 Great. Good morning. This is the net zero subcommittee of the Amherst School Building Committee. And we are meeting today with our design team to begin to get into the details. And I will turn it over to Donna, who and or Tim who has a kind of formal schedule of the things we're going to go over today. Oh, Donna, we can't hear you. I was just, thank you. And then Tim, Tim is has worked really hard. So we do apologize for not getting a draft out. We got it out late last night. We were just more information keeps coming in and more developments are occurring. So I think we're posting the presentation. Tim, I think just sent it to Angela. So as hard as we tried to get it out in advance, we apologize. We have some members with us today just want to introduce you to them. Everyone knows Tim and everyone knows Rick. This is Nate Russell from GCA for our ground source heat pumps. He'll be instrumental and the calculations, etc. for the energy that we are able to get out of the wells set up a test well if this is the direction we're going. Alfonso Espinosa, if I said that correct. Correct. Alonso Alonso is our new team member from Thornton Tomasetti. So Alonso is with us. We have another new team member from Thornton Tomasetti, Ali, and she was unable to join us this morning but she was instrumental in the success of the net zero fail school. So we felt that she would be a huge contributor to the entire process but she was unable to make it this morning. Everyone knows Simone, our mechanical engineer. So with that, Tim, who has worked so hard on this, thanks Tim. Thanks for the introduction. So, hey, Donna, do we need to introduce the committee members to your new team members. Sure, go thank you Margaret. Margaret is Margaret Wood from Ansler who's the OPM. And then Jonathan. More importantly. Yes, I'm the chair of the subcommittee but I'm a member of the larger committee. And, and he is a local architect with Coon Riddle which just to put reference to his purpose for his volunteerism. And we have Ben Harrington, who is a school committee member, a building committee member, as well as works in the facilities department for Amherst public schools and Rupert Roy Park, who is also in the building committee but the director of facilities so these gentlemen have to be 100% comfortable with whatever solution we have so that we can maintain and operate it. And then I think this must be Shelly Potter, who's, who's Margaret Wood, alias Margaret Wood. Don't forget Kathy. I just assume everyone knows Kathy. You're just such a fixture at every one of these meetings, I am so sorry. Jane, who is the chair of the school building committee who is also a town counselor who is also the chair of the finance committee who vice vice chair. Who, who this all of all of this truly couldn't happen if if she hasn't it without Kathy so for that. Is that we good. Tim, let's get into the fun stuff. Yeah, let's, let's, let's start going. Just before I share my screen. In general, what we're going to do is talk about the schedule for this aspect of SD, and when we want to reach a decision on air source first ground source and then some will talk about a qualitative comparison between the two systems along those here to talk about the process and the mechanics of the modeling and the tools that we use to analyze the different systems and how they work with the building and then something is here to answer any questions that we have and a brief discussion about the mechanics of the geothermal wells that will be part of a ground source system, if that is selected. I'm going to share my screen. And the first thing is schedule. So these are just a few of the things of all the balls that are going to be in the air for SD but for this conversation. We're going to narrow it down to a few specific tasks. And you'll notice that we have this discussion throughout July, we're not going to be asking for a recommendation at this meeting. This description of four weeks takes all of the time that it would be comfortable to allow everyone to do their work. And of course, it's important Lisa Moon in the mechanical design of the building that would allow us to get to a quality design that will give us a good cost estimate and allows to submit a good package at the end of SD this the line below that decision is the amount of time that we will have to perform a test well that would give us real data better than the estimates that we have for how well the wells on site perform and allow for a much tighter design. And then below that is the time that someone would take to design a mechanical systems at an SD level, which brings us to when we would have to give the documents to our cost estimator at the beginning of November. And that would be for estimation and reconciliation, which would then allow a few weeks before any decisions, including the or other options that have to be decided on before a final vote of the submission to the MSBA. We have it scheduled for mid December. It would probably be very early in 2023 but those states have not yet been determined by the MSBA. So we are scheduling this out as the best we can. And then we should probably know that this is kind of, this is generally paralleling the schedule for the balance of the design as well, you know, these target end dates are the same target end dates for for the rest of the schematic design. So to decide what is shown here there are many other things including room data sheets, what the building will look like plan of the building and all of those will be concurrently happening with this effort in the background. So I just I think I just everyone seeing that the test well. You can see the duration of the test well and Nate's here to talk a little bit more about that but there are very few companies that we feel comfortable with doing the test well. And I believe they're about eight weeks out. There's also a process that we have to go through we do have to go to the Board of Health, in order to get their permission to actually drill it. Once they drill it, and we get the data that we need then, then there'll be some back and forth and we can talk about, you know, quantity do we go a little like we go a little heavy whatever so so there's conversation that would occur so you can see backing up to MSBA's vote. I hope everyone is comfortable with decision of ground source versus air source with this group and then we have to bring it to the building committee. Just just on on both that July period and then the test well period you said you have to go to the Board of Health. The Conservation Commission with wetlands and issues does it get involved at all around a well. I know it does more generally with the bill. So I'm just asking the interaction with the well and then my other question on the test well is. I don't think this is an issue but when you're doing a test well and you go deep are you doing soil samples also to it at all are you doing them at all and is the plan if we go to ground source that we would reuse that soil as part of the building up the ground to testing of the soil. When you go deeper those two questions for any contaminants or other concerns yeah. There are multiple parts of that question and I'm going to make handle some of them but one that I can speak to is that the amount of soil displaced is not that much and it won't be used for other purposes and also there will be other things going on inside that's not shown on the schedule, including test fits and geotechnical borings that and other sampling that will be in addition to that and then maybe Nate if you just want to speak to the depth and a few other technical aspects of the drilling. Yeah, Kathy can understand. Sure. So the, the drilling for a test well is a little different than a traditional geotechnical borings. It's usually a rotary hammer or air hammer equipment to it's kind of akin to drilling a water well so if you've seen a ground water supply well go in it's it's very similar equipment. The cuttings that come out are wet and not really something that we would use on site. We don't really have an opportunity to sample just because of the nature of the drilling it's not representative they were circulating water and mud at times. So, generally, what we are doing during the drilling is just observing potential changes in color and sort of drilling action to get idea of stratification if we can, but not from a traditional soil sampling standpoint. The purview of the concom so we don't know exactly where the well is going to be at this point, but assuming it's, if it's outside their jurisdiction limits then obviously there's no, no issue there. But even when you're inside a regulatory area for investigations so traditionally geotechnical borings test pits things like that. Often a test well is considered similar to that is exempt from requiring to file for an RDA or notice of intent, as long as we're not impacting the wetland itself. So if we're just in the buffer zone, you know, either in the buffer to a bbw or in the front area if there is that on the site. That's fine we can do that work as part of exploration. I think, I think, you know, now we want to get going on the and rad, the wetland flagging we. So, so this will be, you know, we've already had hopefully by the time we start drilling, and we have identified the location of it. Certainly, we would have been before conservation commission to make sure that they don't have any concerns with it. My race it is Tim said health department so I was just looking at which to two entities would be looking at this that's you answered it thank you. Yeah, the health department specifically requires a permit for geothermal wells. Okay. And just to before you dive further into it Tim. You know, I would like it if we can maybe do the presentation about an hour so that we can then pause for some public comments and then, and then get comment also from from the committee is that sound reasonable I'm not sure how much time you've had a lot in your head to the presentation. I think that's totally reasonable I mean I anticipated that we would get through our presentation maybe a little bit less than that and then there would be a robust conversation if you will. So that actually, I'm going to turn it over to some moon for a little bit of a qualitative discussion of the difference between the various aspects of a building that is he cooled with a air source system versus ground source system. Hi. Could you hear me. Okay, good. Okay, first item is that I categorize general area is that is the system all electric as per bylaw Amherst by law and both qualifies as yes energy source for ground source is of course ground and it has a steady 55 degrees around which is very important for steady performance and efficiency. While air saucy pump system air varies from zero to 95 degrees. So it's efficiency greatly depends on outside conditions. First cost, the ground source is higher and air source is lower operating causes, lower for the ground source UI of 25 is possible which allows I will go