mike@standardsmichigan.com | Standards Michigan

Author Archives: mike@standardsmichigan.com

Loading
loading...

Energy Standard for Buildings

“Visit to the Classroom” | Charles Hunt (1859)

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers — doing business as ASHRAE since 2012 — is an ANSI-accredited continuous-maintenance standards developer (a major contributor to what we call a regulatory product development “stream”).   Continuous maintenance means that changes to its consensus products can change in as little as 30 days.

Ahead of next conference in Kansas City, MO | June 22-26  the ASHRAE standards administration team has released another batch of candidate changes to its flagship product — ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings — all of which affect the design, construction and operation of education facilities because they are heavily referenced in local, state and federal energy legislation.   Ideally, late-breaking developments in the revised standard of care set in this document will synchronize with the release of the next edition of the International Building Code in 2019,

ASHRAE 90.1 is co-developed with the Illumination Engineering Society because about 35 percent of electrical energy in a typical building is owed to lighting load.   There are thousands of workgroups on the direct payroll of facilities organizations within school districts, colleges and universities — and, perhaps, as many architects, engineers, and facility construction and maintenance contractors — that use ASHRAE 90.1 in their practice every day.

The technical committees writing ASHRAE 90.1 have released 19 redlines for public comment; a few noteworthy changes listed below:

Addendum cb: Expansion of the scope of ASHRAE 90.1 to entire building sites.

Addendum bc: Computer Room air conditioner efficiency

Addendum bo: Warm air concept correlation with US Department of Energy (DOE) tabulation

Addendum br & cf: DOE refrigeration minimum efficiency requirements.  Many school districts, university affiliated hospitals and student residence halls have significant food refrigeration technologies

Addendum cd: Exhaust Air Energy Recovery

Addendum ck: 1 Modeling Requirements for Calculating Design Energy Cost and Energy Cost Budget for On-site renewable energy

Addendum cv: Parking Garage Lighting Control

Addendum by: Building sites shall have equipment for on-site renewable energy with a rated capacity of not less than 0.25 W/ft² or 0.85 Btu/ft2 (2.7W/m²) multiplied by the sum of the gross conditioned floor area for all floors up to the three largest floors.

Other addenda are editorial and/or correlation fixes associated with changes in product standards and/or related regulatory documents promulgated by the US Department of Energy.  These changes should interest A/E enterprises, sustainability workgroups and/or HVAC shops in facility divisions of most colleges, universities and school districts.

Comments are due June 9th.

Education industry facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals are encouraged to participate directly in the ASHRAE consensus standard development process.   You may do so on ASHRAE’s public commenting facility:

Online Standards Actions & Public Review Drafts

University of Southern California | Glorya Kaufman School of Dance

All ASHRAE standards are a standing item on our daily teleconferences every day, 11 AM Eastern time.  It is especially important to give priority to ANSI accredited “continuous maintenance” standards developers.   While energy conservation may not seem to be as much of a public safety issue as other continuous maintenance standards developers who deal with consumer product safety (Underwriters Laboratories) and water safety (NSF International) the fact that the ASHRAE suite is to widely referenced in other regulatory products developed by the International Code Council, the US Green Building Council, the Illumination Engineering Society, and others; supports the practical necessity of sending up redlines for public review at a brisk pace.

We also pull together all mechanical engineering standards once per month and knock around ideas for responding to proposed changes or developing proposals of our own.   See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconference.  Use the same login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

Issue: [Various]

Category: Mechanical, Electrical, Energy Conservation, Facility Asset Management, US Department of Energy, #SmartCampus

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Larry Spielvogel, Richard Robben

#StandardsGeorgia #StandardsKansas

 


LEARN MORE:

 

ASHRAE supported the Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act of 2014 (H.R. 4092; 113th Congress), a bill that would require the United States Department of Energy to establish a centralized clearinghouse to disseminate information on federal programs, incentives, and mechanisms for financing energy-efficient retrofits and upgrades at schools.[12][13]

 

 

 

StandardsMichigan ASHRAE 90.1 Advocacy Archive (Send an email to bella@standardsmichigan.com for access)

