 So I will, I will call us to order. This is the elementary school building sustainability subcommittee, but today is Wednesday, the 17th of May, 2023. And we're now in session. So, let's see if I can share this agenda real quick here so that people can see it. I love the too many things on my screen. Let's try that. That does not look right. Nope, that's a picture of a background. Excuse that. No, no. Oh, you can. Okay, good. Because it switched screens on me and everyone turned the little tiles off to the side. Okay. I should apologize. I have a little bit of a, of both allergies and a cold. So if I cough, I will try to mute myself before I cough, but okay. So, we should probably do just the quickest, briefest kind of reintroduction since it's been a little while since we met primarily the design team and, and who's here today with us. And then jump into, you know, which will be the first substantive item which is going to be the review of changes due to code upgrades. And Jonathan, if you can just do the one since we're virtual just call out. Oh yes, yes, sorry. You just call out the three of our names so we can say we're here. And Kathy I can hear you I assume you can hear me. And can you hear and be heard. I don't know. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay, I found the mute button. Great. I think I could probably minimize the screen share for the moment, so people can see each other a little better. Tim, if I could ask you to just kind of introduce yourself and then have everyone else kind of introduce themselves real quick and what their role is. I'm not super good with this go just we're all familiar, but Ali and her team is here. And I'll have them introduce themselves and just a second before that we also have Kevin Murphy our electrical engineer and Jared Humphrey is listening in. I'm sorry, Ali. Yeah, I'll just say hi, I'm in check. You've seen me before and not under I launched my practice just a few weeks ago. And so I'm still working on this project with TT, but under air lead studio. And I'm going to pass it on to her Mac. Hi everyone, I'm her Mac to run with foreign Thomas Eddie, I lead the Boston sustainability group. I'll pass it over to Rebecca. Hi, Rebecca Romlow and I'm in the Boston sustainability office focus on certifications work. My name is lamb. I've worked with her Mac and Rebecca on the sustainability group. Jonathan. I don't know if you can see, but shelly may be in the audience, I sent her the invite. If you're, if you're able to promote her that would be great if not not a big deal. I don't see her yet. Right now. Yeah. Great. No worries. I'll try to keep that up and even I have for it. So with that briefest of introductions, Tim, do you want to kind of start things off? Or are you going to go straight to the Thornton Thomas site folks. Well, I believe our mouth will be sharing her screen. So if she doesn't have the capability, please let her do that. And I will just kick it off by saying we are very excited to be moving into DD just to state where we are we submitted SD with the stated goals of being net zero and a targeted UI of 25 that will allow us to recruit the energy incentives that will help fund the project. And then within the budget that was established at SD. The sustainability being a core value of the people of Amherst, any other things that we can achieve within the programmatic limits and the budget limits of the project. So our next steps are to evaluate the project as it relates to the upcoming code upgrades and make sure that we're on target for that and rather than repeat the nuances of what a later team are going to say I'll just hand it over to them to start. Great. Thanks Tim. All right, let's get started. So I'll kick it off and then I'll pass it on to the rest of the TT team. So we'll talk a little bit about our status just energy wise just to get everyone on the same page and then we'll dive deeper in the code compliance and then a little performance and then our Mac and Rebecca will follow up with massive and lead updates as well. So we go to the next. Thank you and so as a reminder from an energy standpoint there's two main goals for the project one of them is getting to net zero energy. Second is making sure that our UI is below 25 in order we can meet the mass safe target. We definitely want to maximize lead energy points and then of course, this more than a goal is like a must. All of them are must I guess we need to meet the new Massachusetts stretch code. And so we'll we'll we'll spend most of our time talking about the stretch code today. But did want to give an update if you go or Mac to the next one. So before we are in terms of energy, this is based on the SD model and there will be a DD model developed soon as DD evolves. And so some of you might have already seen these results from the report that we generated the NSD. Hopefully the project as it is is currently at any UI of 25. We left that ECM of high performance glass just because spoiler alert will be recommending better glass for for code compliance and so wanted to point out that there is potential to lower the UI further. We are right at the mass save requirement UI requirement of 25. I would not worry too much about this. As projects evolve. The project is in good track in terms of window to wall ratio well performance etc etc really hitting, you know dotting all the eyes and through the process of making sure that we were compliant with code there were a few more things that were incorporated into the design that will be updated in the DD model and so we only anticipate this UI going down as long as the design is is in the good root, a good sustainability root that it is right now. And I do want to point out that there is any right now the math says that we need 768 megawatt hours a year to achieve net zero energy. And our understanding is that there are PV arrays that will be provided in roof and parking canopy they're actually exceeding that amount and so we have a good cushion there for the moment. And so we're hitting those two goals the mass save and and the, and the net zero we go to the next then from a lead point standpoint. So I would like to point out that with respect to a lead baseline, the energy cost reductions are of course significant. And we are achieving 16 lead points which is quite outstanding for a school and so we're we're doing great there. And so that really targets the first three bullets out of the four energy goals and then we'll go and the, and the code. I just want to make sure because some of us have been into many, many, many calls with do you are about code and so I would say this team is, and I'm not this is not an understatement. This is probably the most expert team on Teddy, which we'll talk about the compliance path in the state. Not only from a design standpoint, but from the Amherst side. Have you heard about Teddy you're well familiar with it. It's first time you hear about it. I just love to know who, you know, how basic do I get or do we I suspect that the technical stuff. Yeah I suspect that I'm probably the only one who in the subcommittee that that knows what that term is but I am okay. You know, as, as I'm having to incorporate into my practice. Yep. So yes having having an explanation of that and how it is. I might call it might call it a seismic shift a little bit and how the, the code the energy code in particular is kind of, you know, documenting energy compliance. So, great. Perfect. So we'll get started with that. Please feel free to ask as many questions as you want. This is a, it can get intricate quickly and so definitely ask as many questions as you want about the project and so just big picture. Amherst is a stretch code community as of now, and the 10th edition stretch code will go into fact July 1 2023 that means that any project that goes for permitting after that time will need to comply with this new edition of the stretch code. There are many communities that are also opting into the specialized energy code, which effectively makes with a few other requirements just means that the building is on top of all the requirements need to be all electric which this building already complies with. If we go to the next without getting in the entire 10th edition stretch code and whether you have a lab or a multifamily where you would fall. Let's just focus on schools and there are two paths available for schools right now. The first one here is the Teddy path, which has been labeled take target of performance and then there is passive house, the preferred path for Fort River as Teddy and the way Teddy was designed was to to as perform performance wise to have very similar goals to in terms of infiltration, envelope performance, etc, etc, but without the entire pass pass certification process and so one would anticipate that both buildings are going to have somewhat similar levels of performance but one of them will have it somewhat of a more streamlined. You know, certification free let's say process. And so if we go to the next. Teddy, big picture. There's two teddies. Most people are focused these days on heating Teddy but there's also a cooling Teddy, what