh and then we are
we're going to show you sort of high level incremental cost payback and incentives. So we have started looking at mass save incentives. Um this doesn't include yet the federal tax incentives.
Um and I just want so that sort of answers two of the incentives questions there. Um next so on the left here you have design option B1.2 two which represents sort of a the heavy reno ad and on this on the
on the right you have um the new construction. Um in previous advisory group uh discussions during PDP and PSR we had uh addressed the predicted energy
use intensity at 35 as a goal and just to refresh everyone me everyone's memory um this was with consideration to the CTE programs there's a bit more compared to a typical school which is 25 to 30 35 um is more
representative of of a school with a CTE program uh and a school that's highly used by the community. Next, so what we're showing what we're going to show you here is the result of these
this um the LCCA the the energy modeling looking at and comparing uh the energy use intensity. Um, I'm assuming everyone's familiar with EUI, but just in case, EUY basically takes all energy
use, uh, the lighting, the heating, the cooling, the plug load, the kitchen, uh, anything that's using electricity and or fossil fuel if you're using fossil fuel is included in here. And just a note that this was done on the school only,
not the pool. um the pool can really could really skew uh the numbers here. So, and at the time the it wasn't really clear where the pool was going to end up. So, uh for example, option D, we the new op the new construction had the pool
separate. So, we decided at the time to do it um outside the pool. I mean keep the pool outside of the analysis. Um so basically all options uh reduce uh the energy use per square foot by 60
plus percent. And that's what this really shows here. Um ground source heat seat pump if you look at the table on the left you'll see that ground source heat pump is a bit lower than the air to water heat pump in terms of energy used per square foot per year. Uh and that's
because it's a bit more efficient. Um but in all of those cases um it's much better than your current um current school. And this is the school without full air conditioning.
Um next. So then um for from some of our results uh we looked at the cost per square foot because that is something you know your your your new school um is going to be larger uh and the goal is to reduce the
energy use per square foot and reduce the energy use cost per square foot. So this gives you a bit of a flavor of order of magnitude on how um basically on how the cost per square
foot would be lower than your existing facility. And we ran a bit of a a calculation as if your existing facility would have full AC because remember your new school will be fully airond conditioned. Your
current school is not. So even with your nonf fully airond conditioned current school, the new school would cost less per square foot with the all electric. And there's a bit of of numbers here.
Basically 40 to 50% cost uh cost reduction. Um this cost does not include the solar PV system. whether you would put a PP a PPA uh you would enter a PPA and your your
dollar per kilowatt hour would be lower. Right now we just had the util the straight utility rate depending on the the selection of your pathway for PV during our you know the design process.
You could save more on this cost per square foot. uh owning is going to probably save you even more than the PPA. Um but we we're going to be looking at that um in the next months next. So I'm not going to go through each and
every one of these um cost. Um maybe the bold the cost in bold is what we want to focus a bit here. Um and then to the right you have you can see the mass save column. So we've integrated um the mass
save incentive here. Um there's a lot of subnotes um at the bottom. Uh all of our assumptions are there. Um but basically uh again the ground source heat pump because of the upfront
installation costs which is higher than the air to water heat pump uh comes out as as after 50 years at a at a higher this is what really what drives it. I mean the replacement cost is a bit lower. Um the maintenance costs are
fairly equivalent. Um and then the energy costs is a bit lower. Um because it's a bit more efficient. Uh but the the the challenge with ground source is really the the the bore uh the wells the
field of um of wells upfront cost. Um and they're you know similar but not exactly. It's a bit more um it's a bit more expensive in the B1.2 because of this is out of you know the
design and the volume and and I think the new construction was a bit more compact. Um so in a nutshell this is this is where this is what that sort of you know resulted in. Um as you can see
the massive incentives help. They're about they're capped at $3 million. Um, so they help a bit. Um, they help a bit in the upfront cost, but even if you apply $3 million to the upfront cost, it doesn't cover the, you know, $29 million
gap there. Um, next, so, uh, incremental cost between, uh, the ground source and the air source. Uh like I said, it's close to 29 million. Uh mass save incentive.
