 So, welcome everyone to the webinar today, I'm Jim Lindberg, I'm Senior Policy Director at the National Trust for Historic Preservation and it is my pleasure to welcome everyone to our National Trust Preservation Leadership Forum webinar this afternoon using the care tool to calculate carbon savings from reuse. So if you don't know Preservation Leadership Forum is the professional membership program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and this webinar series is made possible by Preservation Leadership Forum members so we want to thank those members who are with us today. The webinar is also being co-hosted by our friends at Architecture 2030 and if you don't know about them, they are a nonprofit organization whose mission is to rapidly transform the built environment from the major emitter of greenhouse gases to a central solution to the climate crisis. And you'll be hearing from several members of Architecture 2030 here in a moment. Our webinar today is also brought to you by the Preservation Priorities Task Force, which is a collaboration between the National Trust for Historic Preservation and our friends at the National Preservation Partners Network and PPN. Some of you who may have participated in the webinar that the Preservation Priorities Task Force hosted just about a year ago in which we previewed this innovative tool, the care tool, which is now available for public use. So in today's webinar, the creators of that tool are going to walk you through the steps you can use to put this tool to work for your projects and in your community. So before we start just a few technical logistics today, we're going to be taking questions and we're going to have hopefully a good bit of time for Q&A at the end here. Send your questions to the Q&A function. So that will go directly to the panelists. And you can submit those questions at any time during the webinar and then at the end we'll go through and answer as many as we can. And you're also encouraged to use the chat function to chat with each other. All the participants will see that but again if you have questions for the panelists and those through to the Q&A. And then everyone always asks, but yes, we will have a recording of today's webinar available shortly after the program today so feel free to go back and look at that. Those are archived on our National Trust Preservation Leadership Forum YouTube channel and we'll share that link in the chat as well. So what we have planned for today and moving pretty quickly will be first to hear from Erin McDade from Architecture 2030. Erin leads Architecture 2030's public policy and embodied carbon initiatives focusing in particular on developing data driven solutions for building sector decarbonization, which is a priority. Erin is also one of the co-creators along with Lori Ferris and Larry Strain of the CARE tool, which you're going to be hearing about. Erin's going to provide a bit of background briefly on the connections between buildings and carbon emissions, how the CARE tool can help us better understand those connections, and more about how Architecture 20 is working to develop and promote the CARE tool for use around the country. Erin will then introduce her co-creators, Lori Ferris and Larry Strain, and Lori will walk us through some examples of how this tool could be put into practice, both for individual projects and actually for a larger campus, a group of buildings on a campus. And then at the end then, finally, Erin will come back and actually you'll walk through of how you can use the CARE tool and apply it to projects and places that you care about and get you started with this and let you explore it. And then finally, following that demonstration, we do hope to have a good bit of time for Q&A. So with that start, I will now turn it over to Erin. Alright, thanks for the introduction, Jim, and thanks for the invitation to have us on here presenting today and Architecture 2030 is thrilled to be co-hosting this event and I am really happy to see how many participants have shown up. I'm really excited about the CARE tool. I think all of us would agree that it's been one of the most rewarding things that we've worked on in recent years and so I'm really happy to be getting to share it out with more people who can hopefully benefit. So, like Jim said, I'm going to start with a little bit of context on why we're having this conversation at all and what kind of the climate impetus behind the CARE tool was. So I like to start my talks, regardless of what they're about with this slide because I think it's really important for all of us to keep this in mind as we're doing any work in the building sector moving forward. And this is a little bit of information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on where we are in terms of global carbon emissions and what our climate targets need to be to try to stay in line with Paris agreement numbers. So, on a regular basis, sorry, on an annual basis we emit about 40 gigatons of carbon per year. This data started at 2020 and that really has not changed very much since 2020. Unfortunately, we would hope it had gone down but it hasn't really. And in order to stay within the 340 to 400 gigatons that the IPC says we have we need to stay under to have our best chance of meeting 1.5 degree C. What that means is that we really need a global reduction in all emissions and I want to be clear here we're talking about all global emissions in this context not just building sector emissions but these targets applied to the building sector as well. We need a 50 to 65% reduction in global emissions by 2030, and then zero emissions by 2040. And if we do this keeps us right online with that 1.5 degree C target it is our best chance of meeting 1.5 degree C. And I would say that there's a lot of news coming out lately about if we're going to cross this threshold when we are when we are going to to pretty soon, even if we cross the threshold, the sooner we can peak our emissions and the sooner we can get to zero, the better it's going to be for everyone in the long term. So when I'm doing my work I am constantly looking at this zero by 2040 target and framing everything through that lens and so I want to us to keep that in mind as we're continuing the rest of this conversation. So in the design world, there is a truism that the greenest building is one that's already builds. And I can give a quick demonstration of why that is here. If we look at the carbon footprint of an average new building this is just, you know, very high level information could be a new building anywhere in the world. The idea is that on the day. You know the day before it is operated during the construction process, all of these and body carbon emissions are admitted to get that building up. And those carbon emissions are just in the atmosphere in perpetuity apps and any sort of draw