Teddy Teddy stands for thermal energy demand intensity. And what it really means if you think about heating is how many wants do I need to put into say a space or a building to keep that building at a given set point. How do I do that doesn't matter right and so whether I do that with candles or I do that with the fanciest HVAC system it does not matter my teddy is the same it's the demand. The cooling Teddy is the same thing is how many wants do I need to remove from a space in order to keep a space at a particular set point. I do that by opening windows or by having a window AC unit or by having a sophisticated ground source heat pump from a Teddy standpoint it doesn't matter. And so Teddy, even though it has not very conveniently the same units as EUI because it's kbt you per square foot per year. That is not energy use per se right and so if you look at your EUI bar chart and look at the heating energy and use and the cooling energy and use those are not equal to Teddy, but they're based on the principle so Teddy is the demand, and then the energy we use to meet that demand is what reflects into that EUI. So any questions here and you can repeat we, we, we as a team had to go over the Teddy definition several times to understand it ourselves and so if please stop me at any point if you want some clarity around that. Again. Thank you. I forgot who's running. I don't know who's running that. Yes, absolutely. When you say it's the demand is it sort of looking at like peak loads. It's annual, it's annual demand so the peak load will be one of those data points. If you have a peak at a particular hour that's counted but it's basically the sum of all the heating watts that you need over the course of a year and the cooling watts that you need over the course of a year divided by square footage. Yeah, I, I guess it sounds a lot like EUI to me. So let me walk you know it's very, very, very important that we get the difference that we understand the difference okay. So, if we had a boiler meeting our heating demand right and let's assume it's a perfect boiler with 100% efficiency. That's just for the sake of the watts that you need to put in will be equivalent to the watts that your boiler gives you. Okay. If you use a ground source heat pump, which would give you a CUP of let's say, or a heat chip shiller that gives you a CUP of say, five. Then if you need so I'm going to put numbers to it so if you need 1000 watt hours over the course of your year. Your boiler will give you 1000 watt hours so you will need to put 1000 watt hours into your boiler so that you get your 1000 watt hours in your space, right. So because it's 100% efficient, whereas if I'm using a much more efficient system like a heat pump, a ground source heat pump, etc. That say uses a fifth of the energy to meet that demand, then I would only need 200 watt hours to put into that system and say an electricity. In this case an electric is an electricity in order to be able to provide those 1000 watt hours into the space. So the efficiency is the connection between Teddy and E UI. Thank you. Thank you that helps a lot. Fabulous. Great. It's critical to understand that because the moment you ask me well how is the ground source heat pump affecting our Teddy the answer is, it isn't it's helping you meet all of your other goals but it really isn't doing anything for Teddy. So if the state come up with that we can talk about that right, but that's Teddy is really just the demand itself how you meet it again you could have candles inside and just meet that demand with candles and your Teddy would be sent. Now, how so how does the process change with respect to what you. Yes, go ahead. Sorry, sorry, I don't see the oh yes I just saw your probably the least knowledgeable person on the committee in this area but no problem. I guess I'm still confused on how you said it's the same regardless of what type of system you have. I guess that parts confusing me I would feel like one system would be more efficient the other so it'd be different between the two. Can you go over that one more time. Yes, yes. And so what the Teddy what the Teddy is looking at is the demand. And so how efficiently you meet that demand is not factor in. Meaning the systems and what they need to operate. It's the it's the energy demand and the space and so if I need so many like lights. Would that be like what is that just hitting and we're just talking about heating and cooling and so the heating Teddy is your heating demand and your cooling Teddy is your cooling demand. So let's assume you have a box an experimental box you have a box that is all sealed up, and you have a bunch of light bulbs in there. Right. And you want to keep it a given set point right. Let's assume that the temperature outside doesn't change. You have 1000 light bulbs, and you need to keep that box at 70 degrees right. You have two options. You just put in the AC and plug it in and remove that amount of energy. You could also just say punch a bunch of holes in the box and get to that temperature. The demand is still the same, but how you meet that demand is different you could meet it with very different ways very different systems and so your systems to Rupert's question. Your systems will define what efficiency you have and that will directly translate into your UI. Right. But the number we're looking at is the base number of what is the demand that we're trying to meet. And I get, I don't want to. This is, I think it's. So I assume that changes based on the temperature outside or and how far you have to. That's right. So your teddy will change if you, if you are in North Carolina you're going to have a different heating teddy than if you're in Alaska. Your heating today will be higher in Alaska than if you're in North Carolina, that is one. It will also change if you decide to change your set points, right, because you could decide to have your space at 75 and then you're going to need to heat more than if you decided to have it at 65. Right. So your teddy will change with that. It will change with occupancy. Right. It will change with, you know, if you have lots of lights inside then you're going to need less heating to heat that space and if you're really, you know, low on internal gains. Okay. And the same applies for cooling teddy. It's the same logic. And the last thing I'll say and I see two hands raised the heating. Any strategy that we use to reduce the heating teddy. So for instance, if I want to reduce my heating teddy in my building, I could improve the windows, right, go from double pain to triple pain, then I will need, I will have a lower heating demand. Any strategy that reduces my heating teddy kind of automatically increases my cooling teddy in a way, right, because now you need to cool more when you're cooling more. So the trick is to find the right balance so that we're, you know, then the thresholds and both I see two hands raised please Kathy go ahead. Okay. My question is, to the extent I understand this measure. Yeah, or not. The state had the state had a reason to adopt this is this. And so if you could just say a little bit about why this because it's, it's clearly using. It's confusing and you've also got ever source over there giving us incentives based on an EUI which has, as you said they're not it's not a one to one kind of. And our bylaws based on EUI too. We can't forget about you. You can't forget about it but but we thought so there's, there must be something in the shift that that is appealing to the energy folks right yes and this is the thought that there's a couple of things that's basically the state believes that invest investing in this really relates to massing an envelope. And that really, really depends a lot on your envelope properties and so envelopes say, you know, are there for a very long time, and systems aren't necessarily systems will be replaced every 25 years but your envelope might not be and so the state is betting into having better envelopes to begin with. And so we're not prioritizing envelopes over systems, we could, we could argue, I'm not representing the state and we could argue about whether we think that's the best way to go about it or not but that is that is one of the reasons the other reason is that reducing the demand is a direct impact on again at a basic level on the grid and so this what the state has said is that they believe that focusing on demand as opposed to on EUI per se or energy use is a better strategy to to ensure that over a long term, the energy demand of buildings is as well. Again, I'm presenting what the state has, you know, has used as as as an argument. So, I just asked you have a question but my follow up would be and you don't need to answer this because this is a question of the state. Yeah, putting that emphasis, then the funding agency MSBA should put that emphasis on envelope. It's asking people to put more money into the, and I'm just thinking about watching what Europe is doing with buildings that were always built last forever. They can retrofit their energy systems more easily than we can because we have leaky buildings just, you know, our envelopes are crap. We