The August Decarbonize Existing Buildings Alliance roundtable sparked an engaging conversation centered around what lessons have been learned from the decarbonization planning that has been done and is currently underway. Community chair, Ilene Mason, Founder and CEO at RPM, facilitated the conversation by giving a brief overview of some of the key takeaways, including how much broader the scope is than anticipated, important things to consider about how the planning process occurs, and what is being learned from deep energy retrofits.

Subject matter experts Eri Furusawa, Director at HR&A, and Dennis Carlberg, Chief Sustainability Officer and Associate Vice President for Climate Action at Boston University, shared their experiences with decarbonization and answered questions from participants. Additionally, attendees were invited to raise hands, use the chat and/or a Miro board in order to share their thoughts and answer questions allowing for every participant to feel comfortable collaborating.

Main Themes Discussed

Building Upgrades and Decarbonization
Eri Furusawa kicked off the first section of the discussion by sharing her experiences from a real estate and economic development consulting firm, where they often work with a variety of different clients, including real estate owners, universities, and community development organizations. She shared there are both financial and operational barriers from a building owner’s perspective to pursuing building upgrade projects, and there is usually a “trigger event” that leads to this upgrade, where something important is no longer able to function and leaves the owner with no choice but to replace it. However, for many of these building owners, decarbonization is not the focus – operating a building is. Alternatively, from a tenants perspective, building upgrades typically deliver benefits though they do also have the potential to cause disruption and trigger rent increases.

Customer Journey
Eri goes on to give an example of what the customer journey would look like for a multifamily property owner, after a trigger event occurs.

• Step one in this process is project consideration, where it is determined whether to develop a detailed scope of work and make a cost estimate, focusing on whether it will improve comfort and health concerns. The decision makers at this step are the owner and team working with the owner, though there are other influences, such as the tenants of the building that go into the ultimate decision.
• Step two is scoping and evaluation, these are not just engineering considerations but are also related to policy work and the tenant’s comfort. In the end, this step aims to determine whether the upgrade plan is ready to advance to lenders and funders.
•. Step three is bidding and finance, focusing on navigating incentives, eligibility, coverage, and timeline. At this step, the team will hopefully secure an effective funding package to start construction.
• Step four is inspection and installation, where a number of questions are considered around labor, workforce development, equity, if there are enough contractors that are able to do this work, and mitigating risks. Now it’s time to focus on the construction timeline and make sure the upgrades are completed on schedule.
• Finally, the last step is completion and commissioning, with the goal of receiving incentives.

Eri finished by explaining that there are many conversations with different journeys, and this is just one of many examples of what the process could look like. Decarbonization is not something done without incentive, and it is much more common to see existing buildings being updated after older technology fails to work, if it is seen as a viable option to property owners.

Campus Decarbonization at Boston University
Next, Dennis Carlberg moved on to discuss campus decarbonization planning at Boston University. In 2017, BU’s Board of Trustees approved a Climate Action Plan which has one important goal of reaching net zero direct emissions by 2040. The university has done a number of things in order to reduce carbon emissions since 2017, including grid electrification, geothermal use instead of fossil fuels, and matching 100% of electricity with renewables, through BU Wind. Through these efforts, emissions have been reduced by 65% so far. However, since 2017, there have been a number of changes to the University, in both emissions and space – one being the addition of the Center for Computing and Data Sciences. Dennis shared challenges with planning and installing the building’s geothermal system including verticality and space constraints of the 1500 ft bore holes for the closed loop geothermal system and the construction schedule. The high-performance building is running better than anyone anticipated and will continue to be monitored. The project also shone a light on the opportunity to share a thermal loop among neighboring buildings and planning for expansion of the geothermal system over time, instead of having it focused on one building alone.

Existing Building Decarbonization on Campus
The focus switched to address existing buildings on campus and the efforts to decarbonize them. There are planned major renovations that focus on air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, and a phased district system approach. A concept study for proactive decarbonization has a pilot phase, including 3 buildings, a phase 1, including 13 buildings, and aims for 80-90% decarbonization to reduce emissions more quickly. This concept would start with newer buildings, as they have high performance envelopes and low temperature hot water, making them significantly easier to to renovate and will make more impact on campus in a shorter period of time. While there are some issues with addressing space on an urban campus, the large diverse portfolio of buildings BU owns and operates, capital and operational costs, and grid capacity, there are also a number of opportunities that could come out of this. These include updating and reaching goals laid out in the Climate Action Plan, the Investment Reduction Act, utility incentives, and BERDO guidelines.