Uh when you include mass save, you take out 3 million something. Um and then uh and then we have the incremental cost and the annual energy savings. So the annual energy savings basically here are
not enough to make up the gap. Um what this doesn't have here is the federal IRA incentive. Um which is something that we are going to introduce in more detail with the schematic design
LCCA. Next. So this is a summary of what we just talked about. I'm not going to go through all of the um all the bullets. Um, Ellen, correct me if I'm wrong, but this um PowerPoint will be shared after
the presentation. >> Yep. We typically share the PowerPoint and the notes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So the one thing the one sort of takeaway here that we want to discuss today is is for this more in-depth LCCA in in schematic design we have like I
said we have three system three system options that we can compare um and I know that there's a real interest for the full ground source um heat pump uh we are
you know suggesting that you consider a hybrid ground source seat pump. Um and then the third um as we had all priced in PSR, the third can be a full air source seat pump depending on the baseline being fossil fuel and we'll
check that. So we we'll have to see here if we want a full separate fossil fuel in the case the baseline is all electric. Next. So in just to give you a visual of you know when we look at the project and its
energy use per square foot and how we get it to net zero. Basically, we need to, you know, install and size a solar PV system that's equivalent to that 35 EUI, which is what I mentioned earlier,
you know, estimated at this time at 6.2 megawatt. Next, so we did a we did a bit of we talked a little bit about this earlier on when I gave percentage. Um
so 20 to 40% um it depends on the roof. Our estimate for basically a solar PV installation on the roof is 20 to 30% depending how much low angle roof or
high canopy roof we install. Obviously, high canopy roofs will provide for much more um potential uh energy harvesting. And then for the ground mounted, it's pretty
significant, you know, 50 to 80 or uh 60 to 80. Uh and what we did is we looked at what does that mean in terms of an equivalent square foot of parking and it's pretty significant. Um, this would mean that the full pretty much the
full parking and some other areas of the site would need to have PV canopy. Um, in this schematic design phase, we can hone down more on that. Um basically
when you have a canopy uh structure the the energy per square foot that's harvested by the panel is much higher than those low angle canopy roofs. So the more the low angle roof solar PV system there's also an option for what
we call BIPV building integrated PV um which you know are installed vertically on on vertical facade. The the challenge with that is you want it to be high because you don't want any um you know
school property activity uh including balls to hit. Um so high facade is is the best there and that's something we can explore in schematic design. Um, however, those panels are, you know,
expensive, more expensive, and they produce about half uh the energy that the roof panels produce. Next, and then what we looked at is what we call we refer to as total carbon where
we look at the operational carbon carbon and the embodied carbon. So we also did an a preliminary analysis of embodied carbon. This uh uh some of this these results in sort of were used as part of
the discussion and the selection of the uh preferred um design option. And so we looked at the embodied carbon of um the Renault ad and the embodied carbon of the um new construction. And we totaled
both the embodied carbon and the operational carbon of each. Next. Great. Little too fast. Oop. Um, so basically just for assumptions, so in
case people have questions, um, the Rena was a little bit bigger than the new construction. Um, 13,000 foot more. uh we included as part of the embodied carbon we include a full gut renovation. So what the embodied carbon in the in
the renoad includes is the um the the existing embodied carbon is the existing structure because everything else there would be a new insulated enclosure, new interior and we also included the modular classroom. Um the new
construction included low embodied carbon concrete, steel and insulation. Um and we assumed an option with 10 to 15% mass timber uh structure because at the time um we're you know there's going
lead V5 would have required a minimum of mass timber. Next so this is what it resulted in. Maybe a you know it may be a lot to take in for for people that are not familiar with this.
Um technically familiar with this. What these represents in blue is operational carbon. Uh we have the existing building the option uh the renowad option for both the ground source heat pump and the air to water heat pump. And then the uh
new construction option with the ground source heat pump the air to water heat pump. Um the embodied car the existing embodied carbon is in the is below the the zero line in in this uh light orange
and then the new embodied carbon uh is in that darker orange above the zero and then for the um for the option D1.1 we have some hatch area that shows the impact of uh reduction impact of mass
timber uh which would reduce the embod divided carbon and by association reduce the the total uh carbon. Uh as you can see here they're you know they're they're fairly
you know equivalent across um they're close enough. We we we find um across the board. Um obviously um the existing embodied carbon makes up
a bit for the higher operational carbon of the uh Renault had. Uh that's one of the takeaways. Um this is over 60 years by the way. So this looks at uh the embodied carbon and then 60 years of
your operational carbon. Next I think that's the last. Yes, that's the last. So, I'm assuming we have a lot of questions. >> Yeah. Why don't we go back? Um Paul, I think you had your hand up before we started and I'm not sure if we're can
dovetail into where we landed here or we can circle back. I think either is fine. >> I I'm I um we don't have to move back. I just want to uh support uh Sunni's uh idea of having the um fossil fuel based system. I just want to make sure that no
number is ever presented that does not include all of the required PV prep that is required because the community is going to see this low number. It it just can never appear on a slide. The actual cost including all of the
added PV prep that's required has to be the only number for a gas powered system. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So I but we absolutely should show that. I mean, I think it would I I think it would be a disservice because um you
know, I mean, I went from a gas based system to an electric system and believe me, my utilities went through the roof. Um and anybody who's done it knows this. Um I would still do it again, of course, and I knew it going in. But >> did you superate your house?