in deeper later on, and air source has higher operating costs system longevity is, it's a geothermal system is a ground source is pretty much proven so it goes 20 to 30 years and air source he pump is shorter is net zero possible ground source is yes. Air source is yes, but with more photovoltaic arm because it's less efficient maintenance for ground sources same as the any central plant. Air source is higher because it has more lighter duty components and outdoor equipment so you have to service that if you have to service during the winter time is a little tougher and it must be kept free of snow. Outdoor units geothermal units wells are all on the ground so nothing visible is around and there is no items to be maintained outdoors. Air source he pump is modular units about 22 capacity, and most likely be located on the roof. So you will reduce the opportunity for photovoltaics on the noise level for outdoor level. There is no outdoor noise source. Air source he pump, you will have was that a noise source on the roof, which, and I don't think there is enough residents nearby so that's not going to be a concern. Indoor plant. Ground source is a modular work water heat pump units and air source he pump has none that needs to allocate additional space except distribution boxes. Indoor units. Units in classroom spaces. Ground source he pump, we will be utilizing should most likely chill beans or ducted thankful units. Air source will be ducted thankful units that's a refrigerant based units in other spaces. Ground source is ducted thankful units and same for the VIP system units in larger space they're both same handling units and energy distribution which is pretty important is the ground source is just full pipe water piping versus air source he pump is all refrigerant piping. Noise level in ground source is quiet to extremely quiet extremely quiet being the children system and air source he pump is also quiet well within the lead requirements. Fresh air. Central units. You are you on the roof. It will allow a dual core regenerative and same thing to the unit the other unit. We go a little low attempt. Other consideration heat recovery ground source part of the reason why is it efficient is that it's a real central system that covers entire building so if you have a heat recovery option in one part of the building it affects the entire building which is pretty nice. Where air source he pump system comes in 2010 modules so heat recovery is only possible in within that area covered by 20. Domestic hot water preheating from any time you have cooling requirements in the building you have a rejected heat and you could use that to generate pre cool preheat the domestic water and air saucy pump system you have dedicated unit for pre heat. Lead enhanced refrigerant management possible easily with ground source air source you cannot cause you got large amount of refrigerant in the building. Merve 13 filters in space. You cannot do with children but yes with the bank or units and elements. Yes with limitation in that they do give you Merve 13 filters but they don't last that long. Merve 13 filters here are you yes for both UV lights and in the flat time coming is not recommended in both cases because it's got exposed insulation which degrades with the presence of the BC light. UV lights and here are you yes maintenance staff for grounds also be just standard maintenance staff or repair technicians where air PRS system we have to have a different. Emergence heating because. By load does not permit use of gas or anything but generator will require fairly large generator size for at least half the capacity. That's it. Okay. Thank you smooth. Actually we're going to move to Alonzo now to just a little bit background on the process of how the energy modeling works in the software that's used. Thank you. And I hope everybody can hear me. So, I am one of the leaders with the team and a new member of the team. I wanted to introduce you or walk you through a little bit of our energy model process hoping that it will make it more transparent basically for all of you. So, we have basically three steps. And it ultimately ends up in what in a program a software called energy plus energy plus is ultimately the, the, the actual modeling software. Before we go to energy plus the first thing that we do is we create a geometry in a software called right now 3D that you know I'm pretty sure a lot of architects are very familiar with it because it's it's generally used to model architecture, architecture plans as well. But we use it to generate basically the geometry of the energy model. And then we incorporate that energy model into a grasshopper script grasshopper is a plugin for right now 3D. And it allows and it allows us basically to assign to each one of the zones, the equipment power, the life power, the occupants, the schedules that we're using the HVAC system terminal unit that is that is serving it, and so on and then out of out of that script. We generate basically really an open studio file so open studio is is a visual basically a visual interface for energy plus. So we generate that open studio and then we can actually modify some other additional additional things in open studio. For example, we're able to, to ask for certain inputs we're able to ask for certain outputs of the energy model. And then we run it through open studio but what open studio is doing in the background is basically creating this energy plus model energy plus often really how to use their interface. It's literally just a, a command window that pops up on your screen and if you just see a lot of text, but that's why you need open studio to basically visualize that. Are you setting their face for that one? Both open studio and energy plus are actually part of the US Department of Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office. They, they, it was developed first by DOE and, and it's been considered since then basically the gold standard in energy modeling. It's probably of the many softwares that even we use a TT it's probably the most powerful one and the most flexible one. I think we go to the next, the next slide. So, as I mentioned, one of the first steps that we do is we create that, that geometry and that in creating that geometry we're basically generating different zones. I'm sorry, was there, was there a question? Okay, but please do stop me if there's any questions. So we're creating different zones and in those zones, we are basically assigning a space, what we call a space site in energy modeling. So I'll give you an example of some zones that we have in this energy model. We have a dream, a classroom, admin offices, maintenance, kitchen, the cafeteria, what we call media, which is related to, which is really like the library. So these, these are all different zones that are incorporated in the energy model and each one of those will have, as I mentioned, different uses, different equipment, different like that are appropriate for each one of those spaces. Of course, we, we want to divide this in zones that will represent the different uses that we have, and that, you know, for their different uses require us to have them with different inputs. The zoning in the energy model is actually done following general ASHRAE, what it's called the ASHRAE standard 209 2018. So this is, this is the way ASHRAE basically standardizes how we're supposed to do energy models for different stages of the site. So ASHRAE will give you guidelines for, you know, during SB or during CONSTEP or during DB. These are the things that your energy model should be following to be able to comply with this ASHRAE standard. So the next step is basically to each one of, to the energy model, we're going to basically add our inputs. So here are the overall assumptions that we have for this particular building and I'm pretty sure you can read them, but basically we assign a window to wall ratio to the building. We assign the thermal properties to the different materials, to the fenestration, to the roof, to the walls, to the exposed floors, if we have any, to this lab and grade if we have any. And then the internal loads come from previous projects that we've done. The internal loads will include all the, are coming from basically the code and they also follow ASHRAE 62.1. Also airflow rates are coming from their, outdoor air flow rates are coming from the same folks and ASHRAE 62.1. Then we incorporate a schedule. So we're on her public school and for each one of those zones, we're basically adding, you know, what's the school year, hours of use is, what the summer hours of use is for that one. You know, the times that you see here are basically the ones that are incorporated in the energy model. Then we then we add the HVAC options. The air source basically heat pump has that is that first column and then the columns of red shows the ground source heat pump for each one. Just just to make a clarification about this, this particular energy model is hourly. We do 8,760 hours of the year at each hour. We look at what the conditions are in the air and the ground. And then we base with that with those temperatures, we're able to calculate what the coefficient of performance basically what the efficiency of each system will be. So at every hour, we're looking at what is the occupancy, what is the temperature outside, what is the solar radiation, and then what is the efficiency of the system. So that's how we estimate the energy use. So here are basically the results from that comparison. The bar shows the energy use intensity, which is just the energy that the building will be consuming in the year divided by the square footage of the building. The air source heat pump, we found it to be around 31.5 in EUI and the ground source heat pump, as was mentioned before, because the ground has a stable temperature, its EUI is able to be lower. And so the EUI of the ground source heat pump is 24.9 below the 25 limit that we have. And below that in a darker blue, you see the number of the PV capacity DC kilowatts basically in the units of DC kilowatts that will be required for the net zero goal. So as you can imagine, you need a lower capacity for the ground source heat pump as it is more efficient. And 72 kilowatts for the air source heat pump is the option and 770 kilowatts for the ground source heat pump. And on the right, you'll see basically all the all the assumptions that we've used with these software PV watts. And again, the Department of Energy uses for this. Yeah, I just want I just want to point out that these are very preliminary assumptions. This was all made before we've even built the built designed a building so so the I just I just want everyone to know that now that we have a site now that we have the layout of the building we know it's going to be a three story. We will be refining all of these. We will be doing another a true energy model. Now that we have a building we just gave a square footage before. And I want so I think you just took portions of the building