Key Questions and Answers
One participant asked Dennis, “how are you applying what you learned from the data center to other buildings in terms of geothermal?” In his response, Dennis explained that while it is a daunting task, at least with the Center for Computing and Data Science there was an alleyway behind the building that allowed for space for most of the wells, and BU owned all the property around so finding additional space wasn’t too much of a problem. Due to the space being dense, it was important to consider digging to a 1500 ft depth, as opposed to a cheaper and quicker U-bend system. However, because so many of the buildings the university owns are in such close proximity to each other, there’s the possibility for them to share thermal load.

Ilene went on to ask “how are you seeing people navigate changes in utility bills and utility costs?” Eri replied saying that this is an area of active discussion right now, and it’s difficult on many levels because it’s hard to know what the actual translation of living as a tenant is to how much less or how much more gas or electricity you’re using. This translation is also really difficult to predict on the financial side.

This roundtable provided clear insight into our two subject matter experts’ experiences with decarbonizing existing buildings, and allows us to consider the different perspectives that go into the decision to make a building more efficient. Additionally, understanding how leaders in the decarbonization field have made their decisions and learned from their own projects are key takeaways that can contribute to how to effectively reduce carbon.

Enhancing Pollinator Health and Biophilic Design in Urban Environments

As urban areas continue to expand, the need to integrate nature into cityscapes becomes increasingly critical. This integration not only supports ecological balance but also enhances human well-being. The Living Future Roundtable held on August 1st delved into the vital aspects of pollinator health and biophilic design, offering valuable insights into how urban environments can be transformed to support biodiversity and improve quality of life for their inhabitants.The discussions emphasized the impact of new construction projects on natural habitats and the importance using urban design to support ecological recovery.

Drawing of a mountain range is in the distance with elk, trees spread out and a large body of water with streams inputs in the foreground. Examples of refugia are given such as the mountain range shielding the land and microclimates
found in the mountains.

Morelli et al. 2016 PLOS ONE

The Importance of Pollinator Health
Pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, play a crucial role in maintaining the health of ecosystems. Their presence in urban areas is essential for the pollination of plants, which in turn supports food production and the survival of various species. Experts at the roundtable emphasized the importance of creating habitats within cities that support these pollinators. For instance, the Urban Bee Lab has been conducting significant research on how urban environments can be made more conducive to bee populations. This involves not only providing green spaces but also ensuring these spaces are designed to support the specific needs of pollinators.

Benefits of Green Roofs and Biophilic Design
Green roofs are a powerful tool in the urban design arsenal. They help manage stormwater, reduce urban heat islands, and provide habitats for pollinators. The roundtable highlighted the success of green roofs in Germany as a model to be emulated globally. These roofs not only support biodiversity but also contribute to the overall aesthetic and environmental quality of urban areas. By covering rooftops with vegetation, cities can significantly mitigate some of the adverse effects of urbanization.

Biophilic design goes beyond green roofs, integrating nature into the very fabric of buildings and urban planning. This approach includes the use of natural light, vegetation, and materials that mimic natural patterns. Experts noted that biophilic design helps improve mental health, enhance air quality, and create more inviting and livable urban spaces. For instance, incorporating bird-safe windows and non-intrusive lighting can significantly reduce the negative impact on wildlife, creating a harmonious symbiosis between urban development and the local ecosystem.

Scaling Up and Regional Interventions
One of the key discussions at the roundtable was the need to think beyond individual projects and consider regional scale interventions. This involves creating connected green spaces, such as habitat corridors, that allow wildlife to move freely across urban and rural areas. The Monarch Watch project, which tracks the migration patterns of monarch butterflies, was cited as an exemplary initiative demonstrating the benefits of such large-scale thinking. By understanding and supporting the migratory routes of these butterflies, cities can play a crucial role in the conservation of this species.

Practical Applications and Innovations
Innovation in urban planning and design is essential for creating sustainable cities. The roundtable emphasized several practical applications that can be implemented to enhance pollinator health and biophilic design. Rainwater harvesting systems can support the water needs of green roofs, reducing reliance on municipal water supplies. Soil health was also highlighted as a critical factor in supporting robust urban ecosystems. Maintaining fertile urban soil that can support diverse plant life is crucial for the success of green initiatives and contributes to carbon sequestration.

Additionally, integrating diverse native plants into urban landscaping can significantly enhance local ecosystems. These plants are better adapted to the local climate and provide essential resources for native wildlife. The Homegrown National Park Map initiative encourages communities to cultivate native plants in their gardens, contributing to a larger network of green spaces that support biodiversity.

Educational Outreach and Collaboration
The success of biophilic design and pollinator health initiatives depends heavily on education and collaboration. Educating construction teams, urban planners, and the general public about the benefits of integrating nature into urban environments is crucial. Some organizations have started to include biophilic objectives in their project requirements, ensuring that contractors and developers prioritize these aspects from the outset.