US Department of Energy Building Energy Codes Program

‘‘Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act of 2014’’

Climate Accounting Standard

“Landscape drawing for Santa Maria della Neve on 5th August 1473” | Leonardo da Vinci

The Leonardo Academy Inc. (LEO), a non-profit, ANSI-accredited standards developer, proposes to new consensus product titled LEO 3000 Climate Accounting Standard.   An excerpt from the filing in ANSI’s Project Initiation Notfication System is shown below:

New Standard: BSR/LEO 3000-201x, Climate Accounting Standard (new standard)

Human-caused activities and emissions have altered the earth’s energy balance, leading to the trapping of excess energy in the atmosphere, which in turn is disrupting the climate and causing global temperatures to rise. Current accounting methods have only accounted for a portion of the total contributors to this excess trapped energy. “Radiative Forcing” is the universal metric that can be used to describe the degree to which any given emission, natural process, or activity contributes positively or negatively to this change in the energy balance. The IPCC has begun using this metric to project future climate change scenarios. By translating IPCC methods into an accounting protocol, it will be possible to more accurately and comprehensively assess the contribution of all climate pollutants, to determine the level of Radiative Forcing reduction required to stabilize climate, and to develop a roadmap toward climate stabilization that accomplishes the goal in a timely and cost-effective manner.  Stakeholders: Climate affects everyone and everyone affects climate through their actions and choices. The stakeholders for this standard include the consumers, government representatives, environmentalists, academics, businesses, and others.

This is a climate accounting standard. This specification standard will provide a radiative forcing-based climate accounting protocol, which is an application of IPCC consensus climate science presented in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), and used in subsequent reports, including the IPCC’s Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C. This protocol is intended to specify the methods for calculating climate footprints which include all known contributors to net positive radiative forcing, for determining the scale of radiative forcing reduction needed to stabilize climate, and for identify and supporting projects aimed at stabilizing the global climate system significantly below +1.5°C by 2030 and in decades to come. It will also specify the requirements for validation and verification of claims. Finally, it will describe potential funding mechanisms to achieve stabilization goals most cost effectively, including direct investments in eligible Radiative Forcing reduction projects and infrastructure, governmental and market incentives, and public mitigation exchange platforms.

No public comments are due at this time; though other ANSI-accredited standards developers may need to examine whether or not there is scope overlap.  ANSI’s PINS system landing page is linked below:

ANSI PINS Process: An Informative Summary (2013)

Leonardo Academy’s standards development page is linked below:

Sustainability Standards Program

This standard falls into a cross-disciplinary niche we identify as “Global Warming Engineering” but we will continue to keep it on the agenda of the traditional building service engineering.  We are happy to discuss this any day at 11 AM Eastern time.  We also pull together mechanical engineering concepts once per month.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.

 

Issue: [19-131]

Category: Electrical, Energy, Mechanical

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel

 


LEARN MORE:

Building Energy Code

Photomontage Forggensee Panorama | Composite of 16 freely licensed photos

Since about 2003 the National Fire Protection Association has invested in a consensus product that competes with other ANSI accredited standards developing organizations to secure a footprint in the energy conservation space:  NFPA 900 Building Energy Code.  Use of the word “code” in its title is significant.   It means that NFPA 900 has been written to be incorporated by reference into federal, state and local energy conservation legislation.

From the NFPA 900 prospectus:

These regulations shall control the minimum energy-efficient requirements for the following:

(1) The design, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, demolition, removal, inspection, issuance, and revocation of permits or licenses, installation of equipment related to energy conservation in all buildings and structures and parts thereof

(2) The rehabilitation and maintenance of construction related to energy efficiency in existing buildings

(3) The standards or requirements for materials to be used in connection therewith.

Sound familiar?  At the very least, NFPA 900 fills out the 300+ consensus product offerings of the NFPA.  The  NFPA has another product — NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code — which also has the practical effect of using the NFPA brand, and cadre of public safety compliance functionaries, to at least maintain a presence in the energy conservation space.   A brief reading of NFPA 900 reveals that it references consensus products by the ICC, ASHRAE and other ANSI-accredited standards developers.