to make certain general assumptions but now that we know the direction of the project at design will have an updated energy model as well we will do it at DD and also at CD so we will be checking it as the design is refined and more information is in there so this is still an apples to apples comparison. I so so there's no question whether air source and ground source they're being measured at this with the same assumptions. And just just for clarity, when you know the data that that's in the presentation today is really the same for when we're talking about the energy models the same data that we looked at some time ago, when we were looking at the same assumptions and it actually just said it's kind of a. I'm going to call it neutral in the sense that it could have applied to any of them. Just for the folks that are listening in and for them to understand the process, at which point in the schematic design will the will the the energy model get sort of rerun. Do you have a sense of that yet. Typically, Alonso. I think it takes a few weeks to run the energy model. So we want to make sure that we have the, this, this would be done after a ground source or air sources selected right and and once we have more information so I hate to say it the later time during schematic design is preferred so that we have as much information as possible. Yeah, I wasn't necessarily pushing to do it earlier. Because in my head I'm thinking of all the things that that really want to have a chance to explore and update like actually doing a schematic elevation all the way around the building so that you can see that. The south is really 21% blazing and then right is only 15% blazing deep to be able to have that additional subtlety and refinement. And, and honestly, more accuracy. I also see that that Shelley's got a hand up. So, I just wanted to ask like, it seems like you run the energy model in both cases using the same building envelope parameters. And I'm just wondering what studies maybe you have done or you plan to do to dial in the building envelope itself, relative to the organization and particularly, you know, is this decision between air source and ground sources going to be made this month has has work been done to see what the differences between, say a more aggressive building envelope with air source heat pump versus what maybe you have already for ground source heat pump but just curious about about the strategy there. And I can answer into an extent that those studies that have been in terms of studies of the envelope and more aggressive strategies towards controlling light thermal efficiency, they will continue throughout SD but they have not been done in the context of comparing air source to ground source. But that's a good segue into the next couple of slides because we're talking about has currently been shown in terms of energy use, but updated with the cost estimates that we've gotten at PSR. And then there's also some additional information that we're receiving about incentives and all of that plays into the two options, one of which is, I won't say comfortably but within the 25 EUI range, and the other one is not so those more aggressive studies are going to, you know, be utilized to bring the air source, EUI down potentially, if that route is chosen, and then maybe not to 25 but there are paths for incentives that are above 25. Shelly to answer your question. When we start doing the energy modeling Alonso and his team and us, I mean, and you whoever right. We'll sit there and say okay well what if we insulate more. What what is that what are we going to gain from that so so what's the cost benefit analysis so if we add insulation it's going to cost acts and we're only going to save. What is that does that make sense so all of that will occur as we start getting. I'll say getting into the weeds of the energy we will test all of the various components that may make the building more energy efficient. Yeah, no doubt that that will that will happen I'm more more leaning just kind of asking the question around supporting this decision between air source and ground source, just to make sure that the optimization of each of those systems. So I think that's a good point to the building envelope is also considered and I know it's difficult to do that but maybe this test areas, you know, isolating certain areas to do a quick comparison, just to see, I'm, I suspect the ground source is going to be the winner in terms of life cycle cost analysis. That said, for the sake of, you know the committee, knowing and being able to present that back to the public and say yes, you know, we, we tested this thoroughly and that is the case. It's more surrounding that really where I'm, where I'm asking. And maybe others understand your question differently but I think what you're suggesting or asking is, if we modify the model so that perhaps air source has more has more insulation or less glazing or something that might bring the EUI down, however, the cost may go up but it might not go up incrementally to the to the first cost of a ground source is that exactly that's exactly what I'm saying. Yes. Okay. We can, we can talk and again, I think, because we are just starting the design, it would be appropriate I think what is what you said to use the information that we have on this like that the sample space. I think that would be sufficient. I think that would be sufficient to make this decision just to make sure that you know all the eyes have been dotted these have been crossed. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. Happy. Did you have your hand up. I was going to restate Shelly's question but you did it, Donna, I think she was asking what you just said that if we were more aggressive on the envelope. A, the air source would become more efficient, but we would be spending more on the envelope if we did that so that is instead of Apple to Apple it was an apple to an orange, you know something a little bit different for air source is what the question was. So, I think that will help I mean these numbers are quite a bit higher than what we saw in March for these systems. So, so I was, that was all I was going to do. Yes, yep, yep, yep. Well, we'll certainly take a look at that. And I'm sorry I didn't want to interrupt the the answers this team and Donna for providing. I just wanted to confirm that it takes like a week or two to update the energy model just like Donna mentioned. So that's the reason why, you know, we would like to wait until we have, you know, as much as we as we kind of the design to incorporate into the energy model. And also, as Donna mentioned, this sort of like instead of Apple to Apple maybe Apple to orange comparisons is also, it's also possible and now that we updated the energy model. And if we decided later as well, that's a comparison that we can do. Usually now that we have this. Tim, did you want to tackle this slide this point. Yeah, as Kathy said the costs have gone up considerably. A lot of it was just the state of the world right now. And a little bit more detail in the cost estimates, but this is the basis for the slide that you will see next that shows the life cycle costs of the various system. The. Yeah, I'm sorry I just want to mention that these costs were included in the PSR cost estimate. These are not, I mean, these are not incremental to the cost estimates for the entire building that we just showed or shared with the committee. That is correct. These are the numbers from the cost estimate for the PSR. So, you have seen these but these are in the format that they were last presented to the net zero committee as a refresher. And they're different numbers from that time but those were much earlier numbers. And so here is lifetime costs of the various systems and actually Alonzo, if you could just speak to the methodology a bit. Absolutely. So we basically ran an LCCA analysis, we received as an invention we have updated initial costs, which we input into into our analysis we have the basically that initial capital cost for HVAC. That includes not only the HVAC but including the case of the ground source heat pump the wealth as well. Of course the ground source heat pump that's why it generally comes out higher than your source heat pump at the beginning, and then you see different steps throughout the, the, the, the life of the systems. And we, we've highlighted that they're basically the assumptions of when we think there would be a replacement and what percentage of the capital cost. It would be four years. Basically 16 21 31 21 for our source heat pump and ground source heat pump respectively. We're also taking into consideration a PV replacement at year 26. We have included the massive incentives as well. And then the utility costs and the maintenance costs are considered neutral. And part of that is related to the fact that the PV would basically get give us the exact same annual utility costs for them. And so at the end of the, of the, of the life cycle analysis that, that in this case extended all the way to 50 years. The ground source pump and there are 30.3 million and your source heat from a 29.2 million under this assumption. And then. Sorry. When you're doing the replacement, just so I understand it for the PV, it's just the panel. So we're not having to pay for canopies again, correct. That is correct. And then for the ground source, the chill beam stays. Do you ever have to go back stuff inside the walls as I understand it, or the pumps or the wells, you know, as I'm taking apart what what the parts of the ground source are. So, so the chill beam are the units in the classrooms and those do have a replacement life. The wells, which are outside in the ground. They do. They are for the foreseeable life of the building. One life cycle cost item they do not need to be replaced there's a year warranty typically on the loop in the well and the casing itself. There are various other fittings and devices within the building. There is a replacement life. Thank you. This is just some detail for the utility incentives that were single line items to slides before that showed a slightly higher incentive for ground source first air source. This doesn't show that there's also an incentive path for 26 to 29 UI that if air sources selected maybe the building targets to get to that 29 to achieve some but reduced incentives. Another thing that we should mention that in the near future and it's currently under review by ever source and mass save. The ground source heat pump at or shown as $600 ton is scheduled to be increased significantly. We don't have an exact number, but the high end of the numbers we've heard would put the total incentive package at about 80% of the difference of the capital cost between air source and ground source so that information and days and it will likely be something significant that the committee will want to consider when making this choice group or you have your hand up. Yeah, thank you I was hoping that you could clarify which incentives are and are