don't have a good thing to start with. So it's, they should coordinate across their funding agencies would be my. So, and they are. Well, I'm not sure coordination is the right is the word but MSBA we've had actually calls with Carl Brown MSBA. We've actually been walking him through the Teddy process ourselves and because they have been wondering how to best support this change and so they're not necessarily the same cycles, and they don't necessarily have the same goals. MSBA has wondered, do we just through the through the lead requirements out the window, and I think there has been a resounding, like, don't do that because lead is actually focused on so much more than just energy that we do want to think about water we do want to think about landscape we do want to think about those things and so MSBA is looking into it. It's just not a coordinated effort that is kicking off on the same date if that makes sense. Rupert onto you. All right, so maybe this is repetitive but just to see if I really understand you. When you're looking at heating you EU I mean heating Teddy. It's essentially 100% efficient electric heat. What is your demand. Right. And so about that. So, but for cooling Teddy, it's there's not a straight electric heated depends on the, your baseline energy standard of how many blocks for cooling. Yeah, and so you're thinking about it. If I hear you correctly I think you're trying to think about well how do I convert that the heating energy that I'm familiar with into Teddy, right. And it's easier with heating because we're kind of familiar with boilers and boilers are kind of 100% so it almost equates to the same thing. Though with heat pumps we're actually seeing that that isn't even, you know, with he hopes we're starting to see a third and so with cooling is just if you think I like to think about a typical COP cooling COP of like four ish. It has a factor and so anytime I'm looking at my energy use my cooling energy you say it's 10 kb to you per square foot per year then my demand is probably around the 40. And so I had to demand a 40 but the cooling system only needs 10 to cool because it's using the environment. Thank you. I feel a little bit more confident that I'm getting. Thanks. Yeah, and so the main factors I should have been more explicit about the main factors that drive Teddy and so I mentioned envelope a lot and so envelope heat gains and losses are one factor but also infiltration effects Teddy, and also ventilation impacts Teddy, because we're bringing outside air in, and we are having to condition that air. And so that falls into the demand as well. That makes sense and so and so I think the, the, until now we are familiar to the process, you know with the current process current code process until now we've been so far, working with Ashway baselines we're familiar with what our proposed building is what is a percent better we need to be with respect to a baseline and it's a percent better with respect to our it's our own building, but we're converting our building into a baseline, and then, and then saying what is our proposed building, the new process is an absolute that is independent there's no baseline anymore. The Teddy will have a number and so we will need to meet a particular heating Teddy and KB two per square foot per year, and a particular cooling Teddy and KB two per square for per year, and just to walk you a little bit more for what that means we go to the next. This is the table for Teddy's and if you will just ignore the equation the noisy equation that's in the middle. You'll see that on the left you see different building occupancy types and so you see schools right there highlighted and read. And basically our heating Teddy will need to be anywhere from 2.2 to 2.4. These are I recognize brand new numbers they were new numbers to us and so we had to learn what to means and if two is high or low, but your school is going to have to be anywhere from 2.2 to 2.4. The actual number depends on the square footage of the project. And then for cooling Teddy will need to be anywhere from 12 somewhere between 12 and 20 a specific number. You know, that we come up with with with the square footage and so if you have a really, really, really large school. If we were talking about a project that is 200,000 square feet, then you would be looking at a 2.2 heating Teddy threshold, a cooling Teddy threshold of 12. If we were talking about a very small school of 50,000 square feet say, then we would be looking at a 2.4 heating Teddy and a cooling Teddy of 20 and so it's an absolute number that we need to hit. If we go to the next. Now, those are the published targets. You can imagine that it starts to get really tricky. If I am have to meet a very specific number that that other schools are going to have to meet as well. Then, what about, you know, what if I the school is being used in the summer versus not used in the summer, or what if the set points are different between one school or the other etc etc. Well, the state has thought about this and has issued draft modeling guidelines that basically tell us what rules do we need to follow in order to show compliance. And it's rules that the state has set so that they can also review and make sure that all school projects say are actually kind of making the same or similar assumptions so that they can compare apples to apples. The draft modeling guidelines were first published end of December, as far as I recall some fun Christmas reading, then they were, there was a lot of lack of clarity let's say on a lot of the guidelines, and we actually started modeling. Thank you. We started doing a fair this again this was our first project and that we now know that this was the first project in the state where we actually took an actual project and not a sample project that the state use and try to get the teddy. And we got in where like it's our teddies are definitely not meeting that threshold. But what are we missing. And so the modeling guidelines have been edited as we move along. In order to make sure that we are actually following exactly the same steps that the modelers who came up with those numbers were following the final guidelines have not been published they were supposed to be published first week of waiting. And so everything that will present in a bit is with a big caveat that we actually haven't seen the final guidelines. We have a sense of what they are because our projects has actually helped craft the updates on each one of these versions right and so suddenly they tell us you can't model this and we say well, for instance, we notice that. You should know about this because it's important for you to understand that the teddy model is going to be this kind of abstract model that goes on the side of your actual model, your actual model will be predicting EUI and will be predicting everything else but the teddy models really just can be focused on compliance. For instance the teddy model, the guidelines were anticipating we have been told by the state that this will be a requirement. The model will be modeled in Boston, Massachusetts and not in Amherst. Right. And this is because we noticed that changing the weather file was actually changing the teddies a lot. To your point, Sean, and so that is something that the state had not anticipated. And so for now they're asking all projects to model their projects in Boston and so your teddy model will be helpful. So we will guide you through how to get to compliance and we'll get a compliant model. Don't try to dig too much into it or try to make too much sense out of it for your actual design we will have an actual model that looks at EUI and looks at all the other things that we care about from the lead point standpoint from the ever source standpoint and from a getting to compliance standpoint. We go to the next. And so the guidelines are unpublished and so I think I have outlined this enough but just to remind you there's certain things that are being kept the same as the proposed design which is massing window to wall ratio, multiple forms of the enclosure air tightness ventilation heat recovery, in particular, and then different from your actual project is occupancy schedule ventilation rate those are prescribed numbers that go into the teddy and so again really no point into getting into the teddy model other than just will take care of letting you know if we're complying or not and if we need to modify any of the blue, any of the factors in the blue to to comply. We go to the next. So, Teddy, just the heating Teddy, just as an example if we have our basis of design and we improve the heat recovery effect efficiency will reduce the teddy we improve the wall, our value will improve the teddy we change the glazing will improve the teddy. If we change the boiler to an air source heat pump we won't be changing the teddy because demand is still the same right so our EUI would change for our teddy wouldn't. That's not our project. I think I've set this enough let me see if I missed anything. The teddy thresholds are very challenging to meet the numbers that the state put forward are lower than anything we've seen