Electric Vehicle Charging

Loading
loading...

Electric Vehicle Charging

March 28, 2024
mike@standardsmichigan.com
No Comments

Edison electric vehicle | National Park Service, US Department of the Interior

 

Free public access to the 2021 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is linked below:

2021 International Energy Conservation Code

This title will be updated within a reconfigured code development cycle linked below:

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

Keep in mind that many electric vehicle safety and sustainability concepts will track in other titles in the ICC catalog.   It is enlightening to see other energy related proposals tracking in the most recent Group A code revision cycle

The following proposals discussed during the Group A Hearings ended earlier this month are noteworthy:

IBC § 202 (NEW) | G66-21 |  Electrical mobility definitions

IBC § 1107.2, et al | E124-21 & E125-21 & E126-21 |  Electrical vehicle charging stations for R-2 occupancies.

From the Group B revision cycle — COMPLETE MONOGRAPH:

R309.6 Electric vehicle charging stations and systems. Where provided, electric vehicle charging systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70. Electric vehicle charging system equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2202. Electric vehicle supply equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2594.

IBC 406.2.7 Electric vehicle charging stations and systems. Where provided, electric vehicle charging systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70. Electric vehicle charging system equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2202. Electric vehicle supply equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2594. Accessibility to electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided in accordance with Section 1108.

TABLE R328.5 MAXIMUM AGGREGATE RATINGS OF ESS (Energy Storage Systems) – PDF Page 1476

Incumbents are socking in EV concepts all across the ICC catalog.  We refer them to experts in the Industrial Applications Society IEEE E&H Committee.

 

 

One of the more spirited debates in recent revision cycles is the following:

Who shall pay for electrical vehicle charging infrastructure?   

The underlying assumption is that the electrification of the global transportation grid has a net benefit.   We remain mute on that question; the question of net gain.

Of course, many proposals pointed the finger at the stakeholder with the deepest pockets.  Accordingly, new commercial building owners will be required to install charging stations for new buildings.   During 2018 and 2019 we tracked the action in the workspace below so that we could collaborate with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee:

2021 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

Given that most higher education facilities are classified as commercial, the cost of charging stations will be conveyed into the new building construction budget unless the unit takes an exception.   Generally speaking, most colleges and universities like to display their electric vehicle credentials, even if the use of such charging stations remains sparse.

Cornell University

Issue: [11-40]

Category: Electrical, #SmartCampus

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey

* The education industry has significant square footage this is classified as residential; particularly on the periphery of large research campuses.


LEARN MORE:

ICC 2021/2022 Code Development Cycle

The Top 5 Energy Efficiency Proposals for the 2021 IECC

Archive / IECC Electric Vehicle Charging

 

Electric Vehicle Power Transfer

March 28, 2024
mike@standardsmichigan.com

No Comments

2023 National Electrical Code

2026 National Electrical Code Workspace


August 5, 2021

The 2020 National Electrical Code (NEC) contains significant revisions to Article 625 Electric Vehicle Power Transfer Systems.  Free access to this information is linked below:

2023 National Electrical Code

2020 National Electrical Code

You will need to set up a (free) account to view Article 625 or you may join our colloquium today.

Public input for the 2023 Edition of the NEC has already been received.  The work of the assigned committee — Code Making Panel 12 — is linked below:

NFPA 70_A2022_NEC_P12_FD_PIReport_rev

Mighty spirited debate.   Wireless charging from in-ground facilities employing magnetic resonance are noteworthy.

 

Technical committees meet November – January to respond.   In the intervening time it is helpful  break down the ideas that were in play last cycle.  The links below provide the access point:

Public Input Report Panel 12

Public Comment Report Panel 12

Panel 12 Final Ballot

We find a fair amount of administrative and harmonization action; fairly common in any revision cycle.   We have taken an interest in a few specific concepts that track in academic research construction industry literature:

  • Correlation with Underwriters Laboratory product standards
  • Bi-Directional Charging & Demand Response
  • Connection to interactive power sources

As a wiring safety installation code — with a large installer and inspection constituency — the NEC is usually the starting point for designing the power chain to electric vehicles.   There is close coupling between the NEC and product conformance organizations identified by NIST as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories; the subject of a separate post.