not included in the comparative pricing we've seen so far but it sounds like it's going to be updated shortly anyway. Yeah, updated shortly but I can tell you that for ground source, it includes everything seen here so it's $2 for construction and $1 50 post occupancy net $600 a ton which I believe it's $270 a ton for the system. And then for air source, it's not shown on this but there's a reduced construction incentive of $1 50 per square foot and the VRF at or so that works out to be about 100,000 less and incentives, but you know the ground source heat pump at or as it's called here, potentially could go up to significantly. And we don't have any sense of when they were going to publish this new standard and it will it be something will be able to consider as part of our decision making or is it's going to it's going to come to downstream for us to kind of wait around on the decisions. I spoke to someone from ever source yesterday and they said mid week, meaning this week. So, that now I'd. Go ahead spoiler alert spoiler alert just just it's significant like we can't divulge everything. Yeah, it's not hundreds of thousands. It's significant and we just, this is a verbal. And so we don't want to overstate anything, but this is a huge incentive for two things one is to get the site EUI I think they call it 24.9. So not 25 or less I think they're saying it needs to be 24.9 so it would be in our best interest and we're going to have to talk about strategies how to get to 24.9 but that's getting to 24.9. And the verbal that we receive Tim it it almost almost it doesn't completely it's slightly more out of pocket to the town of it. Yeah, I mean, if you take the high end of what they said it could be it would be of the of the 1.9 to difference between the air source and ground source incentives would cover 1.7. So that's, it's significant. But we've also heard that since the incentives will be so large. And they're essentially going to be reviewed on a case by case basis. So we can't definitively say anything but there's a good chance that the incentives will go up enough that will alter the calculus of the decision. And then I think the only other point that they made is no gas. And we all are aware of that but what that means is for an emergency generator we would have to look at alternative fuel sources. So diesel whatever but but again. The generator for diesel is huge but but comparison speaking and that that might speak more to the town's bylaw about staying off of gas but that that's one little other kind of caveat to it. I see two hands up. Kathy, I think you're first. Yeah, I just, you know, I'm kind of repeating Rupert's question a little bit, but these incentives. You, Tim, you know how many tons we have of GSHP so what does the two of us per square foot and what does this ton of translate to. And I'm asking that more not necessarily you do this right now but when we find out a week from now what these numbers go to. If you could translate it for us into, because what I'm remembering is whenever source first told us this it was in the $500,000 range for ground source. So it was much more than those little tiny incentives you showed us in March or smaller incentives. And then the other thing I think it requires that. And this I was just in an ever source briefing when they did this so for others know it but it requires the town to early on enter a memorandum of understanding so it's the town of Amherst doing this it's the designer so that we get these payments and it says the end of construction says that mean when the building is finished so I just have a trying to understand when do we, if we do this when do we get the money. And so, are we getting the money in 2026, as opposed to when we bond it. And those are just these are a series of questions relating to us, thinking about the financing of it. Yeah. And like an answer partially. The construction incentive and the adders are paid out during construction and then it says payable at the end of the occupancy and verification is the other half but it's probably a two thirds construction one third breakdown but we can do the math. Okay. Thank you. Rupert. Rupert. Okay, I got the unmute final work. I think you may have answered my question on all of these incentives, are they based on simply on modeling, or are they subject to measurement verification and what's at risk if we don't meet the measurement verification. It's both some of it is modeling, but you don't get the second half. The 150 is based on verification and you do not get that incentive until proven performance. But there are some incentives for intent. And that's all spelled out in the memorandum that will have to be signed with the utility in the town. And just to wrap up is also right. So we just, we are going to have to be as competent and be prepared for alternatives. Should the usage change or some of the parameters get modified so this is going to be an ongoing conversation like thanks for signing up guys but your job's not done. We're going to take a solution because there are going to be lots of conversations that we're going to need to have to make sure that we have that thought for us. Yeah, so this slide just shows the UI for the two options and the energy use for the various options. As you can see, air source is 31.5 just outside of that. The incentive range for air source are not the big numbers that we were just talking about. So doing what is required to maybe bring that down is will probably be as tough decision if we go that route to get to Shelly's question. And then one more bit of information on here is the carbon emissions between the two options. In addition to money and bicycle costs there is a carbon difference in and the use of the buildings for the two options. Good question on the, the kilowatt hour annual. I think you have what we currently use in Wildwood and Fort River. We got that in a full year of kilowatt hours at some point when we're putting this together for the broader public. I would like to be able to show what this, what this building all electric building would use compared to the two buildings that are not all electric now Tim, and you have that information already correct. We do not have that information we do not have it in this presentation what we do have in this presentation is the cost, but that's a manipulation of that data, and you're also getting a great reduction because you're producing energy on site, which this side essentially has been seen before, but with with the electricity going away, or at least being produced on site and gas and oil, you're looking at significant savings in operating costs in terms of fuel and utility moving down the line from the Ranger. There it is on the screen. In this case the natural gas was probably assuming that we were doing a natural gas generator. That's, Fort River has natural. The first column is the actual well the actuals f by 23. Yeah. Yeah, and then that column shows the heating with the fuel oil for one one. And there, if we do end up with gas generator on Fort River there will be some costs associated but obviously it will not be $36,000. So that is actually the presentation that we have if we want to open it up for questions and discussion. And besides that are here you have seen already. And the only thing I wanted to point out on this proposed site plan is where we preliminarily just identified the well field. We've already started having conversations. You know there's, I don't know if people are going to get into the weeds if not today, maybe later, working with Nate and Bruce from GCA we're talking about bringing it closer to the building going down so that we're not in the wetter part of the site so this is all very preliminary as it relates to ground source. Shelly had her hand up. Yeah I just want to ask about refrigerants regulations are changing I'm curious to hear what your perspective is on just the risk analysis of using a system with refrigerances. Related to regulation changes rate also related to just environmental impacts. It's that maybe something that the committee would want to take into consideration as well. Yes, we've had community members ask questions related as well. It's reflected in the lead certification process that's why they had an item that says enhance refrigerant management credit, which really basically reflects to amount of refrigerant in the building. And when it comes to regulation changes, manufacturers will probably have to reflect that so if it changes in, let's say five years, it's something that I cannot really anticipate. When it comes to probably five years ago we used to have a lot more concern about refrigerant leaks, because back then all the connects a lot of the connection used to be mechanical connections switch locks, and they had a lot of issues with that but since then we've been requiring all the connections to be raised so we haven't had any issues with that. Probably another thing that's potentially is that for large refrigerant plants, there is a refrigerant detection requirements and this purge system requirement in case of the leakage, but because each VRF system components are just below the threshold that requirements, they skate by that but I think they may be catching up to that reason. Simone, am I correct to assume that there would be some refrigerant use in both systems or is it really just refrigerants in the air source? In geothermal system, all the refrigerants was isolated to mechanical growth, which will have a refrigerant leak detection system and purge system in case there is a leakage. In the case of air source heat pump system or VRF system, all refrigerant pipes are all over the building and I mean literally all of the buildings. It will be throughout the building and there will not be any leak detection system. So I'm going to ask if, you know, committee members have questions first and then then open it up to the public and I see Rupert Tant. Thank you. A question on the ground source heat pump versus the air source system with the maximum 20 ton systems and VRF it sounds like we'll have a fair bit of redundancy if one system goes down the whole building will freeze. So I'm imagining for the ground source, there's only really one compressor unit and when it goes down, it's down. Is my perception correct there? No, fortunately it's not correct. It's a central plant, but it's a modular system also. So you will have most likely four modules of 80 ton units. So one of them goes down, which each one actually has two compressors. So you do have a redundancy. Each of the pump will be duplexy of a backup system and there's a lot of redundancies. If you look at VRF system, it is modular, but each zone covered by 20 ton does not have backup. So that if that goes down, area covered by 20 ton will not have any backup. You just have to keep the doors open so that area doesn't freeze. Kathy. Yeah, this is someone who went to a lecture that I missed on ground source. I'm not talking about that. If you're in New England, and you're