down, obviously. And on the day that the building starts operating those operational emissions start and those are cumulative every year cumulative every year and they build up as well. And so if we're looking at a building constructed in this case again in 2020 and drawing our line in the sand at 2040 our zero year. We see that even then, even with those cumulative additive operational emissions, the embodied carbon is still 59 almost 60% of the total emissions pie for this new building. And so what this means is that if instead of building this new building from scratch and emitting all this embodied carbon right here we had simply reused an existing building, this green section would be significantly better, but that's only half of the side of the coin. So, yes, significantly better to reuse a building, but then we still are faced with the issue of the operating emissions from those existing buildings. And when we step back a bit and look at this from a bigger picture, we see that because of those operational emissions of existing buildings in most urban environments across the world, especially in cities with large developed existing blocks, buildings are responsible for the majority of emissions. And you can get a snapshot of that from a bunch of different examples across the world here. And if you take that one step further back and look at it from a full global perspective. What we see are that projections indicate that in 2040 our zero year, two thirds of the global building stock will be buildings that exist today. And so that means that most of the buildings in 2040 are going to be existing, and they are without any interventions, still going to be emitting carbon because of those operations. And so if we don't upgrade those buildings and if we don't get rid of those operational emissions from that massive existing building stock. We're going to meet our climate targets. So I posit that, instead of the greenest building being one that's already built, the greenest building is one that's been retrofitted. And that is the impetus behind the care tool from a high level perspective from a more personal perspective I'll introduce the team right now and give a little bit of a background of how the care tool actually came about. We have a colleague Larry strain who's founding principal at Segal and strain architects in the Bay Area in California has a former colleague who was with the office of the president of the UC system and came to him and said something along the line, we're really interested in looking at all of our buildings on all of our campuses and doing an analysis to consider if it would make more sense for us to reuse specific buildings or tear them down and build new from a carbon perspective. What tool do we need to use to make that happen. And Larry said, I don't think a tool like that exists, but I'll make one. And so he put together an Excel calculator and started kind of shopping that around the rest of the, you know, our little sustainability sustainability building cohort that we have across the country and brought it to me at a conference and I was super excited by it, and decided that I could. I'm a bit of an Excel nerd and so I decided that I could potentially even make it better and went in and added a bunch of operational carbon data to support his embodied carbon data. And I think you all saw it pretty, pretty quickly around that point where we developed into a pretty cool but still pretty rudimentary Excel calculator. And it was along that time that Laurie Ferris, who's a principal and director of sustainability and climate action at good E Clancy, she has a strong focus on preservation architecture came into the picture to really help us solidify, especially the embodied carbon back and data of the calculator. And because of that, and because of, I think it should be my next slide here. Yep, because of tremendous support we got from collaborators within our building sustainability cohort including carbon leadership forums and CC, the epic tool and then wonderful support that we got from the philanthropy community as well as some architecture firms, we were able to within a pretty quick period of time, turn the character will into this online app that we're going to be looking at now, and it is really exciting how far it has come from that first Excel version that some of you may have seen. So a quick, quick dialogue about what the care tool does a little bit about what it doesn't do and who it's for and then we'll dive into looking at it. So the high level goal for the care tools to be a very early design tool, even you know pre design tool that evaluates the total carbon emissions and impact potential of existing building reuse compared to replacing new production. So when you're at the phase in the conversation like Larry's colleague in the UC system where they were saying do we even need to build new or should we retrofit. This is when you want to be using the care tool. It is not unlike some other tools that will come later in the design process, a detailed energy modeling tool it is a comparison tool. So the numbers that come out of it are valuable as comparison metrics they are not going to be, you know, once you once you do a whole building LCA tally model later in the design process the numbers might not be identical. It's also not a whole building LCA tool for various reasons, we can talk about that a little bit if it comes up. And unlike some tools that some of you might be used to for example if you use tally a lot. You can't override the back end data. Again, there are reasons for that we can talk about it if valuable. But the tool we we put in as many default outputs and the tools possible to allow it to be as easy to use as possible especially folks don't have a lot of information at this early early design phase, but you can override default outputs within the interface in case you do have more detailed information such as an energy model with projected us already. And we really wanted the tool to be very broadly applicable and we have a lot of plans for future expansion of the tool to make it even more applicable in some of these specific contexts but our goal is for it to be certainly valuable to designers as another tool in their suites that they used to help make this really critical reuse and new construction decision, but even beyond that even for folks who might not be as in depth in the building community or the design specifically community public officials planners heritage officers, real estate developers, etc. The tool is still usable to them. It does not require an in depth knowledge of of how buildings work to be able to get valuable information out of it. So, quickly looking at what is contained within the tool and this I think is information or valuable information is an overall snapshot but when we go through the demo, it'll become clear how a