from other communities. We're having a teddy threshold so Toronto has teddy guidelines as well so you need to do a teddy model as well in the thresholds are much loser and so getting into that actual right heating teddy and right cooling teddy is not easy. But if any project will has gotten to that already is this project and so we're more confident about this project than any other project we're working on. We haven't gone through that process. As I mentioned, you know, heating teddy whatever the creases the heating teddy typically increases the cooling teddy and so again we're trying to balance both so that they both fall within the threshold. Sometimes the changes that will impact the teddy that will help us reduce the heating teddy might actually increase our EUI. So we in our exercise we have actually been tracking all of the different strategies to get to the teddy to make sure that we are keeping our EUI and track. And so we're working with tandem models again. And again the draft modeling guidelines at this moment we're unclear and sometimes sometimes misleading we're really hoping that the final draft is much more direct. And we kind of know what the final draft will look like but haven't seen the actual finals. And speaking about Fort Reverend specific if we go to the next one are these are the thresholds we need to meet so heating teddy 2.2 cooling teddy 13.6 and we go to the next. The SD model as it was in December was not meeting the teddy thresholds. And that is what led us to talk to the state. At the beginning we were really off we were at heating teddy of eight, just to give you a sense. And then we learned that there were many tricks to model things to then bring the teddy down. There are a couple of things from an envelope standpoint that do need to be fine tuned from the SD model moving forward in order to meet the teddy. And so if we go to the next, those two things are upgrading the triple pane glass, which is also required for other envelope upgrades that Rebecca and our mic will talk about. And also increase the wall installation to an effective are 20. The new code is much more stringent with envelope performance. And so now, what we're doing is accounted for much more. And so we are still working with the team to figure out what exact, you know, how much insulation do we need to add in order to have an effective are 20. So we're working on that. But if we do that, the model as it is would be meeting both teddy thresholds, as you can see, barely, right, like we're barely fitting into the heating teddy and the cooling teddy right we're 2.2 and 13.3. So our thresholds are 2.2 and 13.6 right. And so we will be working as the design moves along, and there are inevitable modifications to zoning and how do you, you know, spaces and everything everything that just has to do with the design process we will be updating and making sure that we are on track. If at some point we feel we are unreasonably not on track. We will reach out to the state just to talk to them and say hey we have a pretty good design. Why are we not meeting it. We go to the next. And I think this is where I pass it on to her Mac, or Rebecca. Before we move on let's just quickly I think there's a question from Rupert. I thought there were two paths. There was the can I interrupt you for just one sec, like literally I'm going to mute for five seconds. Jonathan, we might want to think of when, if we want to bring in some of the public. Yeah, I was thinking it might be good to be a little looser, particularly since some of this is, is, you know, a little. It's a little dense and it's a lot of new stuff to learn so yeah, while we start with Rupert and then see if there are some first questions from from any of our attendees. Thanks. Quick heads up. I saw Rupert I sleep at 415 I can stay till about 430 but I have a soccer practice after that. Okay. I'm back sorry it was the doctor from the school calling twice so I just wanted to make sure my kids were okay. Everyone's fine. Thanks. Oh, good. Thanks, Ali. So you said there were two paths there's Teddy versus passive house and Teddy was the preferred path. Can you explain briefly why this nightmare is better than passive house. Why, why what. It's better. You know that is that's an interesting question and it's a conversation that we've had with Dennis go there are almost no schools that have that are passive house in Massachusetts we've actually worked on a couple of them. We will TT has worked on a couple of those. The school path is still kind of uncharted. There are a fair amount of soft costs associated to passive house certification that were at that moment felt like, you know, somewhat not necessarily the path that we might want to go with Tim I don't know if you want to say anything else it's just, it's a more complicated process technically the state I mean what we've been trying to tell the state is if these two paths are meant to be similar in terms of performance. But, you know, can we make sure that Teddy is simpler. We have not gone through a simpler process to be clear. But I think a lot of it has been the growing pains of this Teddy process which, in my personal opinion wasn't very well hashed out before it was published. I would anticipate that this process will be simpler for future projects but I don't know Tim if you want to say anything else with regards to passive housing specific. Well, a couple things one, the detailing is a bit more complicated in what you have to do it penetrations and walls windows which adds hard cost but more importantly, in our discussions with the state of all the projects going on right now, all of the teams that have looked at this data and looked at the path and none of them have elected to go with passive house. So, you know, we are comfortable at our assessment that this is the better path is. It's going to bear out. Thank you. And I am introduced Shelly Potter. I, the TT team, I'm not sure that you've met her she's a sustainability consultant who's on the opium team. So, Shelly, do you want to, if you I can't remember if you've met all these folks but I can see you have a question so. I've met most people yeah. So my follow up question was just on the thermal bridging and how the study process is dealing with that and you know the passive house is a good segue into that. Is their therm modeling, do they look at any of those details to help to figure out how to address that or is it not done in this particular route. So my question, I wonder just not that I don't want to answer your question but we were about to get into envelope performance and go into the details of that. So, this might be a great segue to talk about that and if at the end of envelope performance we haven't fully answered your question we can, you know come back to it does that make sense. Sounds good. Okay, great. Any, any other questions. Kathy, can we see if there's any hands up in the person. Yeah, so if we have anybody in the public who wants to be brought in to ask questions on this first thing. And then what we'll do is as they go through make sure the committee members asked their questions first before we call on them. So I see one hand is up. And if you want me to bring you in, put your hand up. And otherwise we will still have a public comment. Period. Okay. Yeah, I see Simone is in the waiting room too. Yeah, and I asked him by email and he said, it was okay to leave him there. But, but if you would like to join Simone. Bruce. Okay. Okay, so I just promoted Bruce and Rudy. You asked about air sealing I noticed on a couple of slides back. There were routes to satisfying Teddy and how you could move closer and closer to to compliance. And there were about four or five columns bar charts and one of them at the end it will miss if not, but I didn't see. There was air tightness in the list. And that's one of the important factors, going back through the whole of my life doing these kind of work. Does this does Teddy set a standard or expect some kind of report on that and if that's the case, then I guess we have to go back to him with questions from a year ago when we were talking about whether or this project would receive some kind of formal pressure testing. Bruce, yes, happy to have happy to take that question so the, the, the little bars were really just an example of like how Teddy, how Teddy does change versus it doesn't change with changing the H back but you are completely right that air tightness is in I probably should have said it more because it's one of the really, really important factors air tightness definitely will impact Teddy. And so we'll the better the air tightness that the, you know, the better the Teddy will be. There are requirements now by code for buildings to be to go through. There's no penetration testing for blower door testing anyway. So that will have to happen in the requirements for air tightness are actually. This is one of the differences where we're where this is not as strict as passive house passive house has for anyone who's familiar with air tightness numbers about 0.08 if I recall correctly CFM for square foot at 75 Pascal. 