Partnerships between different stakeholders, including environmental organizations, government agencies, and private companies, are also vital. These collaborations can provide the resources and expertise needed to implement and maintain green infrastructure effectively.

Call to Action
To truly enhance pollinator health and biophilic design in urban environments, a collective effort is required. Residents, planners, and policymakers must work together to create urban spaces that support biodiversity and improve quality of life. Together, we can create healthier, more resilient cities that benefit both people and the environment.

The room was abounding with energy at last month’s Special Roundtable, bringing together subject matter experts and the practicing community, to share data and insights, and gather feedback to strengthen the future strategies and incentives coming into play to decarbonize existing buildings in the Commonwealth. Quick action from our community to pull together crucial real word project cost data, mixed with the safe space for active discussion on draft plans, combined to advance a robust discussion that showcased the unmatched dedication in this community of practice. 

The July Carbon and Energy Special Roundtable was kicked off by Kim Cullinane, Manager of New Construction Energy Efficiency at Eversource, who provided an overview of the Massachusetts 2025-2027 Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Plan and introduced several deep dive topics for the roundtable.

The Plan, which lays out all areas of anticipated support from Mass Save Sponsors for the next three-year term, places heavy emphasis on decarbonization, including continued significant support for heat pumps, optimized customer experience, workforce development, and equity. The plan also provides for a continued focus on energy efficiency and includes new proposals for supporting non-energy carbon reduction measures, such as embodied carbon reduction, carbon capture, and refrigeration leak mitigation support. Notably, Mass Save Sponsors have eliminated all support for new fossil fuel equipment and new buildings/homes that use fossil fuel equipment in this plan (there are very limited exceptions). Mass Save Sponsors will file a final version of the plan with the Department of Public Utilities at the end of October. All elements of the plan are subject to DPU approval, which is expected at the end of February, 2025.

Following the overview, Mass Save sponsors introduced four deep dive discussion topics, including: approach to decarbonization, understanding decarbonization costs and barriers, potential Mass Save Sponsor support for embodied carbon reduction, and new developments in Mass Save support for multifamily new construction. Each topic was introduced and was then followed by open discussion amongst roundtable participants. In addition to Kim, Ryan Willingham, Senior Energy Efficiency Consultant at Eversource, Jacob Knowles, Chief Sustainability Officer at BR+A, and Joel Martell, Lead Analyst at National Grid, all shared insight on the deep dive topics and helped answer questions from the participants.

• The Draft Three-Year Plan for Mass Save will focus on a wide range of topics, including decarbonization, including continued support for heat pumps, gas equipment phaseout, nonenergy greenhouse gas measures, workforce development, customer experience, and equity
• Optimizing energy consumption is discussed as the first step towards decarbonization
• This Three-Year Plan offers incentives for customers who can can achieve a variety of different reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
• Mass Save Sponsors will fund energy assessments that explore energy efficiency and electrification on site
• A Pathway is under development to work on existing building commissioning by optimizing building performance of building systems
• A community populated Spreadsheet compares the electrification costs per square foot for existing building projects and brings to light why certain projects are higher in cost than others, ultimately displaying the need for strong funding incentives and resources to support the effort.
• Mass Save Sponsors propose a hybrid approach to reducing embodied carbon in new homes/buildings and major renovations, combining both a materials based approach and a whole building approach
• The Mass Save Multifamily New Construction Program is being relaunched with three new changes: buildings must be fully electric with the exception of use of greenhouse gasses for water heating, all pathways have a three-tier incentive, and the inclusion of market transformation adders

Ryan Willingham led the conversation about how to approach decarbonization of large commercial & industrial (C&I) buildings.  After reviewing the Mass Save Sponsor installation incentives, which include per-ton heat pump support for retrofits of existing buildings, a deep energy retrofit adder of $1/sf for projects achieving a 40% carbon reduction, and continued emphasis on energy efficiency (Ryan also noted the New Construction and Major Renovation program incentive rates of up to $3.50/sf plus per-ton heat pump adders), Ryan reviewed various technical assistance and planning support options that Mass Save Sponsors intend to make available in the next term for existing building decarbonization.

Ryan explained that Mass Save Sponsors offer energy assessments that explore both energy efficiency and electrification opportunities. They also provide support for in-depth decarbonization studies to assist with BERDO/BEUDO compliance and offer prioritization studies to help building portfolio owners identify facilities and systems for near-term electrification. There is also a process to work on existing building commissioning by optimizing performance of building systems, which is under development and will replace the existing Equipment & Systems Performance Optimization (ESPO) pathway. This pathway is envisioned to be flexible for all systems with a focus on HVAC controls with a modular approach.