lot more of this works. But the tool comes in. It's on the homepage of Carol tool org and there are four different tabs with some basic information that you fill in and you get outputs right away as soon as some of the information is inputted that are dynamic and update as you add more and on the general information tab some again very high level information about the location and about grid emission scenarios so this this will help determine your energy use intensity in your operational emissions etc. The existing building tab this is where information is inputted about the building that you're considering either tearing down and replacing or renovate renovating and so put in some high level information about what the building looks like etc. This is one of those examples where it'll, it'll default some it'll output default ui's and emissions numbers that can be overridden or not. The building reuse tab, this is where we start to look at okay, what are the hypotheticals here so if we are going to reuse this existing building, what might we do to impact both the operational energy and emissions, as well as the embodied carbon these are you know these these are the inputs that are really going to determine what the embodied carbon outputs are. Again, we'll talk about the details of this and we look at the demo but information on if you know how much of the structure can be saved versus upgraded envelope similarly. And then finally on the new building tab, same concept right if we are going to tear this building down and reuse or build something completely new what is that going to look like. And then again there are some questions that'll determine operational energy and emissions and some questions that'll help answer the embodied carbon questions. What this actually looks like once you got into care tool org. Quickly this is the first page where you enter the project information and some climate information. And then on the existing building page start to answer some questions about what the building looks like what the type of structure is there are some default again outputs where this is value this this is a metric that does have a significant impact on the outputs but default information is provided so if you don't know or don't even really know what this means you can ignore it or you can feel more detailed. The building reuse tab. We'll talk about this a little bit more when we do the demo. This is where you can also provide information if you want to reuse the building but expand it make it bigger, change the use type etc. And at the bottom this and body carbon questions, and then the new buildings tab. And once you enter all that information. This is what you get as an output. And so in this example. We see here first you get an output there's a snapshot in time and on the very first tab we'll see this when we do the demo. One of the critical questions that we put on that first tab and that we think is just so important to be asking for all of these types of processes, what is the timeframe that you want to consider this analysis for. And for whole building LCA is if any of you have ever done one of those, you know that the typical is to do for the whole life of the building so 80 to 100 years maybe as low as 60 years. So what do you think that because we have that very critical climate deadline of zero by 2040, and we have these very kind of short term carbon missions goals that we need to accomplish while of course still considering long term goals. It's really important to make sure that we're drawing lines in the sand. And so we have this snapshot in time where you can determine how many years you want to look at and of course that can be changed. So for this example I put a set 17 years which would take us right to 2040 so our zero year deadline. And so the first output you see is emissions for if we did nothing to that existing building we just let it keep going. Operating as is the light blue is operational emissions we can see for 17 years it's, I mean it's however many emissions this is is the decent amount. And for our retrofit scenario or reuse scenario, we can see that the operational emissions are significantly reduced, they are not all the way down to zero carbon but we have saved a lot of carbon emissions by retrofitting that building. But those retrofits did come into a little bit of an embodied carbon costs. For the new building we see that we got those operational emissions down even farther still didn't achieve zero operating emissions which we should be aiming to do but you know, for the purposes of this example. But because it is so much more in body carbon heavy to build a new building than to reuse the embodied carbon penalty if you will for getting our new building operational emissions that low was significant enough that it is still fewer emissions than we all to reuse even though our operational emissions are higher for this reuse. And just a little bit of a different way of looking at it here this is cumulative emissions over time. And we can see each of the scenarios are do nothing scenario or new building scenario in our retrofitted building scenario. It's interesting to see some analysis here we can see that it takes a little over six years for the new building to be more climate smart, if you will than the do nothing building. And it takes a little under two years for the retrofitted building to be better than the do nothing building. And these two lines never even meet up, at least not in this snapshot of timeframe. So that is what you will see. And again, I'm going to do a live demo so we will get to see all this in action but now you have a sense of the outputs you will be looking for there's also a data table below this that contains all of the metrics and data format. Before I pass it to Lori to talk about some examples of this this is just a quick snapshot of what you will see the second you got to care tool org, and the tool is right here on the homepage so you just literally go to care tool org and scroll down a little bit and the tool is right there. Okay, Lori. Take it away. Thanks Aaron. So I'm going to briefly go through a couple of examples of use cases for the tool. First looking at a single building and then how does that scale up looking at an entire campus. So this building is a project that we completed around 2015. It is on Boston University's campus at the edge of a historic district. It's significant as one of the few international style buildings within the city of Boston. It was purpose built as a Hillel Center, which had moved into a new building. So the campus was trying to understand what to do with this building. What is it suited for. And so it was converted, we did a comprehensive renewal converting it into the new admission center, which went really kind of turning what had been a fairly inward looking building into a very public building