0.08 current code requires 0.4 and the new code requires 0.35 but it needs to be tested. Right. And so the building will need to be more air tight, and that is just buildings will need to get more air tight by by design. And so there is a big component there of, of making sure that we're designing for to meet to meet the performance. Can I answer your question, Bruce? Yes, but except that are we going to be doing on site testing Tim's initial answer to that question was no, and that it would be done by mock ups and components and discreet the fractions but this sounds like we'd have to up that game and do at least portions of the whole building if not the whole building is that correct. The changes have made what I said a year ago, partially, if not totally untrue. So you are correct for it. Okay, we're good. Is there another question. Good. I think it ends us up. Yeah. Oh, here we go. Can you hear me now. Two quick questions. One there was some discussion I don't know if this was a conversation I had with Jonathan. I just wanted to make sure that in fact that it's possible the changes to Teddy, we're going to mean that sub slab insulation across the whole slab might be required, and I wondered if that's the case to your assessment. And comment about our bylaw requiring analysis of EUI or using EUI. Actually, my recollection I'm just getting through it again now. We didn't actually use EUI, but I agree with Jonathan that conceptually, the local net zero bylaw requires that we look at the entire energy use of the building and not just heating and cooling demand so I'm glad you're going to do parallel modeling because we will have to demonstrate that the PV that we put on is sufficient to in capacity to address the entire annual projected needs of the building for everything plug loads, lighting and so forth and not just heating and cooling. Yeah, so I'll pick up that one at the end but I fully agree with you and I think it's one of a personal level I think that the disappointments of the new code that some that the teams that are only looking to meet the Teddy might only ask for a Teddy model and just never really look at the energy use there is, as I mentioned there's certain that used a lot right and so I'll get into your your understab now question. When we were desperate we had a teddy of eight when we started off. We were trying to figure out can we just make the walls are 60 and the roof are 80 and get rid of all the windows and get to the to that way because we cannot. We just can't figure out how, and one of the we were trying to equate the Fort River model to the models that had been published by DOER as examples, and some of them had the understab the installation below the sub as one of the factors and we thought this is the one and we found that that one actually had an impact on Teddy, it didn't bring us the value we needed, and that was in in concert with the, you know, crazy our values on the walls and getting rid of the windows and all that. And so that we learned that that tricks that that touches the Teddy a little bit it doesn't actually touch the UI as much as far as I recall. And so we ended up in the process of working with DOER and telling them our model is actually, we're just not meeting it you're telling us we should be meeting it. We should be at two or eight, we just don't know what to do. The lowest we could ever get it was five actually by by eliminating by saying keep recoveries 100% getting rid of all infiltration like zero infiltration etc we just couldn't do it. And so then DOER came in, took our model and actually reviewed it they they they paid someone to review our model and walk us through the discrepancies between what we have fallen in the guidelines and what the guidelines should actually say that we weren't following because the guidelines were misleading. And so they ended up changing our model to saying well actually you model yes we told you to model at this way but you actually need a model at this way. I told you to do this but you actually need to do that. And then the numbers started to go down. And so our assessment right now is that that installation will not be needed to meet the Teddy. There still has to be a whole another round of modeling and trade off. What we have is an SD model and so there's many things that we anticipate changing we are hoping. Again, this project has the eye of the state and so I think that as long as we are following good design principles that we will be able to comply because we're meeting the intent. Rudy, did you have a follow up question or are you all set. Yeah, let me. I should just add that my concern about subslab has never been just about heat loss and it has been a worry about condensation issues and avoiding them. So I hope we will look at that again and maybe you all have. I'm glad to hear or I'm not glad but I'm glad you clarified that we will sub slab insulation does not get us the Teddy we want there's other things instead so thanks. So Ali I think you can after that long delay move on to your your next section. Rudy take your hand down to just so we know you're finished. Unclick your hand. Thanks. I'm going to talk a little bit about the building envelope requirements. So next slide. So, there's a few things that we're keeping in mind with regard to the envelope which I've listed here in IECC 2021. There is a thermal envelope certificate requirement. So next question we're going to primarily focus on on the the following slides is our items that are related to section C402, which is in IECC 2021 as well as in the MA stretch code which has some amendments changes in additions to those requirements. And then lastly what we've just been talking about which is the third party early gauge compliance testing, which, as Ali mentioned is refined in the MA stretch code amendments. So let's go to the next slide. The way that we kind of think about the envelope is it's kind of like a built in suspenders to the Teddy modeling and the other modeling that we're doing. And so there's sort of two different pathways to meet the code and the stretch code that we can follow. As we understand it, one is a prescriptive path, which has requirements for window wall ratio getting under x percentage which is 30%. And there's requirements as well that are added from the stretch code for derating of our wall assemblies. That includes derating of the installation, if there's installation between the studs includes derating that's dependent on the kind of cladding system and how it's attached to the structure. It also includes derating for linear thermal bridges. As opposed to the prescriptive path of a project is not meeting some of the prescriptive requirements. It can instead follow an envelope backstop path, which is a full calculation that takes into account basically a weighted average of the you values for the above grade vertical assemblies, which also takes into account all the derating of the wall assemblies that I just mentioned and the derating of the linear thermal bridges. So for the for the prescriptive path we're still taking those items into consideration, we're just trying to meet prescriptive maximum you values. I would say also that we have as recently as this morning been in communication with do er to clarify some of those requirements, specifically as they relate to the linear thermal bridging for the prescriptive path in particular. All right, so next slide. So we've done an assessment preliminarily of both of those pathways prescriptive, as well as some sort of an initial high level SD backstop calculation and for this project we at the moment think that the best path forward would be a prescriptive compliance path which is what we're doing here. So this chart has three columns the column here on the left side, while the far left is talking about the different above grade vertical assemblies so we have at the top or window to wall ratio the opaque above grade assemblies curtain wall fixed windows operable windows and doors so we're just kind of hitting the sort of the main the main categories there. So over to the right we can see the current design derated whole assembly you value. And so when we say derated what we're doing is we are first derating the vertical assemblies if we take an opaque wall assembly for example so we're first derating it, based on the amount of insulation and the kind of framing that's in the wall. So there's guidelines in Asher a 90.1 appendix a that tell us how to derate it depending on the different combination of structure and insulation that we have inside the studs and continuous insulation. We then derated again for the stretch code, according to the kind of cladding system and the attachments that are used for that cladding system so if it's a brick veneer wall which we have on this project. It's the way that we derate it based on the brick ties. If it's a rain screen system which we also have on this project currently, we use a different values called a side value to derate it, which is given to us by the, excuse me by the stretch code. And so when I say derated it's involving the vertical assembly is involving those two steps of derating. The first column over are