>> Yeah, it's already been super insulated, but I mean, for heating and cooling, yeah, it's Yeah. I mean, and I know that my house is not an equivalent type of a scenario to what we're talking about, but that people still have their own experiences that they're going to read
into that and they're going to be they need to know that. Um, no, actually the gas system is dramatically more expensive. >> Yes. Uh, so totally point well totally taken, Paul. And so what
what you're what you're saying I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So the the the fossil fuel heating system would require the installation of PV and that cost will be has to be in there because that's code requirement.
>> So when we do when we do that yes you're absolutely right. The cost of the PV structure it can't be a PPA. you have to install and it's all of this is going to be in there. >> Thank you so much and thank you Sunni for that because that I was totally not
on board till you explained it and I agree. >> I just want to quickly tell everyone since I hope to see you in the community that you pronounce my name Sunny. Sunny, I keep say I apologize because I keep saying Sunni and Matted me a few times.
>> And Sunny, I've known you for many years and I apologize because I've I've I've called you Sunni a lot of times. So Sunny, >> you get it right like 50% of the time. So I don't usually correct. >> You can chart that on a graph. You need a little sun emoji in front of your last
name. Yeah, >> we'll work on it. Okay, >> maybe if we want to circle back to I know Austin had a question in the chat that I tried to respond to and you brought up an acronym that I'm just not familiar with Austin in terms of an IIA
submitt. Can you just explain that a bit? >> Yeah, I guess it's an interconnection agreement uh or an interction application and I'm just wondering we I Matt you had you guys had met with National Grid uh a number of months ago.
>> Yes. And I'm wondering what if any feedback they have given both in terms of cost and also schedule uh to to um potentially upgrade. They they would likely have to upgrade a number of
distribution feeders into the school to to account for this increased electrical load. And oftentimes those costs are are uh very very expensive. Um so I'm wondering if that do you guys have a placeholder
budget for now like how how are how are we starting to think about that? Matt, do you want to I I can say that we have talked about the process with them. Uh there's obviously uh uh what they
call a load study that needs to happen. So we've engaged we've started engaging the process. The loads the load letter is going to be sent I believe at >> some it was sent >> it was sent already. Okay. Um, and then
the timeline I can't remember exactly the but it's it's 6 to8 like it's more than six months if not. Uh, so that's being built into the schedule if I'm not mistaken, Ellen. Right. We're starting to to
include that um as part of the process. Um, when we mentioned 6.2 to megawatt. Um it's um had an impact. >> Yeah. And they don't care that you're going to use most of it, right? They
they assume that at some point you're going to you're going to >> Exactly. >> 100% of it and then they have to model that. >> They have to model that. Ridiculous. Yeah. >> Yeah. As and and you know, even though there's going to be a multimegawatt
battery storage, right? that's gonna store a big chunk of it. So, so yes, you're you're absolutely right. But the the the conversation with them, uh the discussion with them has started and we've also started the incentives
discussion. We're about to complete um theou and so that's ongoing as well. >> Got it. Okay. I guess I I mentioned this at the at in my initial questioning a few minutes ago, but it it would be helpful to see
the cost broken out a little bit more. A 6.2 megawatt system at 60 million bucks is is like more than triple than anything I've ever seen, and I've done a few dozen carports in my life. So, it would be
it would be helpful to have that number flushed out a little bit more just for the benefit of of the budget, the benefit of the community. Um, because I think people will will see that and think that that that's that's a very high number >> and the impact on the decision. This is
good feedback. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Also, it's worthwhile um restating just the fact that as we go through the schematic design phase that we're in now, at the end of this phase, cost estimates will be updated um to reflect
more specifically um the the megawatt target that we're after in terms of the panels as well as a more specific design for the canopy structures themselves. Um so that added little level of specificity will help provide some of the clarity I think that you're looking
for, Austin. But we can certainly share what the assumptions were in the prior numbers that were issued just so um there's a little bit more transparency into that as we go through the decision-m process and the recommendation process. >> Great. Okay. And I don't I'm sorry I
don't mean to be a time hog. Final sort of observation as someone who who only really approaches the renewable side and not necessarily sort of the building and policy side is how the committee frames net zero
ready sort of versus net zero and the implications that that has on a PPA versus owning owning the system outright. I think a little bit of a descriptor on that might be helpful, especially if people are only viewing this or or we'll be likely to view it