that many, many people pass through daily. Next slide. This is a renovation because it was really a comprehensive renovation we could do a pretty significant amount of upgrading within the building without impacting greatly the historic exterior. So there are new high performance windows throughout, we were able to insulate the inside face of the exterior with new walls as well as the roof, and put in new high efficient systems, almost all electric not quite all electric at the time. So through this upgrade, we were able to reduce the building's energy use by about 70%, making it comparable to a pretty high performance new construction of time. But through that we were also able to preserve and reuse 86% of the building structure and enclosure, and because structure and enclosure are the two most carbon intensive parts of a building. Those are really the critical pieces that you want to maintain from an environmental standpoint. Next slide. So just to kind of show you how this looks in the tool before the live demo, you can see, first on the left the general information so where the building is. And then on the right information about the existing building how big is how big it is, you know what's it constructed of what's used for, and we're using the default IU UI energy use intensity that is embedded within the care tool. Next slide. So next we fill in the building reuse information. And as you'll see during the demo, this is the most intensive part of using the care tool because, as all of you who work with existing buildings know there are basically an infinite number of ways that we can reuse buildings. So what we do here is talk about. Again the size of the building is there an addition in this case we did add a small circulation addition as well as a penthouse. So we indicate that added score footage here. There was no change of views, but we were able to again achieve those those significant energy reductions. And then the in the embodied on the right hand side here, you can see the embodied carbon values associated with the amount of intervention required for the structural system, the building envelope, the all new building interiors and our high performance MEP system. Next slide. And then lastly we input information about the new building. So here we've made it the same size the same use. I've just for the sake of argument, improve the efficiency of a new building about 15% better than the renovation, because that's always a question we get asked is wouldn't a new building be more efficient so even if it wouldn't be, we'd like to just, you know, show what that would look like if it were, and then the body carbon you can see of the sort of standard new commercial construction of this size steel concrete. And here we see the results. And this is looking at over 15 years. And you can see on the left again those cumulative emissions for the duration. We can see that over this timeline, even with the more efficient new building, the reason in addition is still the lower carbon option during this time frame. And again on the right you can see how that plays out over time. And the fact that this, the renovation has a payback of about two years which is a really good carbon payback and fairly standard for what we see. We do this type of assessment. Next slide. And one of the interesting things you'll see about the tool is Aaron does the demo is that you can get the results for the project but you can also kind of play around with some of the variables. So here this is just to give you a sense of a couple of the variables you can investigate on the left is the as built renovation that we performed on the middle does well what if that new building weren't really have performance what if it were just kind of code, you know, kind of code to you know best practices new construction or standard practices. You can see there that that really changes the equation a lot and in fact the new construction is now looking much worse than the renovation and almost as bad as just not not touching the existing building is all during this during this 15 years. And then on the right when you turn on greeting of the grid you can see the emissions, both of those buildings start to come down on the total emissions. So just again a few of the variables that you can explore. Next slide. So we, one of the things that's really interesting about this is that obviously you can make a certain amount of impact building by building but we're really interested in what kind of impact can you make if you look at the district scale like the campus scale the urban scale. So this is a case study that we performed with Agnes got college there are small women's liberal arts college outside of Atlanta indicator Georgia, and their campus is is part of a landmark district so they're really proud of their history campus. And it's a, it's a major part of their identity of how the alums, you know feel connection to Agnes Scott, and, and they really attribute their, this, you know this historic feel of their campus there are written campus to the success of their programs. Next slide. So, one thing that's kind of interesting about this campus is that deliberately or not, they've taken a stewardship approach to growth and by that I mean that, over time, as the campus has grown as standards for education have evolved. They have of course added many buildings to their campus added a lot of square footage, but they've also reuse their existing buildings and really smart way and that includes repurposing them changing the programmatic use, moving existing buildings out of the way when a new building was needed in certain locations are really infesting a lot of money in stewarding the existing buildings that they already had. Next slide. So, first, what we wanted to do is understand, you know retrospectively looking from the founding of the campus through the present day. What, what's the impact the avoided carbon impact of that stewardship approach. And what we found using the care tool over across the entire portfolio buildings is that they've avoided emissions, approximately 34,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide of it just embodied carbon from reusing their existing buildings rather than replacing them over time. So, this is in a can to context they have 100 acre arboretum campus, they would have to plant that entire campus with forest and grow it for 400 years, the sequester to draw down that amount of carbon. Next slide. But that's, that's retrospective which is sort of interesting but how can it be used as a how can care tool in this data abuse and making driver moving forward. So here we're kind of looking at 2007 which is the year that the campus committed to achieving sustainability through the year 2037 which is their zero year. And what you can see are their four scenarios, the three on the top are looking at scenarios