the code required derating maximum you values that we have to meet if we're following this prescriptive path. And then on the far left is what we're recommending and so the first thing we did is we assess the window to wall ratio and so okay we're under the 30%, which is great and so that's one of the reasons why we thought that the prescriptive path would be a good path to follow and then we did all the planning for the current design to see where the values were falling. And so in combination between trying to make sure that we're taking all of this derating into account that we're thinking ahead to planning for linear thermal bridging and making sure we have a little bit of a cushion and then we're aligning it with the recommendations from the Teddy modeling, we've preliminarily come up with some recommendations that you can see in some cases exceed what would be required as the maximum for the prescriptive path but is trying to get the design in line with Teddy because the two are really working hand in hand they're not separate efforts so the 25% window to wall ratio that the design is at currently is great still hitting prescriptive so we're not recommending any changes there to the amount of glazing. We are recommending considering improving the installation slightly in the exterior walls to get it to that R19, R20 effective U-value or R-value I should say which is in line with the Teddy modeling and sort of puts us a little bit in a safe zone away from the maximum U-value that we have to meet for the prescriptive path. And then for the glazing if we were only looking at the envelope we could have slightly poorer performing glazing but again as Ali demonstrated we really have to be improving the glazing U-value as well for the Teddy path and so we're recommending you know just to be in line with Teddy that we improve the glazing there as well. Okay any any questions about any of that? I just ask quickly when you're talking about improving the glazing are you talking about improving it beyond what's in the schematic design estimate? Improving the glazing is the alternate that was in the estimate so it's not in the base estimate but it was captured there so exercising that option would as you know require either design contingency shipping for something else within the project but if there is a number that was quantified in the schematic design estimate. Okay. Okay so if we go to the next slide. So the section is definitely shorter than the energy modeling section but just a summary and some takeaways so as I had mentioned as of this morning we were in communication with DOER about the linear thermal bridging in particular as it relates to the prescriptive path. The stretch code makes it more clear for the full back step calculation which we have already done and evaluated for some other projects that we have but it's not as clear how we take the linear thermal bridging into account when we're looking at it for the prescriptive path. So we're trying to get some confirmation on that but like I said we've also been sort of side by side evaluating it in a backstop calculator for this project as well and so we're just going to sort of keep tracking it and that's why there's a little bit sort of still unknown that needs to get refined as DOER establishes what their requirements are going to be for linear thermal bridging for the prescriptive path. But good news is that we do think that the design can meet new code prescriptive requirements with minimal although we understand the cost associated with it but sort of minimal updates which would include as we've talked about the improved performance for the glazing to get to a value of .25 in line with the TETI requirements. Also potentially and we'll keep evaluating it as the design progresses but potentially adding one inch of closed cell spray foam insulation inside the metal studs could get us to that our 19, 20 effective value at the walls or slightly better for some of the wall assemblies that have less thermal bridging through the entire wall assembly like the rain screen systems. We might also want to focus some of our attention on linear thermal bridging details the one in particular that we would want to focus on first is the vertical wall to slap on grade transition. So not necessarily huge changes but just trying to refine that detail a little bit to try to eliminate some of the thermal bridging and improve the performance there as well as looking at the other thermal bridging conditions but that's the one in particular that that we think is most important to focus on right now. And then lastly for rain screen wall assemblies we are assuming that the fasteners have thermal breaks are some pretty specific requirements in the stretch code and so we'll be working with Dennis good just to make sure that the product to get selected would be satisfying that. So that's the end of this section but happy to answer any questions. I saw Shelley stand up first. Is there going to be any consideration of instead of the one inch of close self spray foam doing one inch of poly iso on the exterior it's rain screen anyway. I'm wondering cost wise, you know how those two would compare. And it would certainly help with the thermal bridging of the metal studs is it so I'm just wondering if there's been any consideration or if you're willing to look at that. I want to discuss that with TC about what if it comes to that what would be the best place to put it there are some factors to consider as you mentioned the cost. Whether it's continuous insulation or not. Also, as silly as this sounds, an extra inch around the building adds up to a certain amount of area that we have to count in our MSBA calculation so you know when we figure out with the actual effective our value that we have to have that determination or we absolutely will make that determination to see what's best for the project. Thank you. Um, so I think this question is interactive more with Tim's team, you said, these are cost increasing. And so is it my question is increasing how much, you know, and where there are choices of we can get to this result in two different ways would be able to see them. And I have one place in mind in the site design where we could do cost decreasing so just trying to think of the tradeoffs team if we try to say we've got a budget and what can we do within the budget without going into the agencies. And I'm not sure if Sean's still on it but I want to play the role on just trying to hold the line because you haven't even started to build yet, you know, I went, you know. So I'm assuming that you can anticipate all the unanticipated but so just as you go as we go through this some of these it sounds like we have to do it, you know, to meet the code. And so, you know, the estimate the cost estimates is that end of June just, when do we get a sense of how much money. Okay, so the that there's a lot of parts that question I'm going to try to answer them as I remember them. The next cost estimate is at the end of DT so that will be in September, which will make sure that we are on track. And I should clarify when I said contingencies before I meant design contingency, not cost contingency that will, you know, make sure that we are on budget after the project is in construction with design issues as included to make up for things like this throughout the process. And then Sean had certainly made it clear and no one on the design team will forget that when there are two options and they are equally functional, the one that is more cost effective, unless we have a really good reason is going to win. So, and then the absolute quantity I don't know that I said this and I don't know if I remember but the double pain. Alternate at SD I believe was in the neighborhood of $275,000 for the entire building plus Marco. And this is triple pain. Going to triple pain, sorry to double painters the base, we would be moving to triple pain or there's an alternative that costs a little bit less so we want to consider that where the middle pain is a film, rather than a layer of glass it performs just as well. And we don't want to be cavalier about sounding like while we can use contingency. Again, the concept of design contingency through the design processes that study, it's high as you learn more. That number goes down and down. As you find out more about what you need to do to achieve where you need to be. So it's not taken lightly. And there can be trade offs between now and the DD estimate but there will be another reckoning and then another reckoning at 60% as well. But using the design contingency for items like this is kind of why you've got a design contingency. Okay, this is this is a natural part of the, the evolution of a project. Thanks. That's helpful. What is our next section here. We've answered the questions at the moment. Are we Rebecca. Shall we move on. Yep. Okay, great. And maybe just to note I think in response to just to make sure that we respond to Shelly's earlier question. The code envelope pathways. They don't necessarily need to be modeled and therm. There are there are methods of evaluating the effective you values without