The discussion shifted to understanding and addressing cost and other barriers. Jacob Knowles reviewed a detailed spreadsheet completed by various attendees consolidating decarbonization cost data in dollars per square foot across 50+ existing building projects. This spreadsheet, shared with attendees prior to the webinar, included project cost entries from multiple participants to inform the roundtable discussion. Participants provided insights explaining the reasons behind the varying costs. One of the major costs seen across all projects is the need to take space in a building and turn it into mechanical space. Another factor contributing to cost differences is discoveries made progressing through various phases of construction, which often leads to increased expenses as the project timeline advances.

Additionally, the spreadsheet asks for a number of inputs from the participants, such as the building type, level of electrification, and the electrification cost assumption. The electrification cost assumption is self reported with a 1 or 2: 

• 1 indicating that the cost to electrify includes the cost entire cost to electrify, including the cost to replace existing systems necessary to enable electrification, and 
• 2 if the cost to electrify assumes there is separate money allocated to replace the existing systems due to end of equipment life or planned renovation. 

These two categories cannot be perfectly compared, so the distinction is important. From the information provided by the participants, a graph comparing the level of electrification and the electrification cost was created to see how cost can increase with higher electrification, though some projects were successful in keeping their costs relatively low, showing the importance to learn from these projects.

Go to Electrification Cost Spreadsheet

In the discussion on embodied carbon, Kim Cullinane previewed the plan Mass Save Sponsors are proposing to be the first program of its kind in the country to offer support for embodied carbon reduction. The plan focuses on materials with the greatest opportunity for carbon reduction, emphasizes ease of participation and implementation, and is structured to support market actors who may not have considered embodied carbon previously. 

From the research done, there are two major approaches in order to tackle this issue. The first being a materials based approach, where they compare carbon reduction options for specific materials, such as concrete and steel. This approach is straightforward and easy to follow, but it doesn’t always reward design changes that would reduce material use. Alternatively, the whole building approach includes a whole building cost analysis, takes into consideration design changes and building reuse, and has a higher carbon reduction potential, though there are no standardized ways of developing baselines for this approach at the moment. However, there are baselines that are currently in development, which would be majorly beneficial for the future. 

The plan proposes a hybrid approach, because it’s much more realistic to report savings through a materials based approach and because it would be easier for customers and project teams to participate. Customers would submit information to the program showing how much materials they are using and level 3 EPDs for each, so they can calculate the reduction, and offer incentives for those who are providing this information and reducing their embodied carbon. To promote the hybrid based approach, they would additionally offer an adder for those who wanted to complete a Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment (WBLCA), as well as an adder for building reuse.

Joel Martell picks up the conversation focusing on the relaunch of the Mass Save Multifamily New Construction Program. The three major changes to this program are that new buildings must be fully electric to participate (excluding hot water heating), all pathways have a three tier incentive, and the inclusion of market transformation adders. Though projects can use fossil fuels for hot water heating, there are heavy incentives on electric hot water heaters.

The Mass Save 3-year plan aims to advance strong low-carbon methods in building practices. By focusing on decarbonization,  embodied carbon, and updates to multi-family construction programs, the plan is set to contribute significant progress toward a more sustainable future.

Miro Board

Q&A

The Miro Board question and answer pages are provided for roundtable participants to give feedback to the subject matter experts on the information presented and respond to questions asked. Additionally, participants were free to ask their own questions of the experts over mic and chat.

Approach To Decarbonization:

A: The PA approach aligns generally well. Decarb/ECM studies then potentially a LCCA to figure out which ECMs have the greatest impact on total electric demand and energy savings.

A: Decarb master plan is typically where we start currently, so the PA Approach aligns well

A: Incentives in the single-digit $/sf range are too low to move the needle.

A: The past configuration of the Retrofit teams needs to be modified to support typical TA and ESPO efforts. The existing silos need to be removed.

A: Cost-effectiveness calculations should take into account projections in gas and electricity prices. W.r.t. gas prices, the LDCs have conducted substantial analyses of future delivery costs under various scenarios of consumption. In all cases increasing GSEP costs will lead to higher average customer costs for gas. Declining consumption further increases the average. Most of the projections demonstrate that electric heating will become more affordable than gas between 2030 and 2035

A: The incentive is additional, so you can stack them.

A: Right now this is still under development, but current thinking is that there would be a per building amount that we would co-fund, so it would be something similar to what we’re offering for the comprehensive building assessment for each building.

Cost and Barriers to Existing Building Electrification:

A: Complexity factors may vary across customers with the same building typology. Examples of these include:

• Security requirements
• Replacing a major equipment may trigger code requiring additional work
• Electrification may require electrical upgrades like switchgear capacity increase, etc.

A: Education for clients / owners…from actual people who have used these technologies or made the switch (especially for O/M personnel)

A: Backup power and redundancy for heat pumps.