Edison electric vehicle | National Park Service, US Department of the Interior

After the First Draft is released June 28th public comment is receivable until August 19th.

We typically do not duplicate the work of the 10’s of thousands of National Electrical Code instructors who will be fanning out across the nation to host training sessions for electrical professionals whose license requires mandatory continuing education.  That space has been a crowded space for decades.   Instead we co-host “transcript reading” sessions with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee to sort through specifics of the 2020 NEC and to develop some of the ideas that ran through 2020 proposals but did not make it to final ballot and which we are likely to see on the docket of the 2023 NEC revision.   That committee meets online 4 times monthly.  We also include Article 625 on the standing agenda of our Mobility colloquium; open to everyone.   See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting

Issue: [16-102]

Category: Electrical, Transportation & Parking, Energy

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey

Workspace / NFPA


More

U.S. NATIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS SUMMIT | DETROIT, MICHIGAN 2010

Gallery: Electric Vehicle Fire Risk

 

John A. Paulson Center

March 27, 2024
mike@standardsmichigan.com

No Comments

The New York University Paulson Center 181 Mercer dormitory is a state-of-the-art residence hall located in the heart of Manhattan’s SoHo neighborhood. The building was designed by COOKFOX architects and completed in 2020.

The Paulson 181 Mercer dormitory is a 23-story building that houses more than 700 students in a mix of singles, doubles, triples, and quads. The building features a number of amenities designed to enhance the student living experience, including a fitness center, music practice rooms, a game room, and a rooftop terrace with stunning views of the city.

One of the most unique features of the Paulson 181 Mercer dormitory is its focus on sustainability and green design. The building is expected to achieve LEED Gold certification, which recognizes buildings that are designed and constructed to minimize their environmental impact. Some of the sustainable features of the building include a green roof, rainwater harvesting system, and energy-efficient lighting and HVAC systems.

The $1.2 billion John A. Paulson Center — which opened in January 2023 — provides all of the occupancy classes for the “university without a quad”.

Student Accommodation

Schenkingen

Standards New York

*In 2005, Paulson began investing heavily in credit default swaps, which are essentially insurance contracts that pay out if a particular debt instrument defaults. He used these swaps to bet against the subprime mortgage market, which he believed was overvalued and ripe for collapse. When the housing market crashed in 2008, Paulson’s bets paid off in a big way, earning him billions of dollars in profits.

Paulson has also been involved in other successful trades, including investments in gold and banking stocks. However, his bet against the subprime mortgage market remains his most famous and lucrative trade.

 

Student Accommodation

March 27, 2024
mike@standardsmichigan.com

No Comments

Harvard University Dormitory Room | Smithsonian Museum | Thomas Warren Sears Collection

Today we break down public consultation notices for literature that sets the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of student housing in K-12 prep schools, colleges and universities.  We deal with off-campus housing in a separate session because it involves local safety and sustainability regulations; most of which are derived from residential housing codes and standards.

Monograph: The Case for Campus Housing

Off-Campus Housing

The topic cuts across many disciplines and standards setting organization bibliographies. We usually set our bearing with the following titles:

2021 International Building Code: Section 310 Residential Group R-2 + related titles such as the IFC, IMC, IPC, IECC

2021 Fire Code: Chapter 6 Classification of Occupancy  + related titles such as NFPA 70B, NFPA 72 and NFPA 110

2023 National Electrical Code: Articles 210-230 + related Articles 110 and 410

ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings: Annex G

Like any other classification of real property the average cost for room and board for a public university student dormitory depends on several factors such as the location of the university, the type of dormitory, and the meal plan options.  According to the College Board, the average cost of room and board for the 2021-2022 academic year at a public four-year in-state institution was $11,620. However, this figure can range from around $7,000 to $16,000 or more depending on the specific institution and its location.   It’s important to note that this average cost only includes the basic meal plan and standard dormitory room. Students may also have additional costs for a larger or more luxurious dorm room, a premium meal plan, or other expenses such as laundry or parking fees.   