where you do nothing to the existing buildings in gray, and red, you, and then the red and light green are looking at the sickle the sort of renewal cycle of most campuses were about every to 4050 years. So, this is looking at the question, when buildings reach that 40 to 50 year mark, you reuse them, or do you build new. And you can see in red, if you build new every 40 to 50 years for each building those spikes represent the embodied carbon of that new construction. And you can see that they are very large relative to the whole operational portfolio of the campus, whereas the light green has much smaller spikes associated with reuse. But you'll notice that neither of those lines gets terribly close to zero. And so this is going back to that point Aaron made about the greenest building being the one that it's a retrofitted that further green line shows a scenario that involves both reusing buildings at the end of their life and making energy efficiency improvements across the entire campus so this is things, you know, like the low hanging fruit installing led light bulbs retro commissioning, impacting user behavior all of these things that we can employ, all these strategies we can employ to reduce energy use and that is the line that really gets us to net zero with really kind of a low amount of a bicarbonate extended to get. Next slide. And what we see when we just look at that previous graph but if we look at it in terms of total carbon emitted during that 30 year window. We see that if we just build new in an attempt to get to net zero, we're only going to save about 3% of the carbon that we would have emitted by doing nothing at all. As opposed to if we take that approach of both reusing and improving energy efficiency, we see a savings of 41% of emissions. So this has been really helpful information for the campus they've actually used it for fundraising. The President of the institution has gotten really excited about him by carbon which I you know I personally love. And I think there's a link or there will be a link in the chat to a blog post that they wrote about this. Right back to Aaron for the live demo. That was so fascinating Lori. I know I've seen that a couple of times but I'm just always so amazed at how, how well you can demonstrate the impact potential there. Okay, so I'm going to switch over to doing a live demo and we're, I know there are some questions in the chat I've had a chance to look at them but it's possible that some of these will be answered by doing the live demo but we're also getting to the point in the talk where it's going to become a bit more informal and people. I mean I'm, I'll start walking through the demo but I'm also I'm happy to take questions kind of at any point now especially if they're related to the tool specifically. So, and I'm just going to show how easy this is I'm just doing this completely on the fly here for you I don't have this mapped out. So you just go to care tool or like I said you get to that homepage I'll talk a little bit about kind of all the supporting materials in a second here. So if you scroll right down and here's the tool, and I'll name it you really don't have to name it but we'll say this is the care headquarters. And it's in the United States, currently it's worth noting that we don't have any other countries in here this is something that is in high demand is for us to provide availability and other regions. There are some workarounds for that if you want to look at projects outside of the United States that I can talk about if anyone's interested. So for now I'm going to, I'm going to put this in Colorado, partly because I'm from there but also because they have a more intense electricity grid which is interesting to look at the impact of that. And then here is where this is all the information the tool needs now to output EUI information it is using the architecture 2030 zero tool which is the baseline setting tool that most designers in the country use. So you can just leave it as default or if you want to you can enter your own information. This is one of the pathways for work around to using it outside of the country as well. You can calculate and here's some information on how to do so your project specific heating degree day and cooling degree days and then enter that here and that will override this zip code information which is what is telling the tool what your climate information is. But again, I'm going to leave it for default. And then this is, and this is something that we added to the tool, somewhat recently before we just had that we had back end eGrid data so whatever the 2020 maybe or 2022 eGrid emissions were that was what it assumed the electricity grid for your project would be for the entire model timeframe. Now we have other options here, where you can select scenarios that show different potential the grid decarbonization or at least read emissions reduction intensity reductions, or you can enter your own grid decarbonization year this is another thing that's valuable if you're either looking at projects outside the US, or if you are looking at something like the campus like Agnes Scott that Lori showed their zero year was I think she said 2037. So we could say to like maybe that campus plans to be fully powered by renewable electricity by 2037 so you can kind of customize that here. I'm going to do a high renewables case I'm going to do mid case renewables here doesn't really matter. And then the model timeframe defaults to 25 but I'm going to stick with my 17 because that is our zero year. Then you just hit continue, it'll automatically click to the next tab or else you can switch between tabs and it of course retains all of your information. Let's invent a building here I'm going to say it's 20,000 square feet will do six floors above grade and one below grade, and we're going to say it's a steel and concrete structure. I'm going to leave window to wall ratio as default note that there are these information eyes all throughout we added them whenever we thought there would be any question and so they all they all contain a lot of information either about our back end assumptions for this or guidance on how to make the right selection for each of these. So we'll say that this building is I mean I said it's the hair hair headquarters so we're probably going to do mostly office but let's say there's some secondary use type. We can see that that right there was enough information for the charts to start generating already, obviously they're not fully filled in yet because we haven't put in embody carbon information for the reuse and we haven't put in any new building information yet but moving forward these charts will start dynamically updating as we add more information, and you can also again then go switch between tabs go back and say oh let's change this to 15 instead and it'll make updates like that. So