A: Condominiums are typically excluded from incentives due to complex ownership structure.

A: Residential homeowners can utilize the 0% interest HEAT Loan up to $10,000 for pre-wx barriers following their HEA. This is not a no-cost service but certainly helps

A: Would be good to extend programs to municipal utilities as they consume over 1/7th of all electricity in MA

A: LDC/Gas Utility Forecasts show that by 2030-2035, electric heating becomes operationally more cost effective due to GSEP costs alone

Embodied Carbon

A: We are seeing a wide range of WBLCA soft costs:  For one new construction project, the quotes ranged from $12k to $30k.  While other design firms are including it as a standard practice as part of overall design fee.

A: This is very dependent on the lower carbon materials you are studying- concrete, insulation, drywall, etc. Any premium to reduce embodied carbon is largely a material cost, not installation, labor, etc.

A: bidders not being familiar with “new” materials or structural systems (like mass timber / CLT in rural areas) so bids are coming in over budget

A: Hiring additional staff to track and document carbon accounting

A: A minimum incentive should cover the soft cost of doing a WBLCA, PLUS an additional amount to do multiple iterations in order to study different lower carbon material options. Similar to the Passive House incentive for a feasibility study.

A: Time for firms to update specs to be more performance-oriented to include GWP targets for lower embodied carbon products

Residential New Construction/Multifamily

A: Perceived costs/increases

A: There aren’t any specific incentives for on site renewables, such as solar energy, but there are incentives for Net Zero Ready buildings.

A: While the legislation hasn’t changed, we receive carbon reduction goals from the EA to meet per term.

Resources

• Mass Save 2025-2027 Three Year Plan
• C&E Roundtable Miro Board
• Costs and Barriers Spreadsheet
• Current Mass Save Programs and Services
• EPA Grants Related to EPDS and Embodied Carbon
• BE+ Road to Net Zero
• BE+ Carbon & Energy Community Roundtables

One of the primary ways tunable lighting promotes health is by supporting the synchronization of circadian rhythms. Light can be adjusted throughout the day to help regulate sleep-wake cycles, stimulating alertness during learning hours and fostering better sleep quality at night. These factors may contribute to improved concentration, mood stability, and overall well-being among students and teachers.

Tunable lighting allows educators to customize classroom ambiance according to specific activities and learning needs. For example, cooler tones may be chosen to promote focus and productivity while warmer tones set the stage for relaxed and creative pursuits. In addition to supporting diverse learning styles, this adaptability has been shown to enhance student engagement and academic performance.

Research suggests that exposure to specific light wavelengths can positively affect some of the challenging behaviors associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In these cases, tunable lighting can improve social interactions in classrooms and support behavior management.

The positive effects of tunable lighting are still being evaluated. Nonetheless, many educators are already welcoming this technology into their classrooms as part of a holistic program for using LED lighting to create engaging environments.

Four HMFH-designed schools are or will be programmed to include tunable lighting technology:

This new school for 1,755 students includes a total of 25 rooms that incorporate tunable lighting technology. Arlington’s extensive adoption plan for this new technology will offer HMFH the potential for broad and deep post-occupancy evaluation.

Bristol County Agricultural High School is a design-award winning project, notable for its deep sustainability program and unique, hands-on learning environment. Here, tunable lighting supports specialized lab spaces for the school’s Natural Resource Management and Animal Science programs.

Bristol-Plymouth is currently under construction and scheduled to open in 2026. The school prioritizes health and well-being through multiple initiatives including a healthy material pilot program as well as the implementation of tunable lighting in special education spaces.

Saugus Middle High School is a STEAM-driven, design-award-winning project that has incorporated tunable lighting technology into a total of 10 classrooms. Natural daylight floods the building’s interior and is strategically complemented by tunable lighting technology.

HMFH is committed to designing exceptional schools composed of healthy, sustainable, and environmentally efficient environments. Leveraging the power of daylight is central to our design philosophy and is prioritized throughout every school we serve. And now, tunable lighting offers educators an unprecedented level of control when using light to optimize learning environments, manage classroom behaviors, and promote overall student health and wellbeing. When deployed as part of an overall light management strategy, tunable lighting technology can support transformative outcomes.

On Wednesday, June 26, the Women in Green (WIG) roundtable hosted a thought-provoking discussion on the shift from for-profit to non-profit positions within the sustainable design field. The session featured women who have transitioned between these sectors, sharing their motivations, experiences, and advice on making such a shift. Monisha Nasa, AIA, facilitated the discussion.