primarily through a lens of cost. Um that saying, "Yes, here's the cost. They differ, but this is why we have a you know, a citywide goal or a city-wide ordinance that we must meet." Um, I think that that would do the project a
great service to sort of show provide that context to the numbers and sort of what each means even if you know the the physical widgets on the roof are going to be the exact same, >> right? Uh we're one thing you're you're
absolutely right and when we do our LCCA we also show the the greenhouse gas emission reductions >> um and the impact both of the reduction of you know the different HVAC system the overall 35 UI but also the
greenhouse gas reduction that will be uh provided through um the PV. So that ties with probably with the city discussion and I think um you have a a good point about PPA and the perception of PPA
versus own and how the greenhouse gas reduction are interpreted between the the two. >> Yep. >> Uh Sunonny and then Jessica. >> Thanks Martine. I have like there are
three really quick points. Well, two really quick one question. Um, one is to follow up on Austin's um just like for the community. There are a lot of things that have gotten us to this point and I think we're on the advisory team so we kind of understand that. Um, I have a slide that
I can send to you that you should use and for this community just to say that like lead requires this, MSBA requires lead, like all of these things that are like these are all required, that's why we're doing them. Um, just so the community has that backup so that
they're not like, >> yeah, like that just might be really helpful as the like this is why we're here, this is the goal, and then the goals, right? So, I I think that would be just super helpful to lead into this um for whatever slides end up on on um
the internet. Um there Oh, the the other really quick question um was whether or not you had engaged with is this Enrid? >> Yes, we have. Yeah. >> Um in any sort of um pilot program for
battery backup or battery storage? I know they're starting to this. I don't know if Enrid is. I know that Eversource is though, so it might just be a are you doing this, can we do it sort of a conversation. >> Um, we have the the the the
programs that we've experienced with Eversource and battery storage is mostly uh the demand response program. Sorry, Martina. Just we're working on a pilot project with Eversource currently on our needm projects, which is why I'm
wondering if there's also a pilot project for Angrid. >> I don't think there's a pilot project in Medford. Um but I and they didn't bring any of that up, but we will ask the question. >> Yeah, that would just be with Massave, right? And then Yeah. >> Um are I think I heard you say you're
signing anou with Massave. Which path are we going? >> Oh, good question. So, um because they um it's PAT two um even though we're doing >> because it's bigger than 25 and they
wouldn't make an exemption. At the beginning of the discussion with them, they were talking about potentially making an exemption because it's not a typical high school with the CTE. So 25 is not feasible. And in fact, we're finding out that a lot of the high schools, regular high schools, even
though we've heard from the utility that they're all making 25 in reality, >> they're not performing. >> Yeah. >> So, but that aside, they So, it's PA two uh which still allows the verification. Um
>> clarified that. Yeah. >> Um Oh, I have another followup, but I'll hold that one. But I was really curious and just wanted to suggest um I saw that VRF was as an HVAC option and I um I would vote to not even consider VRF. Um
putting refrigerants throughout the building seems like not a super great path and also not super resilient long term. Um if we're if we're going to do air source heat pumps or air to water heat pumps, that's a way more resilient path for us in the future. Um and just
sort of a healthier environment. So, I think I would I would love to see that move forward or that sort of recommendation or conversation be had when these decisions are being made. >> So, so, so, Sunny, um, it was priced. It doesn't mean it's recommended, but we
>> we priced it for the same reason we're going to do the fossil fuel. That was what's behind it. But then your comment and if there's other on your advisory committee that shares your comment then
we want to hear about that because we could recommend to remove it. >> So maybe for the folks that are on the call I can give like a little bit more about the um the using gas as a the dual fuel system. And I think some of the things that we've done on past projects
is to use that gas to sort of knock off that peak load, which can al often be where like ground source and air source heat pumps can get more expensive. And so if you're just knocking off that peak load and using as a backup, it's it can
often make the system more efficient. Um that way you're still primarily being an all-electric building. Um, and then just as far as the like carbon goes, um, when when peak plants are running, they're
often using like worse worse energy and and so you're like having it on site and and just sort of shaving that off the top can can make a sort of better more resilient building. Um, that's that's why we've considered it. >> Well, my my point was about the VRF. If
you want to recommend not because we have three systems, right? We're going to have the ground source seat uh the ground source seat pump 100%. The hybrid and then the third could be all air source air to water. >> So it could be VRF.