not operating the building a lot in the summer, let me hope I get this right so you're not putting the heat back into the ground. Is there any deterioration over time as we're taking heat out if we're not replacing it and I saw that you. We've up the hours of summertime use for some of the primary areas of the building. So it's just a question of, is there anything specific to a climate where we don't necessarily need a lot of air conditioning in the first part of June, which is this an elementary school or September. So that was my question on year round versus seasonal. Okay. First of all, all new buildings. I mean, all new school buildings is a cooling dominant. That is, you need a lot more energy to cool than heat. So, it offsets the number of hours that will be operating and cooling and the well designed, they could, was it a back me up on this one, but it reflects that was the balance between heating and cooling any seasonal storage effects. The energy modeling to take into effect or into account, you know, the duration of heating versus cooling the demands. And so with with ground source systems, you know, either designing for a peak demand or an annualized energy demand. The annualized energy demand if you can design for that is more efficient in terms of the number of wells in the size of the system. If you design just for peak capacity went up with a much larger system so that's where Alonzo and his team come in and helping to sort of optimize the size of the well field based on the design load case that you're given. But that's an important point to that the load case really matters written systems to operate efficiently. The biggest issues is actually in our experience lately is when you underpredict the air conditioning, the cooling requirements, because what sometimes happens is when you build a brand new building, and now you've got wonderful new space it's air conditioned. People want to use it right so that the actual demand. It wasn't there before to use the building goes up and sometimes it's not the whole building might just be you know an auditorium or the gymnasium or something like that now the summer programs, everyone's looking to use that space, because it's comfortable. So, that can actually become a more of an issue if you heat soak the, the formation and lose your capacity for cooling. That can be a bigger issue sometimes as well. I guess that just goes back to establishing the correct parameters of usage of the building and it's, I, you know, if you build that they will come right so it, we really are going to have to create some strategies to put in place to make sure that we have all of these, you know, trial cards right are in place. So that we do hit the, the minimum EUI as as possible. And I think usage is is the one thing that we can't necessarily control like people even get into the weeds on plug loads. So what are we going to tell staff you can't, you can't use plugs don't don't turn on the laptops don't charge the laptops like so. So, these conversations truly, we're going to have to get in the weeds on here because we're making certain assumptions and now we're going to have to back them. Thank you. I want to go back to one of the, I think principle differences inside the building between the ground source and the, and the air source models which is the existence and use of chill beans versus then coils. And in particular, I think we talked about this a little bit before Simone but I'm, I'd like you to refresh me on what happens with filtering out particles and contaminants. In an indoor space where you just have a chill beam, you end up needing some side stream filtration system in order to do that whereas with a fan coil do you have some degree of recirculation where you're getting a chance to filter out articles etc. Roughly one third of the air circulating in the classroom is from the primary system, which is well, well filtered and it's 100% outside air and two thirds is from the induction. So, that portion will not be filtered versus if you use fan coil unit you will have, you could have filter in there. There's a pros and cons in two type of system, chill beam system, you don't have ductwork is extremely quiet, and based on my observation, if the space is really dirty because of what's it, it does not have a filter. So, if I go visit the schools after two or three years of operational issue be chill beam coil should take with the dust but I haven't seen that yet. And chill beam of course has almost no maintenance requirement, while you have a bank on units all over the place that you will have. And currently, bank on units, while it's probably more flexible in design. The quality of financial units still hasn't improved. It became commodity products starting from about 30 years ago. So, acoustically we have tough time also predicting it, whatever the publication says is much loves of loud and activity, actual and it also has exposed five glass lining which deteriorates after about 10 15 years. So, those are the things we could think about probably before we start an SD. If I can follow up on that. You'd mentioned the, the fan coil units have filters but they need more frequent changing than your typical air handler. Do you have a sense of, is that like monthly or four times a year or me right now we're changing them, I think three times a year and most of our schools. Three times a year is usually pretty good because if you have a handling unit that takes care of a most of the pollen loads during the spring, it should be okay. What I was referring to is that sometimes people say, thank you units could, they make a more 13 filters for thankful units. And when I talked to a good friend who's a filter sales rep, he sort of chuckled. We give whatever people want, but most of efficiency comes from static electricity charge. So, it meets initially but it says after a few days, it's down to a mere 11. People need to be aware of that. Thank you. Other questions before we open it up to the community members. So Kathy, I can't see who may be waiting. I'm going to bring the first person in. I'm bringing Bruce in and Bruce you are with us on the screen, if you unmute. Okay, am I around. Yes, you are. I had a couple of questions. The first had to do with the loading balance that Kathy asked. And I was very interested in the answers that was very reassuring. I guess I will be looking at the energy model closely to verify that that's the case that the load imbalance does not exist and to the extent that Nate mentions that the load imbalance could actually be more cooling than heating. I'm thinking that in order to maintain the load balance because we were concerned that the COP assumptions which are favorable for ground sourced heat pumps could diminish if we got that wrong and some of the benefits that we were looking for would be a lot of pressure and that was a sleeper that we didn't want to happen. So a number of us will be paying attention to that. I mean, of course you are as well but nice to be interested in Rudy and I have been talking about this off and on for a while now. So that was all very reassuring. It's still perplexing me. And if you would go back if you could to the slide where you're comparing EWI and PV comparison that's the heading EWI and PV comparison. And I'm sorry to ask this but this will help me make this question which I've already asked before about four or five months ago. There we are. I want to make sure that I understand correctly and therefore everyone else does that when you look at this diagram you think oh yes the heat pump load, the air sourced heat pump load is a little bit more than the load of the ground sourced heat pumps. The ground sourced heat pumps are efficient and more efficient or more effective and if you look at this diagram you think that's about you know it's it's about 20% or so more efficient. But these EUIs are not heating and cooling system EUIs. They're whole building EUIs. So the top 20% of that 24.9 column which is ground sourced heat pump. The top 20% of that is or maybe the top 20% of that is the load that's attributable to the ground sourced heat pump. And if you go horizontally across, now you see that the if I understand it correctly, that the demand, the energy demand, the EUI fraction of the total demand for air sourced heat pumps is over twice. What it is for a ground sourced heat pump. Now that doesn't seem possible for me because that says that you are assuming that the coefficient of performance system coefficient of performance for an air source system is twice. The ground sourced heat pump system is twice as efficient or effective. The COP of six, let's say, as opposed to a COP of three or less for an air source heat pump. And I've never seen that. And it doesn't seem possible. It just seems wrong. I asked this question about this diagram four months ago and really didn't receive a satisfactory answer. And I'm hoping that this is, as Donna said, something that will be will change. But it really is a conference and it's rattler for me because this says, these folks are making just totally unrealistic and unreliable and wrong assumptions about the coefficient of performance for these systems. And so when I look at this I say, well, what else is not right about this. So this is really a rattler for me. And I guess I just want to be sure that first of all I'm understanding this correct and I thought about this a lot and looked at this repeatedly and it doesn't seem as though I'm wrong. So why is it that there are assumptions is so wildly separate for coefficient of performance for these two systems. It doesn't seem possible. I've got a few other questions but I can put those into email generally speaking I think this was a very helpful session and this is particularly the incentive information which is yet to come but it, it all seems to be hitting in the right direction. And this is just this outlying rattling illogicality that doesn't I can't understand. Yeah, absolutely and I'll try to respond to that to that question. So, in general, when we look at the coefficient of performance of the of the two systems. We start with something around what what you mentioned so so about 2.2 point eight or something like that for the for the source heat pump and when we look at the ground source heat pump is the around 4.4 and 4.1 4.2 something like that. So that accounts for for a little bit of the difference in average right ultimately the energy model would look at each hour and it will it would find that in general the ground source heat pump is more efficient just because the temperature of the of the condenser fluid is is constant is more constant throughout the year. And with their source heat pump. There's a there's a second added element to it and it is that we're able to share more load in the ground source heat pump than in the air source heat pump for the domestic hot water system so there are also some savings and the domestic hot water systems that come from the fact that we're using the ground source heat pump