According to ring Rider Levett Bucknall, a global property and construction consultancy firm, the average construction cost for a student housing facility in the United States in 2021 was around $202 per square foot. However, this figure can range from around $150 to $300 per square foot or more depending on the specific project.  Life cycle cost for new facilities with tricked out net-zero gadgets is hard to come by at the moment.

Because money flows freely through this domain we examine scalable densities and the nature of money flow patterns; partially tracked by the Electronic Municipal Market Access always on the standing agenda of our Finance colloquium.

More

National Institute of Standards & Technology: The Character of Residential Cooktop Fires

Deserted College Dorms Sow Trouble for $14 Billion in Muni Bonds

Dormitory, Fraternity, Sorority and Barrack Structure Fires

Here are a few pros and cons of private sector construction of university-owned student housing:

Pros:

  1. Increased housing availability: Private sector developers may be able to build more student housing units than a university could build on its own, which can help to alleviate the shortage of on-campus housing for students.
  2. Faster construction: Private developers may be able to complete construction projects faster than universities, which can help to reduce the amount of time that students must wait for new housing options.
  3. Reduced financial burden on the university: The cost of building and maintaining student housing can be significant, and private sector developers may be willing to bear some of these costs. This can help to reduce the financial burden on the university and free up resources for other initiatives.
  4. Professional management: Private developers may have more experience managing large housing projects and may be able to provide more professional management services than a university could provide on its own.

Cons:

  1. Higher costs for students: Private developers may charge higher rents than a university would charge for student housing, which can make housing less affordable for some students.
  2. Reduced university control: Private developers may have different priorities than a university would have when it comes to building and managing student housing. This can lead to a reduced level of control for the university over housing quality, management, and policies.
  3. Potential conflicts of interest: Private developers may be more focused on making a profit than on meeting the needs of students or the university, which can create potential conflicts of interest.
  4. Less transparency: Private developers may not be subject to the same level of transparency and accountability as a university would be when it comes to housing policies, decision-making processes, and financial management.

It’s important to note that these pros and cons may vary depending on the specific circumstances and context of each individual university and private sector partnership.


Gallery: Off-Campus Accommodation

Uniform Plumbing Code

March 27, 2024
mike@standardsmichigan.com
,
No Comments

“Niagara” 1857 Frederic Edwin Church

Although the 2024 Revision is substantially complete there are a number of technical and administrative issues to be resolved before the final version is released for public use. Free access to the most recent edition is linked below.

CODE DEVELOPMENT

TENTATIVE – 2027 UPC/UMC CODE DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

Report on Comments for the 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code

 

Life Safety Code

March 27, 2024
mike@standardsmichigan.com
,
No Comments

The Life Safety Code addresses those construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from the effects of fire, including smoke, heat, and toxic gases created during a fire.   It is widely incorporated by reference into public safety statutes; typically coupled with the consensus products of the International Code Council.   It is a mighty document — one of the NFPA’s leading titles — so we deal with it in pieces; consulting it for decisions to be made for the following:

(1) Determination of the occupancy classification in Chapters 12 through 42.

(2) Determination of whether a building or structure is new or existing.

(3) Determination of the occupant load.

(4) Determination of the hazard of contents.

There are emergent issues — such as active shooter response, integration of life and fire safety systems on the internet of small things — and recurrent issues such as excessive rehabilitation and conformity criteria and the ever-expanding requirements for sprinklers and portable fire extinguishers with which to reckon.  It is never easy telling a safety professional paid to make a market for his product or service that it is impossible to be alive and safe.  It is even harder telling the dean of a department how much it will cost to bring the square-footage under his stewardship up to the current code.

The 2021 edition is the current edition and is accessible below:

NFPA 101 Life Safety Code Free Public Access

Public input on the 2027 Revision will be received until June 4, 2024.

 

Since the Life Safety Code is one of the most “living” of living documents — the International Building Code and the National Electric Code also move continuously — we can start anywhere and anytime and still make meaningful contributions to it.   We have been advocating in this document since the 2003 edition in which we submitted proposals for changes such as:

• A student residence facility life safety crosswalk between NFPA 101 and the International Building Code

• Refinements to Chapters 14 and 15 covering education facilities (with particular attention to door technologies)

• Identification of an ingress path for rescue and recovery personnel toward electric service equipment installations.