without their modeling so it's not it's not it is an option but it's not necessary to to meet the code requirements. Yeah, I think that that got answered as you showed how it was being derated in the prescriptive so I'm good. Great. Thank you. The last thing we wanted to touch on very briefly just to know that it is it is of critical importance for the project is the post occupancy energy verification. This isn't this is something that you know it's just something we're keeping in mind as the project is moving forward. One of the things to note, just at this point is that, you know, sub metering will be required for all the electrical and juices in the building. Those that are listed one through seven here on the slide. So we need to be metered for minimum of one year period, and that's after the building has entered sort of regular occupation or occupancy, and additionally any non electrical sources so anything that uses fossil fuels including generators must also be must also be. The energy use must be recorded and reported, but at a less resolution than than the electrical energy usage. And this is something that, you know, as the project moves forward, particularly with the ever source review there will, you know, the, the team will, the assurances that the proper summer metering is included to to meet these requirements. Any questions here, Margaret. Yeah, so I have a question. I guess it was last week. There was a presentation about the kitchen design. And it was, there wasn't, there weren't, it was a small group because it was mostly the kitchen consultant and the disco team presenting to the folks who run the kitchen of the school. One thing that I was surprised at, which maybe indicates my level of disconnectedness from the details is that he talked about using propane as a source for some of the kitchen equipment. It surprised me for two reasons. One was that I, in my mind when I think about net zero, and I don't think propane and net zero sort of being on the same. Margaret, can I just clarify he was talking about the refrigerant and the. He wasn't talking about the fuel source he was talking about the refrigerant. The propane as part of the refrigerant system. Got it. Got it. Okay, so that answers my question I'll put my hand down. Bruce has one. Yes, I'm looking at this submetering. And I thought Margaret was going to ask my question when she hit on kitchens and all of the activity energetic activity that happens in association with coolers and cooking and bands and make up and all of that sort of stuff but it seems to me that there's a fairly large component of energy use in the in that general area. Has there been consideration. I guess that would be taken to some degree under receptacle circuits but I mean I it seems to me that that's going to be a much bigger component than exterior liking for example and one that's more changeable and and might benefit from having that kind of data collection. Yeah, certainly and I think so we generally. So all, we can say generally end uses all end uses are metered to some degree will review with with as we as we work with ever source and also with the AV to ensure that everything that needs metering will be will be included to because as you as you say it as a significant load or significant portion of the load. Thank you. If I could just jump in for a second this is Kevin Murphy I'm the electrical engineer to answer that question. We also have to do metering per lead requirements. And so any load that matches that minimum of 10% of the building's load will also be metered. And with an all electric kitchen, the kitchen would be one of the areas where we would require meeting to meet the lead requirements outside of the massive verification requirements. Bruce, did you have a follow up, or shall I move to Shelly. Just click your hand to a good. There you go. Shelly. I'm done. The one other thing I want to put on the radar here is if there's any sort of educational curriculum integration into metering that we would want to have that conversation early, just in terms of feedback loops and etc so I just want to make sure that gets noted. I think Rupert is going to leave us soon so before he does I just want to check in with him and see if he had any last comments questions. I have this time schedule right. You do indeed. It's coming down to the wire. Thank you for asking. No, I think I'm getting the big picture and I appreciate everyone, everyone's patience and answering our questions on the design team. Thank you. Just just to show you Rupert and anyone else who's listening once this is presentations done on make sure we post it, you know so that it'll go with the minute notes but you'll also have as splashing by all the statistics so yeah. Great. So if there aren't any more questions and the last thing that we want to touch on is, is lead and just provide a where we are with the lead status for the project so on that note I will hand it back over to Rebecca. Great. Thank you. So, you know, obviously we'll keep refining the lead approach throughout design development and we'll talk about next steps for that in just a moment but our current status as of the end of SD is about 64 yes points which are points that we anticipate are very probable or certainly going to be achieved for this project with eight points that we consider maybe likely so you might notice that the scorecard has four columns instead of three and we've probably explained this before but internally throughout the design process we like to sort of split maybe points into ones that are more likely to achieve the ones that are less likely to achieve so that we know where to really focus our energy from a design perspective and so what we we typically assume is that throughout the design process will be able to get about half of those maybe points so that would bring our score up to about 68 so 68 to 72 points that we think might be possible to achieve so really solidly puts us in lead gold territory. But of course again we'll keep refining this and any points we can move into yes we'll definitely be be moving over but we think the projects and really good shape as far as achieving lead gold. Any questions about lead. Okay. When Bruce, your question. Yes, it still amazes me that with such a well designed daylighting effort on this building. And I know that that's true because we've been very well briefed on what you're doing and how you're going about it and everything that the not even one of those three daylight points is considered a maybe even a distant maybe is this is seems to me as though this is saying something about the lead system rather than the building or is there some reason why you continue not to have any aspiration for collecting a daylighting point from the lead. Ali I don't know if you could. Yes, that spot on Bruce has to do with how lead is defined classrooms are really deep. And so the lead thresholds for daylighting we're not the even though this you know this lead for schools, the professionals were really not defined for to be reasonable for a school we really none of the schools that we've ever worked on have ever gotten the daylight credits, even though we've made so much effort to get that you would need skylights everywhere and just have to bring in daylight you know single single floor school that has skylights everywhere something like that in order to get enough daylight and 30 feet deep. And so the, the project will have the best daylight quality it can have given the massing and the program requirements but it's not enough for lead unfortunately. I don't understand that I asked the question because I did go to the day lighting seminar that my go Jones and Lisa Heshong and, and the other guy from lamb did. And they, they were struggling to but they did manage to get one or two I think on the garden and school. So I guess it's possible but, but I understand your answer. I can tell you I have worked on schools that have gotten closer, and I would. I wouldn't be able to be quoted on whether they actually got it or not but those are schools that have a skylight above and have moved all the clap you know that have actually changed the massing completely just for the purposes of day lighting. Okay, I'm done with the lighting and we are just perhaps worth noting that we were continuing to evaluate the daylight as the project moves forward and we will do another round of analysis to to ensure that as the project evolves and DD. We're still looking at how the daylight is performing in specific spaces in the building. Okay, move to the next slide. I'm just highlighting some of the lead overlap requirements with the MSBA school green schools program, excuse me, 2022 policy, which is the one that we're tracking for this project so the requirements there. We're just going to do a refresher achieving lead certification lead for schools, which we're doing great, aiming for golds, well over the minimum of 60 points there. And then there's also requirement to earn a minimum total of three points from seven points that are available from the following three credits to have to do really with material health so material ingredients