Panelists

• Van H. Du, Assistant Director of Environmental Planning, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
• Keirstan Field, P.E., Engineer/Scientist, EPRI
• Lisa Carey Moore, LFA, LEED AP, Director of the Buildings Team, International Living Future Institute (ILFI)
• Jennifer Marrapese, JD, MA, Senior Director of Programs and Strategy, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)
• Mary Tobin, EIT, WELL AP, Senior Associate, Carbon-Free Electricity, RMI

Motivations for Transition

Van H. Du focuses on environmental project planning and infrastructure at MAPC, transitioning from her previous roles in consulting and the City of Boston’s environment department. She was motivated by the connection between public health and environmental issues highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking to make a more significant impact on communities. Lisa Carey Moore, with extensive experience in both sectors, currently oversees project engagement for clients pursuing ILFI’s building certification. Her motivation stemmed from reading extensive depositions about pollution in her first for-profit role, leading her to feel that non-profits were better suited for impactful implementation. Jennifer Marrapese transitioned multiple times, driven by a focus on mission rather than the sector. Her experience in leadership coaching seminars and aptitude assessments in for-profit roles revealed a need for mission-focused work, which she found fulfilling in the non-profit sector. Keirstan Field from EPRI transitioned for a new technical challenge and the freedom to innovate, driven by curiosity and the desire to explore new paths in building decarbonization. Mary Tobin at RMI works on grid flexibility with private companies, utilities, and regulators. Her undergraduate exposure to policy, and working internationally, motivated her shift to non-profit work, focusing on broader change mechanisms.

Advice, Impact, Challenges and Liberties

The panelists discussed the challenges faced in non-profit roles compared to for-profit positions. One noted the scarcity of resources and funding in non-profits, which can be understaffed, making it difficult to accomplish tasks. However, this environment enables innovation and skill development. Non-profits also offer more flexibility. Another highlighted the mission-driven nature of non-profits, where aligning yearly objectives with the mission can be challenging due to resource limitations. It was mentioned that there is often a lack of external feedback in non-profits, requiring a reframing of what constitutes a successful project. Some observed areas of convergence in vision and mission between sectors, suggesting that new business models can align towards common goals. It was recognized that there are notable differences in staffing and resource allocation between the for-profit and non-profit sectors.

The panelists reflected on their ability to make a concrete impact in non-profit roles. One felt they could make a significant impact, as their current role allows for filling gaps and creating a shared vision in the built environment industry. Another emphasized playing the long game, thinking of sustainability more holistically in non-profits, which allows for greater flexibility and less ad-hoc decision-making. It was contrasted how the practical, project-based approach in for-profits differs from the longer-term impact focus in non-profits.

Engagement with stakeholders has evolved in non-profit roles. The inclusive and enduring nature of stakeholder engagement in non-profits was highlighted, contrasting it with the private sector. The importance of partnership and the focus on impact and metrics in project approvals was emphasized. In discussing the creative process for stakeholder engagement, the use of open ideation spaces and actionable content synthesis was highlighted.

The work culture in non-profits was discussed, noting the passion and commitment from staff, better work-life balance, and the ability to pivot quickly. The panelists shared advice for those considering a shift from for-profit to non-profit roles. They encouraged pursuing roles that align with personal passions and professional growth. Understanding one’s passion and the varied roles in non-profits was emphasized. Using assessment tests, networking, informational interviews, and volunteering were suggested as strategies for career change. The advantages and disadvantages of both sectors were acknowledged, recommending individuals assess what they seek from their careers.

The critical role of non-profits in sustainability was agreed upon. The inherent flexibility in non-profits was highlighted, allowing for impactful work regardless of roles. Independent evolution and third-party verification were pointed to as benefits, along with innovative and long-term market transformation efforts. The importance of partnerships and policy feedback was emphasized, as well as the role of non-profits in navigating stakeholder engagement.

The session concluded with a call for ongoing collaboration and knowledge sharing to advance sustainability in the built environment, regardless of the sector you find yourself in.

The June Living Future Roundtable discussed the role of the design team, specifically for the redesign of Franklin Park, as a system and included close community collaboration with users of the park and residents of the surrounding area. The roundtable discussed how the design team, clients, community, and other individuals and factors made up an expansive system that worked together for this process, and additionally focused on the interconnected relationships within the system and their influence. Lydia Cook, Landscape Architect at Reed-Hilderbrand kicked off the discussion by framing the project as a whole. Designed by Frederick Law Olmstead, the park contains three main elements: Ante Park for active recreation, Country Park for passive enjoyment of scenery, and Glen Road which functions as a throughway for traffic. When Olmstead designed the park, he had the future in mind. While the park was initially outside of the center of the city, it is now the geographic center of Boston, demonstrating how much the city has evolved over time.