NFPA 900 is now open for public input until January 9, 2020.

We host a monthly teleconference that covers the status of the expanding constellation of energy conservation standards.  See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconference; always at the same time — 11:00 AM Eastern Time; always with the same login credentials; and always open to everyone.

 

Issue: [6-5] [12-79]

Category: Public Safety, Risk Management, #SmartCampus

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Richard Robben

LINK TO LEGACY UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN WORKSPACE

Standards Massachusetts


 

 

Natural Gas Transmission & Distribution

Poster showing benefits of gas lighting and heating (Italy, 1902)

Most school districts, colleges, universities and university-affiliated health care systems depend upon a safe and reliable supply of natural gas.   One of the first names in standards setting for the natural gas industry in the United States is the American Gas Association (AGA) which represents companies delivering natural gas safely, reliably, and in an environmentally responsible way.  From the AGA vision statement:

“….(AGA) is committed to leveraging and utilizing America’s abundant, domestic, affordable and clean natural gas to help meet the nation’s energy and environmental needs….”

We do not advocate in natural gas standards at the moment but AGA standards do cross our radar because they assure energy security to the emergent #SmartCampus.  We find AGA standards referenced in natural gas service contracts (for large district energy plants, for example) or in construction contracts for new buildings.  As with all other energy technological developments we keep pace with, improvements are continual even though those improvements are known to only a small cadre of front line engineers and technicians.

AGA has released seventeen redlines containing proposed changes to GPTC Z380.1 Guide for Gas Transmission, Distribution, and Gathering Piping Systems. The redlines are listed in the link below:

American Gas Association Standards Public Review Home Page

Comments due July 8th.

You may obtain an electronic copy from: https://www.aga.org/research/policy/ansi-public-reviews/.  Order from: Michael Bellman, (202) 824-7183, mbellman@aga.org.  Send comments to Michael (with copy to psa@ansi.org).  Any questions you may have concerning public reviews please contact Mike as well.

We meet online every day at 11 AM Eastern time to march through technical specifics.  Feel free to click in.   Also, we meet with mechanical engineering experts from both the academic and business side of the global education community once per month.  See our CALENDAR for our next Mechanical Engineering monthly teleconference; open to everyone.

Finally, now that the worst of the winter weather is behind most parts of the United States, we should reflect upon the legacy energy systems fueled by natural gas that are challenged by the “green zietgiest” we find in the business and academic side of the education industry.  There is no way most school districts, colleges, universities and related hospital systems  could have survived the extreme weather with solar panels and windmills.  

Issue: [19-27]

Category: Energy, Mechanical, Risk Management

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel

#StandardsVirginia


University of Michigan Central Heating Plant

 

Standards Hawaii

As we explain in our ABOUT, we are continuing the development of the cadre of “code writers and vote-getters” begun at the University of Michigan in 1993.  We are now drilling down into state and local adaptations of nationally developed codes and standards that are incorporated by reference into public safety and sustainability legislation.

This post is a “test pancake” for generating discussion, and for developing a way forward for crafting state exceptions to nationally developed codes and standards.  Every state will have to be managed according to its history, culture, governance regime, asset-base and network of expertise.

Standards Michigan will remain the “free” home site but state-specific sites such as Standards Hawaii will be accessible to user-interest code-writers and vote-getters.   Please send bella@standardsmichigan.com a request to join one of our mailing lists appropriate to your interest for #SmartCampus standards action in the State of Hawaii.

National Electrical Safety Code

“Malakoff” | Henri Rousseau (1898)

Recent disasters in the United States in late 2018 inspires a revisit of the standard to which regulated utilities build the overhead and underground power and telecommunication wiring for the communities they serve. We collaborate closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (IEEE E&H) to raise the standard of care for power security on the emergent #SmartCampus since many campus power systems are larger than publicly regulated utilities.  Even when they are smaller, the guidance in building the premise wiring system — whether the premise is within a building, outside the building (in which the entire geography of the campus footprint is the premise), is inspired by IEEE Standards Association administrated technical committees.