>> Can I ask a quick question? I know MSPA requires a minimum of three, but that doesn't mean or preclude us from doing four, right? Like that why could we not just add that in? >> We we could. My question is if you're saying you do not recommend the VRF, we
could explain why we're not doing the VR VRF and decide not to do it now. I mean, it's >> refrigerants are terrible for the world. >> We don't want them running through our building. They're going to be in all the other systems anyway, but we just won't
be as much. That's >> and and we we actually did on another project we did an evaluation of the uh refrigerant greenhouse gas emissions over uh 50 years and or 60 years
actually including the replacement of the systems. So um so so but I I you know we're we can do it but then if everybody agrees they don't want refriger including it. We just priced it to you
know for the sake of pricing it so people under you know people saw what the value of it is first cost um but it so I think you don't have to decide this today but I think the advisory committee may want to discuss
and come back to us and um make a recommendation not to include the VRF if >> I'll go out on a limb note Martin just based on the fact that there's a lot of comments that have come through supporting what Sunny was suggesting that it sounds like we should not have
the VRF uh system included as part of it. And we in terms of the feedback that we are looking for this evening trying to get um those types of comments in terms of modifications to the LCCA parameters um is really what we're after. So I think we can we can take
that as an outcome from this meeting that we'll we'll sort of exclude that from the list of systems that we're looking at. >> Great. Jessica, I think you've had your hand up. >> Um, just two quick things. I think um
for the second bullet down, we may be re looking at that because it may have been misheard at last night's meeting. Um, I think it was adding that but still keeping on um the red list in healthy
materials for all materials except for MEP and fire protection. Um, just kind of expanding upon it to make sure we capture the reimbursement but um really focusing in on the overarching um
healthy materials >> throughout >> throughout. Um, so I just wanted to make that one point. We're going to revisit it at the next month's meeting just to make sure we have it captured correctly. >> So, so we're what you're saying here is
we're we're seeking the 1% which is prioritizing the lead credits, but we're also prioritizing the red list except for MEP. >> Yes, >> we'll we'll we'll we'll keep that and then you'll officially update it next
month's Okay. >> Yes. Um and then also is it possible um the slides that Sunny was talking about you know that have things broken out into um stretch code lead requirements
also then kind of building on that and doing you know city of Medford requirements SBC just to kind of see it all laid out like turn it into one comprehensive slide. >> Yep. Um, and then, um, I think that was
all. And I just wanted to make one point. Um, because I know we talked about commissioning and I don't I'm not fully clear. We talked about it some yesterday and I know I talked about its
importance to me. Um, but and we talked about kind of the stages that it is not part of when we don't do lead V5, but I'd like to hear maybe from Ken as well because I think I I
>> kind of said his name last night. Um, >> let me clarify. I want to make sure that commissioning is central to this project throughout because I do think it's critical to making sure this building operates properly and that's part of the
whole operating and maintaining a a cost-effective building. So lead mandates commissioning there's fundamental commissioning for MEP and then we to get to the silver and actually under MSBA it doesn't matter
the version so you're getting commissioning of mechanical electrical plumbing um you're getting commissioning of the building enclosure there is also a criteria in lead for ongoing commissioning there's a an ongoing
commission ing plan. That's part of it there with depending on if we install solar PV. If we do and we want to claim the renewable energy credit, we need to make sure the PV system is commissioned. Um and then there's another component of
commissioning with the demand the preparation of demand response for the MEP system. All of this is included whether it's lead v4 or lead v5. The the difference with lead v5 is that in lead v4 you can start the commissioning and