Mayrah Udvardi, Senior Architect and Educator at MASS Design Group elaborates on the evolution of the park through the lens of stewardship. Her current work in the redesign of Franklin Park takes into account the current state of the park as well focusing on aspects of historical importance that needed to be addressed, including indigenous tribes, politics behind the park and creation of the park, the initial purpose of benefiting only white, upper class communities, and that the park was much less invested in after communities of color began settling in the area around it. Due to the lack of government involvement and maintenance in the park, maintenance began to shift to be in the hands of the community itself, before the park began to be reinvested in in the 90s. The collaborative stewardship of the individuals in the community was an extremely important testament to the park and emphasized the importance for designers to work with the community on the park.Lydia then shares that for this project, the team was split into three key factors, land, people, and city, which were not segmented but emphasized the three groups they wanted to focus on. Though, all of these factors worked in close collaboration in order to gain a more holistic review.

Rhiannon Sinclair, Urban Planner at Agency Landscape + Planning then shifts the focus to the design process which was meant to take 18 months but was extended to 45 months, not only because of the COVID pandemic, but also because the city wanted to make sure all of the three major principles were taken into consideration. An initial limitation was gathering information from people who used the park, so the team casted the net wide, broadened engagement, and tried to reach people in every way they used communication and information sharing. They worked to build awareness, through newsletters and signage, and ended up getting 6,435 participants that were representative of the neighborhoods that made up Franklin Park. Using the information they gathered, they took concerns and opinions and reflected them in the design, investing in places that make Franklin Park special and expanded spaces for gatherings and events. The plan includes over 25 projects over 20-30 years. One question that was brought up was how the team worked to resolve contradictory needs or claims? The team shared that there was a process of prioritizing and understanding the reasoning behind the concerns, not just the concern alone. The long timeline of the project gave lots of time for iteration for serious review periods and tradeoffs, and they were able to have one on one conversations with people who were worried.

Discussion in the round table continued to how the three different firms were able to work together with the City of Boston and how the design process was able to honor indigenous resources and open communication and collaboration with different cultural groups with histories that haven’t been told. The collaboration in the design process and focus on the three main principles was instrumental in the redesign for Franklin Park, and the future of design must not completely separate design from the significance of the land, community, and context in the city.

The latest BE+ roundtable on Wednesday, June 5th, brought together industry experts and city officials to discuss the Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance (BERDO) and its Flexibility Measures, aiming to help building owners comply with emission standards through various methods. The session was kicked off by Meredith Elbaum, who welcomed attendees and set the stage for an engaging discussion.

Ilene Mason, the founder and CEO of Rethinking Power Management (RPM) introduced the roundtable, emphasizing its purpose and significance. Special guests from the City of Boston, Diana Vasquez and Dima Moujahed, were present to provide insights and answer questions. Ryan Pagois facilitated the session, guiding attendees through the Miro Board to ensure an interactive and collaborative experience.

Main Themes Discussed

BERDO Compliance
The central theme of the discussion was the obligations under BERDO. Building owners are required to adhere to emission standards, achievable through three primary methods: reducing energy usage by implementing energy-efficient measures, obtaining renewable energy from sustainable sources, and investing in community decarbonization projects.

BERDO Review Board
An independent review board plays a crucial role in BERDO’s framework. This board is responsible for reviewing applications, enforcing compliance, and recommending updates to the ordinance. Its function is to ensure that BERDO’s goals are met effectively and equitably.

Flexibility Measures Explained
The roundtable delved into the flexibility measures available under BERDO, providing building owners with four major pathways to compliance:

• Blended Emission Standards: This measure applies to buildings with multiple use types, offering a flexible approach without the need for a formal application.
• Building Portfolios: Owners with multiple buildings can opt to comply by aggregating emissions across their properties. This pathway requires an application and offers significant flexibility.
• Individual Compliance Standards (ICS): Based on historical data, ICS allows for a customized emission reduction schedule. This approach requires a formal application and focuses on absolute emissions rather than per square foot standards.
• Hardship Compliance Plans (HCP): For buildings facing significant challenges, HCPs offer the most relief. These plans can be short-term (1-3 years) or long-term (5+ years) and require a detailed application and presentation at a public hearing.

Key Questions and Answers
During the Q&A session, several pertinent questions from attendees were addressed. One question concerned whether the energy utility’s whole building energy use reporting includes tenants who opted into Boston’s Community Choice program. The response confirmed that this data is included in emissions calculations at the building level.

Another inquiry was about the linear reduction approach for individual Compliance standards (ICS), clarifying that the reduction follows a five-year increment, similar to default emission reductions. There was also a question about the applicability of portfolio compliance to lab and office projects, confirming that portfolio compliance can be applied if specific requirements are met. Finally, a question about the Environmental Justice (EJ) maps and their layers was answered, explaining the parameters of these maps and their role in improving air quality compliance.