that we cannot do with the And that is basically when we're doing the cooling with the ground source heat pump that heat rejected can be reduced to produce domestic hot water that we couldn't in the in the air source heat pump. So those are the two main elements that are part of the of the difference in between them. And, you know, as I'm responding this question I'm thinking how, how I could be able to show this clear and maybe, you know, the way to do this would be looking at the actual slide breakdown that we do have a portion of it's not on the slides to basically look at each component and, and, you know, as you mentioned, a lot of it is ultimately the same between the two of them by the equipment that like the pants are a little different. And in general, they're, they're pretty, pretty similar. And that's that last part, the cooling, the heating and the domestic hot water that is causing the the ultimate change. It is not, you know, maybe just try to help this, this, this part of the question. It is not uncommon for us to see a significant difference in the, in the energy of the ground source versus the air source. Even though it would seem like the, you know, the rated European are not that different because of that, our the effect where the ground source just takes advantage of a milder temperature of rejection. Thank you for that. That's certainly begun to ease my and I certainly want to have my anxiety eased on this point. So I think it would be helpful to make this comparison just on the systems alone and not confuse it with the rest of the building because it's a Yeah. And then secondly, let me just wait and see the energy model and be patient. I think your description along so of how the energy model is constructed, what the systems are, how long it takes to do various things the way it was very reassuring, and your command of the, of the, of the, of the concepts and so forth as described to us, I think this will serve reassuring so I'm, I'm, I think I'm going to be happy but I, this was just something that's been getting at me so let me calm down and and focus on other things, more constructively and wait until you finish your model. Thanks very much Alonzo. And that's a problem and absolutely I think, you know, I do, I don't want to make sure that your question is properly answered and I think I'll make, try to, you know, reach out to whichever way is possible to show maybe the EU I break down and go through, you know, simple, simple ways to check whether you know, yes, we have this difference in COP. Yes, we also have this difference in domestic water. You know, maybe we'll look at the hour and see and, and, you know, just to make sure that the answers, the questions will be answered. I had not thought of the DHW component and that's helpful as well. And your concern is noted and we will change the graphic so that the breakdown is apparent and we will respond to the comments that you have forwarded such that, you know, it's clear that your items are addressed. Yeah, Tim, I don't think this is going to have a great deal of bearing on what you all and, and, and we think I could particularly if the incentive structure is as we, as you indicated that it may be. It seems to head very strongly in a, in a ground source heat pump direction, all sorts of other things seem to suggest that that's as an intelligent route to go. What it does mean is something that Donna mentioned earlier is that if we are hanging our hat on substantial incentive payments and favoring the ground source heat pumps and it's a it's an EU I have 2.24.9 that we have to hit. And then that shifts our concerns and focuses to assumptions on plug loads and then managing and I think I certainly are going to start to be as helpful as I can on helping the community understand what that means because it means a lot. Jonathan, I made you co host so you can see this to there are 123 other people with their hands up and I'm going to bring the one that's a phone number in. Let's see who did I bring in. I brought in. I seem to have brought Chris riddle in but anyway, I will bring everybody who has their hand up in if I can do it correctly. I think we're doing it that I do. Yeah. Okay. And the phone number is also in I think the phone number had hand up first this is ends in 080810. Yeah. Yeah. Just I have a couple of concerns because I can't see the visuals. Let's know who you are by the way. Yeah, Vincent O'Connor, Summer Street, Amherst. Thank you. One night. I assume that this has been done and have not seen it but to the extent that the system is based on projections of air temperatures, both annual and, you know, I mean, the idea that we don't need cooling until June is not really a good assumption. No, I didn't mean that and sorry, I missed it. Right. Yeah. And we certainly have had many September's when we have needed cooling in September. So I'm concerned that this is a building built for 50 years of use. Hopefully that we have we have some different projections of of air temperature year round air temperature that that that will inform the decision making. That are that assume different levels of successful dressing of climate change, temperature increases. The second concern I have is that even though there is no preschool funding available now. And, you know, as somebody who helped successfully get the high school project through the voters in in the mid 1990s. One of the big issues was having three different grades in the old junior high school. And so those those two concerns suggest to me that the fighting of some of the facilities that are designed to accomplish the net energy zero goals. I think should take into account the possibility that there may be located next to this building a preschool. Or that, in fact, the decision that was made by all the educators involved 25 years ago to reduce the middle school to create a middle school confined to two grades might be reversed. And we would have to find a place for six graders that that the fighting of these facilities should not preclude additions to this building. However, wrong headed, we may believe in this day that such expansion would be 25 years. I can guarantee you that there will be a body of parents and and community leaders who will find our our views to be erroneous and will decide to do other than what we think would be wise we thinking now would be wise. And just, I am very concerned about the fighting of all these facilities to make this a really wonderful building, not preclude future decisions about both the addition of a preschool and the failure of the sixth grade experiment. So, thank you, Vince. Thank you for your comment. And the the final thing is, it may this may be something for which there are grant funded activities. Is that along with list there some of the facilities of the building that could be impacted, for example, glass by by the northeasterly flow of of severe weather events for NATO's and hail storms. There, there may be hopefully some kind of grant funded act, you know, facilities that could essentially secure the building against, you know, a massive, you know, one inch hailstones do a lot of damage to glass and just to make sure that such such events would not cause a really serious disruption to the education of it goes on the building or to the building itself. And so I would hope that while you're thinking of making this building, also saying that you think about the possibilities that weather related activity could cause problems and that and really see if there are any grants to make sure that the building is secure for the 50 years that it's going to presumably be in service. Thank you, Vince. I'm going to Chris riddle. You are here as well. Yeah, you hear me. I am audible. I've got a bunch of string of bullet points here that I just wanted I don't want to speak to any of them I just want to have them be sort of noted and some of them have we have forwarded by by email and so forth. Here are here they are energy budget question the energy budget we need to the energy budget is required by the bylaw and it needs to be. We need to adopt one as per the bylaw. The question is where may the net zero committee amend the basis of design. That's a question and Jonathan is seems to think that that basis of design is definitely still on the table. I'm thinking of standards like exterior wall configuration and so forth. So the idea of progressive cooling or, or heating in the well field. So that's, that was one of them, but we've talked about that. I'd like to see a comparison between the amount of refrigerant that's used in in an air source system compared to the amount of refrigerant that's used in a ground source system. I'm particularly concerned about refrigerant leakage and considering that refrigerant is a very highly potent greenhouse gas. And similarly do we have how many field connections of refrigerant is that are there in ground source compared to air source. What is the, what is the aggregate heating and cooling road that the system. I see that I'm sure Simone could give us a very but what's the total amount of heating and a total amount of cooling annually, then we're expecting. Hey, Chris. Am I, am I the only one who's having trouble hearing what Chris is saying. I'm just fine. I'm hearing. Yeah. Sorry, Margaret. Sorry, I'll speak loudly. More loudly. We're having a really hard time hearing what you're saying. I'm having a hard time hearing what you're saying. So I hope you can submit these comments and writing. I will. I certainly will. Margaret, we can hear them just fine. Okay. Interesting. I'm doing a live transcript Margaret so also. Okay, thank you. Where is, where is well field pumping energy show up in the comparative calculation. I want to make sure that that well field pumping energy is not some, it's not buried in the internal building HVAC number. Should we onto PV should we be considering bad battery storage and our is that is that on the table. How about and building envelope. What about embodied carbon. What about cross laminated timber. What about low energy concert energy. Consuming concrete low, low, low. Excuse me low, low EC concrete. Installation the core question of under slab insulation. That's, that's a bullet point that we need to need to final we need to get to the end out. I think. Anything in the basis of design that talks about air tightness of the building. What's the ACH 50 number that we're targeting for this building. And on to plug loads and equipment what. Well, where have where do how do we attack the efficiency of all the various equipment pieces of equipment in the building thinking particularly of kitchen appliances and things like that. The whole question of a day lighting and the three lead points for day lighting that's a bullet point that we want to put to bed in the next few weeks. And then is there. Is there an energy component to coven mitigation filtration. Merve merve 13 filters. Have we taken has that been taken into account. There we are. That's what those are my items. Thank you very