MSBA starts the commissioning in DD and the commissioning agent is hired in DD and reviews the schematic design package makes comments and they are all basically integrated in DD in V5 they
>> they bring them on >> in SD and that sort of became an issue because MSBA didn't want to change their policy or couldn't change their policy in time and they didn't want to pay for it and it you know it created all kinds
of challenges but the projects will get considerable and full commissioning um throughout under V4. >> Okay, thank you for that point of clarification. Uh Ken, do you have any
thoughts on that? I mean is that something on the on the commissioning >> on the commissioning and SD versus the standard requirement of the project. >> No, no, no. I I I know all of that, but I'm talking about did you have any
strong feelings about SD versus DD? I know DD is has been traditional. Um, but I also know a lot of projects and my former boss would tell you that you bring them on before SD. So, um, you know, but that's because he runs
commissioning. I >> think we have to know what the guidelines are based upon the lead we're we're choosing and earlier the better as far as I'm concerned. >> Okay. >> I think one one of the the main advantages of bringing them on earlier
is the um the requirement to generate the owner's project requirements earlier on in the process. And there's nothing that will preclude us from from taking that on as a task um and trying to collect as much knowledge as we can um and establish those. And I think that
would gain some of the benefit that you would typically see about bringing the commissioning agent on earlier. >> Okay. So we can do the OPR from kind of start building the OPR out in SD. And um also um
so the MSBA won't even reimburse at all for commissioning during SD. Okay. Just checking. Thank you. >> We've been pushing and proddding and trying um to get some attention to that,
but um it's a shift that turns slowly. I think as V4 is phased out, I I hope that they will change their policy and their contracts with those agents. >> Okay.
>> Okay. And I I'd like to confirm that the when we compare the proposed design system to the code baseline, the code baseline is a fossil fuel baseline. I just checked, Sunny. Um, so we're going
to see and so that code baseline will have to have the full PV. So we'll be comparing to a fossil fuel system. I >> think I saw that Luke had his hand up. >> Oh, I did. Uh, thanks Matt. Hey um to uh
member parks. Uh so um you just mentioned that your former employer was uh ran a commissioning business. Um, are you currently employed uh in a commissioning business? Just curious. >> Um, I am not. And he, well, he ran the
commissioning program for MIT. So, it's my current it's my current employer, but he no longer works at MIT. So, and we no longer have a commissioning program at MIT. So, there's that. >> Okay. Yeah. I just wanted you to
clarify. Thank you. Yep. Um Luke, you had a question about the megawatt hours of the for the existing. >> Yeah, I heard the 6.2 megawws and um I thought that like a peak load
>> that that's not the 6.2 megawatt is not megawatt hour. 6.2 2 megawatt was the size of the PV system which is equivalent to the new project not the existing >> um okay but it's that's the that's like
the instantaneous power production under like c circum certain conditions of the PV system yeah I just wanted to clarify that because megawatt hours should be a lot higher >> okay thanks >> yeah uh yes a bit higher yes And we, you
know, we'll have more details when we present the PV system. We'll have the megawatt hours. So, you'll you'll have those numbers once we get into the SD um analysis. >> Well, I think we have about five minutes left. Um I did want to see whether or
not there was any other thoughts um regarding the LCCA um before Martin and the team sort of launch into that effort. Um I know we've got some good feedback already. Um but just want to make sure that we touch on that particular topic with the remaining time if we have it unless there's any
other questions. But um that is an important piece for us today. >> Um so so Matt uh I guess on that topic um can I ask Martine just to give a quick overview of what to expect in the upcoming LC uh the upcoming life cycle
cost analysis. Um just as a wrapup. Um I know we discussed a lot of things. There's been a lot of questions in between. Um but just in terms of bringing it home, um what can this committee or this subcommittee um expect in the upcoming uh >> LCCA? Yeah.