we'll say it's an office and let's do something fun, let's say it has a bowling alley in it too, because why not. And so we already said that the total floor area was 20,000 since it didn't know I was going to add a second use type it just assumes that the office is I'll say no we're going to do a 3000 square foot bowling alley and so that'll automatically update that floor area there, and then it will automatically output what it thinks the existing building EUI would probably be. Again, you have a couple of choices here, you can either enter your own EUI if somehow you already know that, or since presumably these are you know real existing buildings you may have utility data you can go ahead and enter utility data you can actually EUI there to. I'm going to stick with default for now. And then we'll continue. And so now this is the one this is the tab that already pointed out as the most intensive it always does take the most consideration here. For to keep it a little bit simpler I'm not going to add an addition, but we already saw Lori's example of how you can add an addition what that looks like just a little bit more information required. I think there'll be a change of use, let's say there will be. Maybe instead of our bowling alley, we want to turn it into what was turned into a curling ring, why not. So, now you get to make some choices that will significantly impact operational emissions and we included everything we think one would need to input to be as accurate as possible. So, first you can set your energy efficiency target. So just how much you want to reduce your EUI will do will do about a 30% reduction. But then you can also make choices about renewables and about electrification. So I'm going to say that we are electrifying this building. And so we can see that that is going to drop it down a little bit. The grid is still not super clean, and we can go clean the grid up on that first tab if we want to look at what it would look like with a clean grid. So we can say because it's all electric, we're going to procure, we're going to generate and procure 50% of that with renewables, and you can see here how if you wanted to model what it would look like to have a zero operating carbon it would be pretty easy to do by balancing these three pieces correctly enough energy efficiency all electric and then procuring enough renewables. And then we get to the embodied carbon questions. So the first question is how much of the structure will be reused or replaced. I'm going to bring it back down so we can see this chart a little bit because this is probably going to be the most impactful one for this building. And the more we can reuse or replace of course the less embodied carbon emissions that will be. So I'm going to say, I think that's maybe a little bit more I mean we didn't change it too much. Oh, sorry, my bad. I was looking at this opposite direction so 100% means there is full replacement. So we want to do less. So we'll say we'll say we're retaining about 75% of it we're only replacing about 25% of it. Since we're in Colorado, we're not going to need to do lateral upgrades. So we have the envelope reuse and we have three questions here. So what extent for the exterior walls and there are a set of kind of specific enough conditions that we think they should apply to almost every use case here based on a lot of external feedback we've gotten. So we'll say we're going to, we'll do a medium masonry repair, and then windows and glazing. We'll re-glaze the frames here. Roofing. We'll just restore repair. If you need to insulate walls, there's a little guidance about this. You can check that box, then interior reuse. Again, another series of sliders, the extent of restoration or refurbishment with information about what that means, extent of new finishes, and then extent of rebuilding reconfiguration again information about what that means. So I'm just going to choose not too much new finishes. And then some decent rebuilding reconfiguration here. Then MEP, again, information about what to choose here. And you'll notice, sorry, I should have clarified, you'll notice that as I'm making these selections, it is calculating the embodied carbon, the embodied emissions intensity for each of these subsections right here. And again, we'll, we'll say, actually for this one since I said we're electrifying, we probably are going to need to be replacing all of the system so that was going to be a higher impact. And then we have this set of modifiers here, where you can choose some things that will further impact emissions, whether it will add to them or subtract from them. Using low emissions concrete, that's of course going to reduce our embodied emissions a little bit, responsibly source timber, not going to apply as much in this project. And we'll say that we are doing high performance electrical system. And then finally takes us to our new building tab. This will be a lot easier to input. My suggestion is that we pause here unless you feel like we really need to see the new building. I don't think we probably do and I can just quickly input some information through here and we can start taking questions while I'm doing that I'm more than happy to do that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think that might be good just because I imagine this audience is particularly interested in what you ran through on the rehab scenario and then we can maybe you can quickly build us a new building while we're taking a few questions. Let's do it. Let's do it. I'm going to jump to some of those questions but first let me just say, Wow, this is so great to see. There has been a lot of progress made since we previewed the beta version of this tool a year ago, and just credit to all of you, Aaron, Lori, and Larry the silent partner today. We've had a lot to do with this as well and I mean what you guys have built here is so exciting to see so thank you for the work and thank you for providing something I think all of us can benefit from. I think there have been a lot of really interesting and important questions raised on the chat and a couple of these have been answered. Well, we've had the presentation but I wanted to just pick a couple out to start and I think Mary Lou and Peggy more ready asked questions about the model, and how it does or does not take into account the impact of demolishing the existing building. So, does this model measure the embodied energy that is lost when an existing building is demolished I'll let Aaron you or lawyer or Larry if he wants to chime in answer that. Yeah, I'm going to lawyer Larry take that one. Well, I can start. I, first of all, when we're thinking about this, the embodied carbon that's in a building is already been spent. So you're not, you can't lose it again you've already lost that carbon it was made when you made the building so what you're talking about really