• Risk-informed requirement for installation of grab bars in bathing areas

• Modification of the 90-minute emergency lighting requirements rule for small buildings and for fixed interval testing

• Modification of emergency illumination fixed interval testing

• Table 7.3.1 Occupant Load revisions

• Harmonization of egress path width with European building codes

There are others.  It is typically difficult to make changes to stabilized standard though some of the concepts were integrated by the committee into other parts of the NFPA 101 in unexpected, though productive, ways.  Example transcripts of proposed 2023 revisions to the education facility chapter is linked below:

Chapter 14 Public Input Report: New Educational Occupancies

Educational and Day Care Occupancies: Second Draft Public Comments with Responses Report

Since NFPA 101 is so vast in its implications we list a few of the sections we track, and can drill into further, according to client interest:

Chapter 3: Definitions

Chapter 7: Means of Egress

Chapter 12: New Assembly Occupancies

Chapter 13: Existing Assembly Occupancies

Chapter 16 Public Input Report: New Day-Care Facilities

Chapter 17 Public Input Report: Existing Day Care Facilities

Chapter 18 Public Input Report: New Health Care Facilities

Chapter 19 Public Input Report: Existing Health Care Facilities

Chapter 28: Public Input Report: New Hotels and Dormitories

Chapter 29: Public Input Report: Existing Hotels and Dormitories

Chapter 43: Building Rehabilitation

Annex A: Explanatory Material

As always we encourage front-line staff, facility managers, subject matter experts and trade associations to participate directly in the NFPA code development process (CLICK HERE to get started)

NFPA 101 is a cross-cutting title so we maintain it on the agenda of our several colloquia —Housing, Prometheus, Security and Pathways colloquia.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.

 

Issue: [18-90]

Category: Fire Safety, Public Safety

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Josh Elvove, Joe DeRosier, Marcelo Hirschler

More

ARCHIVE / Life Safety Code 2003 – 2018

 


Fire and Life Safety in Stadiums

Reliability

March 26, 2024
mike@standardsmichigan.com
No Comments

Indiana University Internet Archive: “A Mathematical Theory of Reliability” by Richard E. Barlow and Frank Proschan (1965)

This paper introduced the concept of reliability theory and established a mathematical framework for analyzing system reliability in terms of lumped parameters. It defined important concepts such as coherent systems, minimal cut sets, and minimal path sets, which are still widely used in reliability engineering.

IEEE Recommended Practice for the Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems

“Railroad Sunset” | Edward HopperWe are tooling up to update the failure rate tables of IEEE 493 Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems; collaborating with project leaders but contributing to an essential part of the data design engineers use for scaling their power system designs.  The project is in its early stages.  We are formulating approaches about how to gather data for assemble a statistically significant data set.

Today we introduce the project which will require harvesting power reliability statistics from any and all educational settlements willing to share their data.  As the links before demonstrate, we have worked in this domain for many years.

Join us with the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

 

2017 National Electrical Code § 110.5

2023 National Electrical Safety Code

Reliability Analysis for Power to Fire Pumps

Interoperability of Distributed Energy Resources


“On the Mathematical Theory of Risk and Some Problems in Distribution-Free Statistics” by Frank Proschan (1963): This paper introduced the concept of increasing failure rate (IFR) and decreasing failure rate (DFR) distributions, which are crucial in reliability modeling and analysis.

“Reliability Models for Multiple Failures in Redundant Systems” by John F. Meyer (1965): This paper addressed the problem of reliability analysis for redundant systems, which are systems with multiple components designed to provide backup in case of failure.

“Reliability of Systems in Series and in Parallel” by A. T. Bharucha-Reid (1960): This work analyzed the reliability of systems composed of components arranged in series and parallel configurations, which are fundamental building blocks of more complex systems.

“A Stochastic Model for the Reliability of Modular Software Systems” by John E. Gaffney, Jr. and Thomas A. Dueck (1980): This paper introduced one of the earliest models for software reliability, extending the concepts of reliability theory to the field of software engineering.

“Redundancy Techniques for Computing Systems” by John von Neumann (1956): This report by the pioneering computer scientist John von Neumann explored the use of redundancy techniques, such as triple modular redundancy, to improve the reliability of com

puting systems.

Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
Skip to content