Northeast Community College | Norfolk, Nebraska

Several proposals recommending improvements to the 2017 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) were submitted to the IEEE subcommittees drafting the 2022 revision of the NESC.   They are fairly technical and subtle in their implications for the advancement of safety and sustainability in campus power distribution systems.   Some of the proposals deal with coordination with the National Electrical Code — which is now deep in its 2020 revision cycle.

Keep in mind that that NESC is revised every 5 years at the moment.  The next steps in the 2022 NESC development will span across most of the next 18 months as the various subcommittees meet to prepare written responses to public input.  A preprint of those proposals will be posted no later than July 1, 2019.  This opens the comment period, by interested parties, on the submitted change proposals and the subcommittee recommendations.   The complete schedule is linked below:

IEEE C2 National Electrical Safety Code 2022 Revision Schedule

Comments are due March 1, 2020. 

The subcommittee that coordinates standards action between the IEEE and NFPA suite of technical standards — IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 18 — will also be hosting worksessions in the coming months.   While those work sessions are generally closed to the public, some of the concepts will be open for discussion during any of the IEEE E&H online committee meetings which meets 4 times monthly in Europe and the Americas.  The next online meeting is shown on the top menu of the IEEE E&H website:

IEEE E&H Committee

Business unit leaders, facility managers and electrical engineers working in the education facilities industry may be interested in the campus power system reliability database.   Forced outages in on large research campuses, for example, can have enterprise interruption cost of $100,000 to $1,000,000 per minute.    The database discriminates between forced outages attributed to public utility interruptions and forced outages attributed to the university-owned power system.   The E&H committee will convey some of the discipline applied by the IEEE 1366 technical committee into its study of campus power systems; many of which are larger than publicly owned or cooperative utilities.

 

Issue: [16-67]

Contact: Mike Anthony, Robert G. Arno, Lorne Clark, Nehad El-Sharif, Jim Harvey, Kane Howard, Joe Weber, Guiseppe Parise, Jim Murphy

Category: Electrical, Energy Conservation & Management, Occupational Safety

ARCHIVE: University of Michigan Advocacy in the NESC 2007 – 2017


LEARN MORE:

P1366 – Guide for Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices 

University Design Guidelines that reference the National Electrical Safety Code

Elevator Safety Code

“Hudson River Waterfront” | Colin Campbell Cooper (1913)

Elevator and escalator systems are among the most complicated systems in any urban environment, no less so than on the emergent #SmartCampus in which many large research universities have 100 to 1000 elevators to safely and economically operate, service and continuously commission.  Some university elevator O&M units use a combination of in-house, manufacturer and standing order contractors to accomplish their safety and sustainability experts.   We are now seeing an expansion of the requirement to include software integration professionals to coordinate the interoperability of elevators, lifts and escalators with building automation systems for fire safety, indoor air quality and disaster management.

In the United States the American Society of Mechanical Engineers is the dominant standards developer of elevator and escalator systems.  It partitions safety discovery and promulgation into about 30 committees below:

A17 ELEVATORS AND ESCALATORS

The parent document for the entire span of ASME elevator safety codes — ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators — is now deep into a new revision cycle.  As of this posting the parent A17 technical committee has not released any redlines that are open for public review.  When they are posted we will charge into them.

ASME Consensus Documents Open for Public Review

Two characteristics of the ASME standards development process are noteworthy:

  • Only the proposed changes to the BPVC are published.   The context surrounding a given change may be lost or not seen unless access to previous version is available.  Knowledgeable experts who contribute to the development of the BPVC usually have a previous version, however.  Newcomers to the process may not.
  • The BPVC has several breakout committees; owing to its longer history in the US standards system and the gathering pace of complexity in this technology.

We always encourage our colleagues to participate directly in the ASME standards development process.  CLICK HERE to get started.