is what are the scenarios for avoiding new carbon in the future, whether by remodeling or rent or a new building. So it doesn't really matter what's in the existing building it matters what you're going to do to the building or what you're going to replace it with that's where the new carbon emissions come in. So I think that's the way to think about it. The only thing that makes it relevant is that to upgrade an existing building that's a heavy concrete structure generally takes, especially if it needs some structural work will take a lot more embodied carbon than renovating a light wood frame building. So that's where that's where that comes into play. Generally you're going to see more potential for savings by reusing and avoiding building heavy structures, heavy concrete and steel structures if you can do that. You're getting kind of the, the most bang for your buck, right, there was some other questions about houses that I saw in here like wood frame houses. There's still definitely a benefit, but there's so much less lower in body carbon to begin with that the savings won't generally be quite as great to reuse a house as it is to reuse a steel and concrete office building. The potential is just not there because the replacement building is much lighter so Laura you may want to add to that but that's that's a first pass at that. I don't know if I need to add well I will add I was gonna say I don't need to and I'll just I'll go ahead because there was I think there was a similar another similar question in the chat about demolition impacts and is true and the data, you know one of the issues in making the tool was having a sort of uniform quality and reliability of the back end data given that we had to pull from so many different sources and so at the time we started the tool there wasn't really great data about demolition impacts and I can vary quite wildly depending on you know for example how far the waste has to be transported, you know where you are geographically that kind of thing. So, so we, we, I think it originally was included, and Larry you had made some assumptions about that number and then we pulled it out at some point because we just didn't feel we didn't have as much confidence as that data as we had in the rest of the information the tool, but we recognize that it's important and it's certainly I think something that we're continuing to evaluate as the data as there's more work done to develop. So the takeaway there is that the tool measures and is designed to help us avoid future carbon emissions through reuse and retrofitting. The tool does not attempt to account for the carbon emissions of the demolition process itself but that could be something you would have had. Right. Right. Okay. So, another couple of questions kind of got into the, the issue of how big or how small the example needs to be for this tool to be most useful and so I think someone asked you know can you do this about a window replacement project, for example, not just a not a full building replacement project but pieces and parts of buildings windows or whatever. Is it, does it work there. Is it. I'm going to say yes. I think, you know, if you're, if you're talking about single, you know, small scale interventions like just just refurbishing windows or just replacing the MEP systems, you might not see really dramatic numbers across the different, you know, bars of the chart, but it will be an effective tool to help you estimate the carbon impacts of even those small, even those small projects. So one thing the tool doesn't do yet and we've talked about this a lot and it's really difficult to do is calculating the energy savings from the window replacement. You know, we, we, you make your own estimates and where you think you can get to with a new EOI and estimated EOI through energy upgrades and equipment upgrades, but it doesn't specifically take each upgrade and translate it into operational savings and that that's a pretty complicated thing to do. So you would, you would assume that if you're going for a net zero building and you're not going to insulate the building or add new windows, you probably can't get there. So you actually know some things if you know that you're going to have to do some upgrades to get to a much improved but it doesn't tell you exactly what they are yet because that's just it's too complicated for the tool right now. Something I want to ask you guys to talk a little bit about is the operating emissions. A lot has to do with the kind of equipment that is either in an existing or in a new building and we're hearing more and more about the move toward electrification of building systems, heating, cooling, using heat pumps in particular to allow buildings to go all electric. I guess I'd ask you to perhaps, Aaron, if you could tell us why that's important, that move to electrification and how you built that into the model is electrification part of the default, or is it an option, and then how does that relate to the also the really important transition we're making not at the building scale but at the utility scale towards renewable making our grid renewable. That's a really important context for this so if you could explain. Yeah, I really is and yes, the answer is the tool does account for it does allow options for electrification, and it does allow options for renewable energy I'll just show that again really quickly while I talk about it. So on each the building reuse and the new tab, you can say you're installing all electrics systems and equipment is long form for electrification, and then the amount of renewables as is getting at that other side of it. But to answer your question, Jim, that is critical because I mean, first, kind of from a really obvious perspective if your equipment on in your building is not electric then it is almost necessarily fossil fuel equipment so typically gas at this point. And we all know that gas equipment will always be emitting carbon and GHGs and there is no way to change that, whereas electricity has the potential to be 100% renewable and has potential to be completely to carbonized. So, even if your electric grid isn't currently decarbonized, making sure that your building is ready when the electricity grid is clean or when some sort of either on site solar off site renewables as procured is critical it's a very similar concept to electric vehicles. But the really cool thing about electrification to is that electric equipment is at minimum 300% more efficient than gas equipment and some of the newer heat pumps etc or even I've heard numbers almost as high as 600%. And what that really translates into is that electrification is in and of itself an energy efficiency measure. It will reduce your buildings energy consumption, simply because the equipment is so much more efficient. So, it's really at least from an operational carbon perspective, a no