low emitting materials and indoor air quality assessment where we're tracking right now is that we're tracking five out of seven possible points in those credits and again as the design evolves will continue to evaluate where we can pick up even more so we think we're doing great there as well trying to meet the MSBA requirements. And then of course the requirement as well for for the optimized energy performance credit since we're getting all the points 16 points for that credit so we're doing great there as well. Okay, next slide. So just to, we know that there was a lot of information presented today and, as noted earlier where we will share the slides so everyone has a chance to review these in more detail. And to summarize quickly what the next steps are as as we move through DD, we will. We will be updating the energy model so the SD energy model that we've been referring to will be updated in the coming weeks to both track where the project is standing in terms of EU I, as well as compliance with code with for the lead to the mass save targets, and also we'll look can engage with with ever source to to further the mass save path one requirements and move down that process. As mentioned, we are continuing to develop the envelope analysis to confirm compliance, looking at both the prescriptive and the envelope backstop approaches in order to meet that and as we will, we'll have more of an understanding on that as that analysis moves along. And lastly, we will of course continue to track lead and update our lead statuses as anything evolves with the project. Are there any last questions that we can answer. Yeah, I have one that I'm not sure it's related to this. I thank you very much for all the pieces you've won through. When you talked about monitoring and various kinds of zones is will come TT or is this more design team is there something simple that if we had it in the entryway of the school somewhere where the kids could see how much did we generate with the solar panels today, you know some simple graphic, you know so so we're in, think of the school it's the building itself as an opportunity to be a teaching tool, a live. So, I don't, I don't know what that would look like and I saw one example in a northern Virginia school so I don't know if you've seen any schools that have done or Shelly has just something really simple so I'm not talking about complex components that that the staff could teach to or, or, and where, where would we locate at them so that's more in the building design we've got some wall spaces that that would work if it was wired in a way to do it. So that's a question not really that related to the pieces you've done here, you know how did we do to this month compared to a year ago, or something. Yeah, over time. I will just add that as we get into design we will look at ways to connecting a display device to and I have seen them, they can be as complicated or as simple as you want and program to be connected to the building management system. But that is certainly something that we will look at with incorporating into the educational use to Rupert obviously. But we are not there yet in terms of proposing a system or what the, how it will manifest itself, but we certainly know that it's on the radar and we'll be looking at it and DG. That's fine. And this is a grade school so I'm not simple simple is what I had. Timothy and Kathy like I would just say like it might be good to have a charrette that just is purely dealing with these educational sort of integration issues. When the time comes and so we don't it doesn't get kind of lost in the mix and be too late. And Kathy the other thing you can do you know it depends but can have wings competing against each other if you submit or the building properly. It really is a question for staff and how integrated they want to get and you know, I think the information can always be simple enough that and you know the students can understand, you know, what's the net energy use, and really is how you going to use it how you integrate it so I think that just needs to be a conversation. Thank you. I see Rupert Rupert still here, I thought he's his hands up. But it's really, it's really sorry. Oh, hi thanks. Quick question on the mass say verification of the charging. If the charging was done by a third party and metered separately as a separate business separate from our school meter. We cannot get counted against our UI for, or has that issue come up for the school performance for massive purposes. That's a great question, we will. We can look into that and confer. That's one issue. I don't think we really talked through in the course of either the bylaw or the school building, you know, planning for the, the car charging aspect of this and whether that gets counted on or off budget, depending on how we do it so might be important if we're close, and it's going to affect our subsidy, I think we, we should take a look at that. Is there a dedicated number and dedicate isn't the right word is there a prescriptive number of EV charging stations that we have to provide as part of this project. Meet the current code or the new code. There is a, go ahead. I don't know if it's probably going to say what you were that there is a requirement for the lead credit. Okay. The, the, the stretch code also touches on EV ready but not specific spaces and to be clear to ready to just make sure that this is, you know, understood but right now EV charging is not counted towards the UI that we've presented. And so we're not, it's a valid question but it is not currently being accounted and so yes that would, that would need to be added if that were a requirement. I don't know how mass save is going to count it, I guess. No, no, no, so we'll be asking, but we'll be asking, but just to be clear right now, it's not that 25. Yeah, yeah, great thanks. Again, this is Kevin Murphy lead engineer just to jump in. Typically, the PV will also be a separately beaded with with ever source. We're not going to be metering for the site, but due to the size of the system. We're proposing here ever source doesn't usually allow it to be what we call behind the meter metering that would allow it to be as part of your bill. So you would they would be two meters that they would combine into one into one invoice back to the, to the, to the town. You probably would be with the EV charging that it's separately metered because you probably would outsource it to a third party to maintain it, run it, and they would be responsible for collecting fees on charging is how it's typically done but certainly many things to discuss as design continues through. Let's come back to that later Rudy. Yeah. I think then we have come to the end of the, of the presentation by the design team. I didn't don't know of any other matters that weren't anticipated 48 hours ago. I will offer a final kind of public comment period. Rudy, do you have another question or is that ends the level. This, this just reminded me a friend of mine who's working on a school in orange. I don't know where they're at in the process and they're trying to do it at your highly energy efficient. They've had issues with the utility in terms of the long negotiation period for the, I forget the name of the document where it's basically the agreement with the utility about the, the solar and interchange and this, whatever, you know, transformers are going to be needed for the school. And it made me think about how much lead time may be required to work through the details with the utility of this larger project hope that's already underway and if it's not I hope we begin to explore that soon the agreement or whatever it is. Maybe you guys are already on that case and but I know that they require engineering studies for that can sometimes take quite a while and stuff if depending on where we are in their grid layout so I hope we're starting that train soon. Thanks. I have just some comments I say that we have solar design associates on the team and that is well without our radar and that process will begin well before the building goes out to bed before the construction documents are done. It's eminent to begin that process. Kathy I think we've got Maria's got her hand up. I'm sure how to do the promotion. I can do it. Okay, Maria, I have allowed you to talk. Yeah, I think I think you can hear me. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Just a quick request. I just checked the packet. Could you guys pop your slides into that because I'd like to report on the meeting just to make sure that the public is aware of what's going on in this slide deck would be really helpful to have to reference. Thank you. Thank you, Maria. You're going to need a last call for any public comment. I'm just assuming your hands still up from before. Or do you have no other question. Okay, thank you. Um, with that must Kathy there's anything else. I think I just want I thought this was terrific by the way team. It was complicated issues presented in a way that some of us could almost understand. Yes, thank you very much. Yeah, so thank you. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.