All ASME standards are on the agenda of our monthly Mechanical Engineering and Elevator & Escalator teleconference.  See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconferences; open to everyone.  Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

 

Issue: [11-50]

Category: Electrical, Elevators, #SmartCampus

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel

 


LEARN MORE:


ARCHIVE: Posted September 27, 2018

Many colleges, universities, academic medical research and healthcare delivery campuses have hundreds of elevators whose design, construction, operations and maintenance is highly regulated by local and state level public safety agencies.   More than a few large research universities have thousands of elevators and, at cost upwards of $100,000 per floor just to build them (apart from the cost of running a certified in-house maintenance and contractor management staff) elevators represent a significant component of the #TotalCostofOwnership of education facilities. 

The deadline for submitting comments on the redline posted by ASME has since passed but it is possible to submit your ideas to the ASME A17 committees by attending the ASME “Elevator Week” in Austin, Texas, October 1 – 4 at the Holiday Inn Riverwalk in Austin, Texas.  More information is available in the link below:

ASME Elevator Week 2018

We will investigate whether any of the technical committee meetings are accessible online and open to the public.   In any case, the ASME A17 suite of documents is on our standing agenda.  Feel free to click in any day at 11 AM Eastern time to view the proposed changes to this, or any other, code or standard.

LIVE Daily 11:00 AM EDT

The ASME A17 Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Committee Meetings will take place at the National Association of Elevator Contractors Conference September 25th in Atlantic City — an apparent Producer Interest according to ANSI stakeholder criteria.  Colleges and Universities in the Atlantic City region are encouraged to attend as a User Interest.   There may be an opportunity to present #TotalCostofOwnership concepts to the incumbent interests on the committee.    CLICK HERE for more information.


Posted July 9, 2018

Many colleges, universities, academic medical research and healthcare delivery campuses have hundreds of elevators whose design, construction, operations and maintenance is highly regulated by local and state level public safety agencies.   More than a few large research universities have thousands of elevators and, at cost upwards of $100,000 per floor just to build them (apart from the cost of running a certified in-house maintenance and contractor management staff) elevators represent a significant component of the #TotalCostofOwnership of education facilities. 

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is the developer of the most widely adopted consensus standard incorporated by reference into public safety law for this core technology.  The redline (“strike-and-bold”) of candidate changes for next revision of the parent document — ASME A17.1/CSA B44 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators — is now available for public comment.  You will find it on the ASME Codes & Standards web page linked below:

ASME Consensus Documents Open for Public Review

Comments are due August 8th.   You may comment directly to ASME through Geraldine Burdeshaw, (212) 591-8523, burdeshawg@asme.org with a copy of your comments to psa@ansi.org.

The original University of Michigan infrastructure standards advocacy enterprise advocated #TotalCostofOwnership concepts across the entire A17.1 suite for several cycles.  That work continues here (see ABOUT).   Some facts and observations about that experience with the ASME A17 suite are listed below:

  • The A17 suite is broken down into many sub-disciplines (CLICK HERE for overview of the entire suite)
  • The technical committees are composed almost entirely by market incumbents* who are able to finance the cost of their participation into the price of the product they sell to the user-interest as identified in Section 2.3 of ANSI’s Essential Requirements
  • The absence of user interests is not the fault of ASME — it is the fault of the user interest; in our case the education facilities industry (the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States.
  • Candidate changes are developed largely by the members of the technical committee; though other stakeholders may submit their suggestions to the technical committee chairman through the ASME administrative staff identified above at any time.  Keep in mind that A17.1 is on a 5-year revision cycle.
  • Only the changes are shown in the public review document.  A full understanding of the context of the changes will require purchase of the entire document through ASME; or through access to the public edition of the code through state regulatory agencies.
  • The technical committees meet face-to-face 4 to 5 times a year so many of the proposed changes have been vetted well before the A17.1 is released for public review.
  • The 45-day public review period is permitted by ANSI but is a very narrow window of opportunity for the user interest.

We will host an online review and comment development teleconference on July 19th, 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM Eastern time which is open to everyone.   The entire ASME codes and standards suite is on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Door teleconferences — every Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern time.   CLICK HERE to log in.

Issue: [11-50]

Category: Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Telecommunications, Public Safety, Facility Asset Management

Colleagues: Richard Robben, David Flint, Larry Spielvogel

Link to Legacy Workspace


* Market incumbent.