brainer in architecture 2030 is this calling for all new construction to be fully decarbonized today. And, which means of course using all electric equipment, and from a cost perspective certainly for new, new construction to it is at least on par if not cheaper in every part of the country according to Rocky Mountain Institute. And then. Oh, sorry, go ahead. I'm just going to ask if you could put up that. Could you put up the, the visual of the cool and the outputs while we were talking for a second. Yes, absolutely. Um, yeah, so here's here's where that will come into play. And then from a renewable energy perspective, the, the grid is the carbonizing and it will get to zero at some point largely because renewable energy is now the cheapest source of new energy. Um, globally, but the building sector is the single biggest consumer of electricity, both in the country and globally. And so we have a huge opportunity from to be a demand side driver of that decarbonization. So grids will be carbonized because policy will require them to and most electric utilities will drag their feet and do that as slowly as they can. And if the building sector becomes a significantly higher driver of that by either producing our own or bribe or carrying new renewables that require additionality we can kind of force the electricity grid in our utilities decarbonize more quickly. And the other thing to add to that is that the when you click all electric systems or equipment right now you'll see it. It's the output is impacted by what grid, what grid you selected how clean clean. Go back to the first page and change the grid to a cleaner projection or make it that it will change you'll see those numbers change as you do that which is really interesting. That's one of the great things about this is watching how each change you make impacts the results. Most states, most states have a target for when they expect to be you can actually look up the target and they say well California says it's going to be grid neutral by 2035 or whatever it is and put that number in, and it'll change the output, which is really interesting. There's something to maybe just mentioned here if you could keep that graph up there, Aaron that we can see on the right, you know, one thing that strikes I think really clearly here is the do nothing scenario is the one we do not want to select. Doing something is really important and also to your earlier point there as the grid gets cleaner the operational emissions are going to be a smaller and smaller smaller part of the impacts and the embodied carbon emissions are going to become increasingly important. Exactly. And I think that's where the reuse scenario really has some advantages. Maybe one last question and I'm sorry we haven't been able to get to all of them but this might allow you to look forward. One of the participants asked about policy applications here. Have you tested that anywhere and if you have and maybe you can talk about where you think this might go on the in the policy arena because it seems like it could be really powerful there. I think any one of us has a lot of thoughts on that. So we, we have big plans for both care tool expansion in and of itself as well as a bigger kind of reuse program around that we're calling it reuse plus because you have to reuse but you also have to upgrade right into two pieces of the coin. We think there are huge policy implications. Lori could talk about it more from a historic preservation context, but one of our biggest and highest demand goals is to turn or to create care for portfolio so that analysis that Lori showed of the Agnes Scott campus. She did that manually using the care tool but manually, we want to have an option where an entire campus even an entire city can input all of their building information in a spreadsheet and it will output some sort of high level analysis showing what the impact potential is, and the policy implications for that are myriad. And I'm, we have much more details about what our plans are for engaging with both private portfolio owners as well as public sector policy makers and planners, but we can see a potential for including that in climate action plan goals and in carbon accounting and in really, I mean this tool, as far as any of us know is the first tool out there that actually quantifies the reuse potential from a whole carbon perspective. And so you can imagine from a, you know, a city planning perspective, for example, and policymaking perspective, having that actual quantification of the carbon impact of reusing buildings will make a huge difference in long term planning. Thank you. And Lori or Larry any any thoughts from your perspective on that looking forward other with other ways this tool might be applied. Yeah, I mean a few quick ideas that we've heard from others are on the preservation front for example, using care tool to link historic tax credits to to climate goals, you know, for example to demonstrate the carbon avoided for communities for tax credit projects in support of public, you know statewide of the carbonization targets for example. And you know another is thinking about zoning you know where many municipalities for example Boston we have very strict sustainability requirements for, you know review of projects. But they really you know if you're tying down an old building to build a new one it just looks at the new building. It doesn't look at what you've lost already so I think it, it's really the first tool that as Aaron as you mentioned that kind of allows and body carbon and operational carbon to be looked at holistically to really look at again at the holistic impacts what we're doing to the built environment, rather than just talking about how much energy we. Thank you Lori that's a perfect summary of the whole purpose of the tool as we hit the, hit the top of the hour. Well I want to thank all of you. Lori, Larry and Aaron for your work on this and for your presentation today. Thanks to everybody for joining us. I know we didn't get to answer all the questions we're going to do our best to respond to you post webinar here. And if Aaron you can just put up our last slide reminder we've got obviously more webinars coming up and I know we're going to have one on historic tax credits and connections between historic tax credits and sustainability as well as affordable housing coming up at the end of the day so I hope for that one. And here's a summary as well and other webinar coming up on June 21 on caring for gravesite so thanks everybody very much for joining us today. More to come on this very exciting. Thanks everybody please feel free to reach out to any of us if you have questions. Also, I forgot to mention there's a user feedback section on the tool where you can provide both feedback and suggestions and questions and then come directly to the three of us. Excellent. Thanks all.