>> So, we're going to we're going to look at a whole building LCCA. Um the the the building electrical enclosure will be at the net zero level. And we're going to compare that same enclosure and other
end use to three HVAC systems. The baseline will be the code baseline. The code baseline will have a fossil fuel system and will meet all the requirements of the stretch code uh including the PV the specialized stretch
code. The three systems per what we discussed today will be one system option one will be a full geothermal system. Option two will be a geothermal and uh air source about 5050 50%
each uh load um uh load uh 50% ground source heat pump 50% air to water heat pumps. That's going to be option two. Option three will be 100%
uh air source air to water heat pump. Um this would include initial cost, replacement cost, maintenance cost, and energy savings. And then to that we're going to we're
going to uh add we're going to include as a separate line item the incentives, the mass save incentives, national grid, um the uh IRA incentives, those that still apply. uh and then potential DOER
incentives. On top of that, we're well this is this is that um then separate from that we're going to look at the we're going to develop and start sizing and hone down on the PV system. for the PV system. We're going to be looking at
the difference between building the structure but lending uh leasing your roof and your canopies to a PPA and what does that look financially and how does that impact your overall system cost and
savings um that doesn't get any incentives and then we're going to look at your solar PV system as if you buy fully buy it and own it including the battery storage and we're going to look at the incentives applicable to that and your cost
benefits as well. Your your you know energy savings both uh ongoing energy savings and peak load energy savings and and for that there's also some state
um some state incentives. Um I mean um um Austin was bringing up a a new fairly new and there's the there's also for the heat pumps there's also some incentives around the alternative energy certificates and we also look into that
wherever that's going to be. So all of this is going to be sort of you know line items that are going to show the financial benefits of this and in addition to that we are going to do a life cycle cost analysis of the pool
whether we go fossil fuel for the pool or all electric. Um we've we've seen a couple of recent all electric pools being designed. They're not constructed yet, but we uh and we were um very very happy to be invited to a presentation
that was done by Tus University to um I think Ken your team and other people. Um so there are all electric poles that are being designed um and we're keeping an eye on that and that's going to be part of um that third LCCA.
Uh so with the all-electric pools, uh I mean it's one thing to build it from the ground up, it's another thing to try to retrofit a, you know, 50-y old pool. Um so hopefully um some of the uh uh planning factors and uh other decision
uh relevant factors um will be introduced as part of that presentation. >> Yes. Yes. Um and then also related to the ground source heat pump um uh I guess concept um will there be uh some statements made about
um uh I'll say uh land use uh permissions uh since you're going to need a 16 or sorry 12 to 15 acre plot uh which probably coincides with the uh um uh restricted land on our uh 28 acre
parcel. Um so uh a status of um where things stand related to uh um DCR and feasibility and if there are any cost and schedule implications uh related to
trying uh to to use that land for um ground source heat pump. Thank you. >> So Luke, we we do expect that there um should be an update in the very near future from DCR. We know that they're actively working on it. We're just awaiting their response and they should
be able to give us some um insight as to the potential um use of that the deed restricted land for geothermal. I will say that that's that's not our only option. We also have the ability to um install the geothermal
wells below the new parking lot um that's established in the southern field um which is on the nondeed restricted land. Um in those scenarios, there would need to be temporary heating and cooling plant um installed because we can't get access to that until the existing building is demolished um for a lot of
it. Um so there would be some cost implication to that from from a temporary um phasing perspective on the HVAC system. Um but again hopefully in in the very near future we'll have a read on that from DCR and can uh move forward. I did just I we are at 6:30
we're at 631 right now. I just wanted Martin to clarify one piece as you were going through. Um you mentioned the IRA incentives would be included Martin unless I I misheard you. >> The the IRA incentives will be a separate line item. Right. We always
show we both mass save and IRA are showed as separate. Uh but we will not bundle the IRA with the mass save because we know that you know they're subject to change more than the massive. >> Yeah. Volatile is the word I would use.
Um in terms is the word. Yeah. And and and just about the um about the so so the costs the installation cost of ground source seed pump usually include um you know if there the the cost of a
temporary plant and all of that depending on the location and there's going to be a a different cost between the hybrid and the 100% obviously because it's using less right. So that all is going to be included in in a cost.
>> Okay. But I think it was a good opportunity to wrap up um on that that point. Uh so thank you Luke for prompting us there and um I think we are just about all set. >> So I'm just I I would just like to add Matt that we will in the minutes include
the next meetings where certain actions are being taken. Um this this group doesn't meet again until late September. However, before that happens on the 17th, the next community meeting is in fact a sustainability sharet. So
hopefully this group will be there and help represent and help us out potentially with that. Um and then the big date of 106 at the SBC is where we really want to want all these these scope items um finalized one way or the
other. So um we'll add that to the meeting minutes from today's meeting. All right. Thank you everybody.