By actively participating in this roundtable, attendees gained a deeper understanding of BERDO compliance measures and how to effectively implement them to meet emission standards. This meeting highlighted the collaborative efforts required to achieve city-wide decarbonization goals

Note: Save the date for our next session on Wednesday, August 7th at 3 pm. Register here.

Be mindful of the upcoming BERDO Flexibility application deadlines: July 1 for Long-term Hardship, September 1 for Building Portfolios and Individual Compliance Schedules, and October 1 for Short-term Hardship.

Subscribe to our biweekly newsletter to stay informed about more exciting events and roundtables!

Winners of the Embodied Carbon Reduction Challenge Announced!

15 months ago, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) and BE+ launched the first-in-the-nation Embodied Carbon Reduction Challenge in order to jumpstart the upfront reduction of carbon in building projects across Massachusetts. 16 teams submitted projects performing Whole Building Life Cycle Assessments (WBLCAs), and a total of $380,000 in cash prizes were awarded to 11 lead applicants. A panel of nine judges from across the country made their selections based on embodied carbon reduction, innovation, replicability, and cost effectiveness.

At a June 20th reception during the Northeast Embodied Carbon Summit, MassCEC and BE+ announced the winning projects and showcased all 16 entries in a display of project boards.

Overall, the 16 projects made an embodied carbon reduction of 25k metric tons of CO₂e, which is equivalent to the carbon sequestered in 413,377 tree seedlings grown for 10 years. More importantly, the Challenge equipped a whole new slate of design firms and practitioners with the tools and knowledge they need to take embodied carbon reductions to the next level.

Congratulations to everyone who participated. The judges had high praise for all of the submissions. They highlighted the creativity, dedication, and all of the tremendous learning and sharing that happened along the way. Each project pushed the boundaries of what is possible in green building.

See the winners below. Dive deeper into all 16 projects in the People’s Choice Portal.

$50K GRAND PRIZE: SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION

Jones Library
Submitted by Finegold Alexander Architects

Here’s what the judges had to say: “The Jones Library is an exemplary Substantial Rehabilitation project that brings embodied carbon to the front of the design process. The “Build Less” ethos is on full display at the Jones Library, which reuses historic building components and judiciously adds square footage only where necessary for modern uses. The use of CLT in the new construction portion of the building demonstrates several design best practices that other teams can learn from: highlight the aesthetic advantages of mass timber, push for lower carbon toppings such as gypcrete, and iterate on unique design solutions for acoustics and vibration design. By combining the reuse of 30% of the existing building with low carbon design tactics, the design team, from building owner to designer, took fantastic steps to create a useful and elegant low carbon building.”

$50K GRAND PRIZE: NEW CONSTRUCTION

Sustainable Engineering Laboratories
Submitted by Payette

According to the judges, “Sustainable Engineering Laboratories is a project that exhibits incredibly impressive reductions in embodied carbon, and, maybe even more importantly, sets an example through its design process that all practitioners in the AEC industry can learn from. The effort undertaken by the design team to ensure that embodied carbon was tracked and considered at every stage of the design process made SEL truly jump off the page. This was particularly evident in the decisions that do not show up in traditional embodied carbon analysis, such as optimizing the floor area to volume ratio by implementing a skip-stop office level design. The holistic analysis extended to cost implications of critical design decisions to ensure that overall cost did not increase, even with the inclusion of systems like Dowel Laminated Timber that are generally considered to come with extreme cost premiums.”

$10K PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARD

Leland House
Submitted by Prellwitz Chilinski Associates, Inc.

“The strategies used in Leland House all seem to be highly replicable, exemplified by the fact that they made it into an affordable housing project. The implemented strategies, including mass timber, wood framing, low carbon concrete, and cellulose insulation, did a good job of reducing the embodied carbon. An exceptionally thorough submission and exploration from structure through interiors, with a clever model of the lessons learned. The learning curve that happened with this team is admirable; clearly they will take a lot forward from this challenge!”

$30K RUNNER-UP AWARDS

9 Winning Projects

The judges appreciated the replicability of the runner-up projects and their support of innovative, low-carbon concrete solutions was a common theme among the nine awardees. The projects that focused on the embodied carbon reduction process, rather than simply the results, scored well, and the integration of embodied carbon reduction tactics early on in the design process was also celebrated. The judges noted the power of the reduction narrative to compliment the data, and they appreciated the emphasis on replicability from all project submissions. Overall, the nine runners-up demonstrated an eagerness to innovate in replicable ways, taking steps to push the envelope on creative and cost-effective embodied carbon solutions, with several teams undertaking their first LCAs, introducing new thinkers and innovators in the LCA space.

380 Stuart

Cooper Center

Leland House

Thank you to our Amazing Judges!

Thank you to our Partners!