HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-13-SLC-min.pdfSustainable Lexington Committee Minutes of Meeting of March 13, 2025
A meeting of the Sustainable Lexington Committee (SLC) was held jointly with the Permanent
Building Committee (PBC) on Zoom and at the 201 Bedford St 2nd floor training room. A
quorum was present throughout.
Members Present: Todd Rhodes (vice chair), Andy Joynt, Celis Brisbin, Dan Voss, Kavitha
Venkatesan, Lin Jensen
Members Absent: Cindy Arens, Paul Chernick, Rick Reibstein
Staff Present: Maggie Peard
The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:20 pm
Full, detailed meeting minutes can be found with the March 13, 2025 PBC meeting minutes.
There were no votes taken by SLC.
Exterior Design
● Embodied carbon estimates are currently based on manufacturing, but SMMA is
planning to extend the analysis to include: transportation to the site, installation,
maintenance, and end of life. Terra Cotta is already on the list as high carbon content.
LCCA for HVAC Options
● Martine from SMMA expects to have initial results in about 2 weeks.
● They will do the analysis with and without the IRA incentives.
1. Mark Sandeen recommended that the design would likely be different in the
non-IRA scenario, so the cost estimate should not just be the original cost less
the IRA funding. It should be based on the new scenario.
2. Mike Cronin recommended developing a model to look at the tradeoffs.
● Mark recommended that we reduce the amount of electrical backup required.
● Jon Himmel (PBC) suggested that there may be steps in the level of geothermal that
could be looked at that would result in different site impacts (i.e., the level of geothermal
may be a step function with each step having a different site plan / site requirements).
Solar
● Looking at 2000kW / 8000kWh battery storage system.
● Dan Voss asked when we will get the helioscope models. Martine expects them in about
2 weeks. Dan asked them to be shared. SMMA will send it to Mark Barrett to distribute.
● Mark made the point that the battery size is based solely on building load and not on the
potential for resilience. There are resilience benefits but they come in addition to what is
needed for the building load – it’s not the primary reason for batteries.
● Mark asked about the impact of adding the field house to the energy demand of the
building and the impact on solar needed. Anthony stated that they are thinking there was
enough contingency in the PSR numbers, but they will update it as new energy numbers
become available.
● Dan asked about a comparison to Hasting. Mark added that Hastings was designed to
be 30 EUI but we are getting 40 EUI. Martine stated that their experience is that
buildings that they designed to 25 EUI and are outperforming it. The more recent
enclosures are better.
Jon Himmel (PBC) asked for an additional meeting to assess the tradeoffs of key elements of
the design and begin consideration of value engineering opportunities. He indicated that SLC
members would be invited to participate in this meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 pm.