much. And I'll, I will, I will send them on by my email. Thanks Chris. You know, rather than I think what we'll do Jonathan is take these as comments rather than have to do. Okay, so the next person Rudy. You are, I think joining us. And you hear me. Are you hearing me. Yes. Okay, great. Thanks, Kathy, Rudy Perkins, Jerry Lane and Amherst. I just want to second most of Chris's comments I appreciate that very thorough list of issues to address. A couple of particular questions one is, have we thought about doing part of the, if we do ground source heat pump, which I think most people are thinking is maybe the better way. Have we thought about doing at least part of it as a horizontal to say under the parking lot or under one of the fields to reduce drilling costs I don't know if there's a net savings in that or if there'd be other complications. Why is the CO2 higher in the air source heat pump model in your chart I assume that's because of winter time draw off the grid that there's a net increase in CO2 output because of that difference but we're talking about to net zero system so there must be some explanation other than the net change over the course of the year. So if that could be explained at some point. And then in the Fogarty estimate there was a comment about the details of the ASHP cost difference. That was labeled REF branch solder. And I'm wondering what that is it had a really high unit count 14,000 I think, and I'm wondering if that's feet of refrigerant line maybe I had thought actions but that can't possibly be. I'm wondering if there's indeed something like 14,000 linear feet of refrigerant lines in an ASHP model I just like that clarified. Like Chris I'm worried about the total amount of refrigerant the more I've read about this the refrigerant issue is more on my mind than it ever was before I realize that's a changing environment the Europeans are talking about going to hydrocarbons like propane for the refrigerant which has lower greenhouse impacts but obviously have other concerns. So, if we can get a low refrigerant system that that weighs heavily towards GSHP for me but if you could talk about just whether that unit count is actually linear feet and if there's really going to be 14,000 linear feet of refrigerant lines running through an ASHP heated system. That's what we're going to talk about to now. Thanks. That's it. Do we have anyone else kind of in the waiting. Yeah, we have one more person. Okay, Maria, I have brought you in. Okay, I have officially lost the ability to see you guys it's now just on speaker for me for some reason so can you just give a holler that you can hear me. So, just kind of pivoting away from some of the more technical questions of my community colleagues I just think that this is a good time to remind the community of our responsibilities as we pursue this building not only now but into the future. So, user behavior. I know you guys all know this but user behavior is a big component of do we achieve our UI goals. And I think that there's been some really good points brought up about what will our summer usage be and and I agree with Donna that I think that this could really change going into the future and have this building be much more utilized with camps and summer school which is currently at Crocker farm so I think that's really good to consider but other user behavior as as much as we can build into the system and I know that you've considered this ways to change our behavior, not only the kitchen stuff but but in the classroom so yes we shouldn't get there are behaviors that we can do to when when are we plugging in our, our equipment and that kind of thing so if there's an education component about this so that when you build us this great building that we then take care of it and use it in a way that makes it as efficient as possible and if you can help guide us there that would be great. The other thing I wanted to comment on is the maintenance going into the future and the replacement costs. I think I saw in the replacement cost that there is consideration for escalation that you know that the, the replacements that are done the second round of replacements look at what they cost a little bit more. And that's good. I think it would this is also a good time to think about maintenance in general and it's great to have a great new building, but then we have to take care of it. And this is more probably for Kathy and the other folks in town government to make sure that we have built into our long term capital budgets, doing the maintenance that is required and make sure that we hit those marks and when things should be replaced they are be they are replaced. And I don't know if this is something that you can do but maybe to do another little education component there to talk about what is the impact on the efficiency of the systems and the operating costs when we don't properly maintain right so I think that that would be. I think this is just an opportunity to bring that up. Thank you I think you guys are looking at great questions. I'm very excited about the work that you're doing and really appreciate you getting us to net zero and taking advantage of of everything that we can do to make this the best building possible thanks so much. Thank you Maria that I, I think Jonathan. That is everybody from the public. Do we have additional questions from from our committee based upon what we've heard. I have one actually team up a little bit of Maria's I was going to ask and maybe Shelly seen it in one school in northern Virginia it's called discovery but they they're in at zero school. They put at the students it's a great school but had dashboards had things that people could look at. Is that an easy thing to incorporate into a building and part of it was, it got the kids the parents and the teachers involved in. How did we do today, you know but how much did we generate with the PV. So, is that something that we would be adding after the fact, can we look at what others have done to think of incorporating it and I don't know what this looks like Shelly, you know and discovery they did a little film so people were looking at and I've seen one building on the UMass campus that, but it's a very complicated screen you're looking at it's in the architecture building. So just thinking in terms of the feedback loops to both user behavior but also excitement about the building. It's a thinking of it is learning. Yeah, I would say you want to consider all that up front. Some of it, you know is super easy to install later, you know the interaction with your energy outputs is going to be built into the system anyway. And it's just a matter of what's the interface and there's multiple like you can pull it up on the web you can have a monitor that monitors in certain places where you're seeing it in real time. There's a lot of possibilities. I would say like you want to gear it towards elementary school kids and you also want to make it interactive to the degree that you can. One thing that I've seen that I did in a school that was net zero geothermal is we we had temperature monitors on the geothermal lines coming in and out of the building so students could actually look and see. Oh, the water going out is this temperature and the water coming back in is this other temperature. And then the degree to which you can incorporate that into, you know, math lessons and whatnot, calculating, you know, paying attention to how it's cloudy today or how much solar production there was and just, you know, all sorts of creative ways to do that and there's there's plenty of examples out there but yes I think that should be considered early on because there may be some things that that want to be incorporated in just to the infrastructure of the building. Other things will be easy to do later on. I was involved with the UMass Amherst sustainable engineering lab studies so we visited all that and that building will be, I mean, it'll be the other extremes will have a like a glass walls and mechanical rooms and all that. I think in this case we could be as simple as just one monitor in the selective places. Initially we couldn't keep it as simple and because all these things that you talked about displays and all that is in our control system anyway so it's just mirroring that's selective images that's fitted for the children will be easy. Thank you. Yeah, I'm also from experiences at UMass. One of the, one of the, I think, things that worries me about modifying user behavior to try to meet our target EUIs is using natural ventilation inappropriately so that we are trying to heat or cool the entire outdoors. And so it'd be worth having a conversation I think about strategies to help inform staff members when it's costing energy to open that window. Or, like for example, in one of the classroom buildings at UMass, if they have window sensors which is not necessarily what I'm going to recommend here but they have window sensors that disables the heating cooling function in a space that has windows open in order to save energy. So there's lots of things to think about and ways to try to reach out and it's never too soon to have that conversation in life. Sorry, go ahead, John. Sorry, I think it kind of goes without saying that we, you know, the modifying user behavior is it's this balancing act we don't want to design to such a fine knife edge that that folks have to be perfect all the time. But there's, there's a real educational value in an educational building about talking about what we should be doing and what we should be doing. And so I'm sure this is a topic we'll talk about again and again. Yeah, just to add to that, Jonathan, you know, depending on the system it's actually encouraged not to open the windows right so so, and we'll get into the exact system once we find out which is where air source we're planning on going and what the options are for those but we typically in conjunction with the school department will absolutely have learning sessions or teach, you know, sessions with the staff, not only for this is why you open the window this why you don't open the window it's how you how how you adjust the thermostats right so. And what we've also found over the years is to even have an entire sustainability presentation and discussion with staff so they can fully understand it. And as far as usage goes, we don't want to hamstring staff, but you know, maybe there are systems that we can deploy such as we charge laptops late at night with the one one or or different things that it's just all about education, and you know we look forward to that and we can actually start it before the building is turned over and open to them. But we don't want to do it too far in advance because then we, it's going to be lost but but the whole education of the staff is just critically important and the and the students to like your your kids are growing up with this all of their families are so invested in this that even for the youngest kids they'll understand some of it right and maybe we can use some of these as teaching tools within the building. Kathy. I have a question. I'm just, I'm just conscious of time Jonathan. You know we had a potential recommendation on the agenda today but what I heard is we're going to be getting more information on the ever source incentives and on your graph, Tim you had all of July with this decision, you know, on. So, we tentatively, and I haven't gotten from Dennis go yet, but we talked about a full committee meeting on the 15th, which is Friday. 10 days from now. So that timing is so right we haven't posted it and I wanted to get sort of a meeting schedule but if we can talk about this at that full committee level but also some of the questions that people are asking about the, the basis of design that is just energy, you know, so, so it's kind of trying to get a sense from you of, we've got some unanswered questions. Daylighting is one of them. Can that will be packed into a meeting on the 15th is what I'm asking you know some of these. questions about the envelope or the glazing of the windows, or is that okay in August you know when, when do we come back to some of these issues with you that aren't just the ground source versus air source decision. There's a question of timing, and we have 15 minutes left for today. And I'm feeling like I would like to have somewhat more information, and we could do it at a full committee level on the 15th. The timing still works for a meeting on the 15th. Since we haven't posted it. It's going to be a meeting two weeks after that but I mean somehow you, you should drive the agendas for us. Yeah. I will say that there are certainly things that we can talk about on the 15th and items that are not that are related to but not necessarily inherently part of the air source first ground source, like daylighting and things. So, the more we have designed the more fruitful that discussion will be, because we can talk about the nature of the building, but there are also some facts and some questions about daylighting. Why what we've listed for the lead target is what we're listing that we can speak to on the 15th, certainly. I'm sure that we will certainly have enough to fill an agenda on 15, but and maybe report on this meeting, but we wouldn't be confirming a vote from this committee obviously with the entire committee. So, so, Jonathan, what do you think should we just hold off on, you know, I'm just asking the four of us, I mean I'd like the, the total costs are much higher than last time, although I know the estimates were done in different ways last time and last time this time it came from forward. So, if we knew that the ever source incentives removed some of the capital costs significantly that would help inform this decision not just the expert tons Tim but expert time times tons equals number. I would like to see it in a little grid, knowing that that's still the town has to take action to get that money. I'm just for our subcommittee that's my feeling is I'd rather see those numbers. Yes, that would be great. Okay. I'd like to comment on that I, I think that we should not try to make a recommendation yet. I'm very concerned about the cost difference and I feel like we have yet to really explore how the town can resolve the traffic issues around the Port River site and what those costs will be. So I'm really reluctant to commit to either either heating system at this point in time. So, sorry, for me personally, I think we need to see those incentives and I think that'll be a big help. Right, so, so, if ever source is saying the updated incentives will be released this week. We could certainly offer to update the presentation. And it could be circulated kind of, you know, as a as a post meeting so again still not asking to take votes but it just helps maybe frame the conversation for the next meeting. So once we have the updated information we can just update the presentation. Okay, I would say I would kind of echo. Reverts desired it to have a discussion maybe on the 15th about site planning issues, you know, both with traffic and just generally, I think that that may be a path to sort of consider. Yeah, I think that so does the 15th still work. Donna in terms of there's enough to, you know, yeah. And I think all of this what Rupert raised is as you know the not the time are consultants today but we chose a site that is more expensive we had two choices that is more expensive. And it's potentially more expensive for traffic mitigation, although we might be looking for outside funding for that. So I just think we need to really be making a cost kind of decision that the HVAC system is part of that on, you know, short term and long term. So, so that has nothing to do with the analysis we just saw today so so getting a fuller piece of that. We're hoping we'll be delivering some wonderful news, and then it's incumbent upon the team to maintain that, you know, 20 that magical EY number. Yeah, and that that might be big discussion point going forward. And people on that first when Rupert said which ones do you get before you've proved yourself. The first part, at least when they presented it was if you have a realistic expectation of getting there that's an upfront that's during construction that's real money. Then there's the one year post where they look at what did we really use and that second part is only if only if we've achieved it so. Yeah, I think we should we should. Yeah, I think we should break it out. Yes, I think just breaking bring it is just two different pieces so they're both potentially achievable one is. They wouldn't be happy if we didn't achieve it but if it looked like we had a realistic chance they're, they're giving out the money so they were even giving it. They're giving it to all air source buildings because they've given them a belief that they can hit 25, you know, or hit source 24 at this was ever source in their presentation. So, I think that those were my main comments on the way this interacts with next, not this Friday but a week from Friday. I think the Simone and Alonso and Nate heard the list of related questions so some of that around refrigerants the more we can get just even if it's just on a screen giving us some of that information that would be great we don't have to have another presentation on it. But if we could find a place to, to, you know, kind of post the more technical answers and data to our project website. So that'll be a resource for folks in the community who will have to have questions even if we can't touch on every element in a meeting. Before we go soon can can I get you to just to repeat something I thought I heard which is that you that you have been specifying a different kind of connection for the field connections that has been much more effective in reducing cool and refrigerant leaks. Yes. Yes. So the connections used to be squage lock connection which is mechanical connections just like you have in your cars and stuff which is prone to leakage. So, we've been specifying the connection be at least six inches long for the raise can make a connections. I think this braze is almost essentially like soldered connection like you get with. Better than solder solder is a 95 five lead. This is a much higher temperature suits for refrigeration. That sounds like a substantial connection. You had said in an email that Simone was also investigating one other device that had been suggested to us and that you were trying to figure out whether it was worth considering and I'm forgetting what the actual name. Yeah, this was the infrared system that I believe Sarah Ross brought to our attention. And we have to research it more it. In theory, Simone, if you if you want me to speak. And I'm not looking for an answer now I'm just saying we don't have an answer but but there's someone why you just go ahead and In their system is basically carbon dioxide scrubbing system. That technology has been around for a long time as in like scuba diving we readers and and nuclear submarines. Technology is around then. Certainly by introducing this and eliminating the also reducing the carbon dioxide we could reduce the amount of outside air so that makes sense. But another thing we have to consider is that we still are feeling after shock of COVID where everybody's saying I need a lot more outside air outside air so one of our study also it has a not only to improve the CO2 concentration but to just scrub out the dilute virus content in the air so I'm not really sure how normal patterns would take if you tell me going to reduce it. So those are the two considerations and it's something we still have to do research because it's only a preparatory manufacturer. And we can make the second one by having them have another manufacturer have it installed in the handling unit so that's second source but we have on the third source yet. So, so I think what, what is what ember it is telling us is that it we so the benefits you heard everything that we have concerns and still need to get out the benefits are. It reduces your energy usage. Right, so slightly reduces your energy usage. And it also potentially would reduce and I'm saying would because this this is and we're telling us all this is that it would also reduce the amount of equipment so so it could technically reduce some costs associated with the equipment. What what someone was referring to is this is a public bid project in Massachusetts which requires us to have three or equal. We do proprietary even if you all vote, we still need or equal. So, what we have found is there's another school project that is also in the MSBA pipeline that is considering this. It is not part of the basis of design, but they're still trying to wrap their head around this so you know, if everything that they're saying is true. And we can figure out how to specify with the or equals, there might be an opportunity for reduced EU I and reduce mechanical costs. So, so there are some benefits but again. There are some negatives like since every related to coven and and then we, we, I don't know if anyone really wants to be the first public school out there to test this. So, we're monitoring all of this very closely. It all makes sense Sarah Sarah, you know, speaks very highly of them as well. And so it, it in theory makes sense. But we just have to make sure how that that in fact it really does play out. Yeah, we don't want you to be a beta site. So we'll do all the research ahead of time and manufacturers and sales engineers were highly optimistic, like they told us that the school is specifying when we dug into it, like sort of considered. And some, could I have some applications drawings, they can get it to me. They just show me the product. Okay, how do we connect to it. What utilities required, how much clearance need. They haven't got it to me. So, stay tuned. Thank you. Thank you for your time limits. And so, unless there is something that that folks can't save till next time I think I will call this meeting adjourned. And thank you all. Thank you all very much. Thanks.