Education Industry Construction Spend

Image credit: ESPN College Town

 

Update on the build-out of these “cities-within-cities” which,

when observed as a network, constitute a sovereign nation.

The value of construction put in place in March 2019 by the US education industry proceeded at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $76.6  billion, 1.5 percent below the February estimate of $77.8 billion.  (This number does not include renovation for projects under 50,000 square feet and new construction in university-affiliated health care delivery enterprises).   The complete report is available at the link below:

https://www.census.gov/construction/c30/pdf/release.pdf

At this rate, the US education facilities industry (which includes colleges, universities, technical/vocational and K-12 schools, most university-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises, etc.)  remains the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States.  For more perspective consider total public + private construction ranked according to the tabulation most recently released:

$96.7 billion  | Educational

$98.8 billion | Power

$89.4 billion | Highway and street

$ 88.2 billion | Commercial

$74.8 billion | Office

$41.4 billion | Healthcare

Overall — including construction, energy, custodial services, furnishings, security. etc., — the non-instructional spend plus the construction spend of the US education facilities is approximately $300 billion per year.  Cash throughput at this scale draws comparisons with the $223 billion annual revenue of Berkshire-Hathaway (a Fortune #2 corporation) and the $304 billion national gross domestic product of Denmark.

 

Construction cameras at US schools, colleges and universities

The next report will be released on April 1st

We encourage the education facilities industry to contribute to the accuracy of these monthly reports by responding the US Census Bureau’s data gathering contractors.  We are “open” every day at 11 AM Eastern time for one-on-one discussion about this and other content on this site.  Click in with the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

LEARN MORE:

Sightlines: Capital Investment College Facilities

OxBlue: Time-Lapse Construction Cameras for Education

Architectural Billing Index

IBISWorld Education Sector

Who are “incumbent stakeholders”?

American School & University


From our archives:

International Energy Conservation Code | Electrical Power

Electrical Building World’s Columbian Exposition | Chicago (1892)

The word “electrical” appears 163 times in the transcript of proposed changes to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC); an accredited consensus document that is widely incorporated by reference into federal, state and local energy conservation legislation.   Today we continue our focus on proposals for the 2021 revision of the IECC that will affect the safety and sustainability agenda of the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States — the $300 billion US education facility industry. For perspective, even the larger college and research universities only have budgets in the $0.5 to $10 billion dollar range.

Since the emergent #SmartCampus is largely an electrotechnical transformation; and because much of the physical space will evolve with International Code Council consensus documents at its foundation, we continue allocating resources to understanding what incumbent stakeholders have proposed for the 2021 revision of the IECC; linked below.

2019 GROUP B PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE I-CODES ALBUQUERQUE COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS

Last week some of the electrical proposals were discussed at the IEEE Industrial & Commercial Department’s annual conference in Calagary, Canada.  Many of the proposals are coordination, harmonization and administrative provisions.  Some are not and will, wherever adopted, will change the design, construction, operations, maintenance, training and conformity assessment.

A listing of the unofficial listing of the Committee Action Hearings earlier this month are linked below:

https://www.cdpaccess.com/live/cah/listing/

The full report will be released on June 11th and we will have until July 24th to respond with written comments.

Ahead of the web posting of the “Report of the Committee Action Hearings” we will march through the electrical power proposals listed below; and covered in previous online meetings.   A first reading of the unofficial results indicates that all of the proposals we marked for priority attention were accepted by the IEEE committee.   We will coordinate a user-interest response with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which will meet online several times ahead of the July 24th deadline.

The proposals that we marked several weeks ago for priority attention by education facility user interests are listed below:

CE108-19 | Data Centers

CE111-19*, et al | Fault Detection

CE113-19 | HVAC equipment

CE136-19 | Fan Nameplate Electrical Power & Fan Efficiency

CE166-19, et. al* | Occupancy Sensors

CE174-119, et. al*  | Lighting and Controls

CE212-19 | Elevator regenerative power & voltage drop (ON THE AGENDA OF THE MONTHLY ELEVATOR & ESCALATOR MEETING)

CE213-19 | Escalator & moving walk regenerative power (ON THE AGENDA OF THE MONTHLY ELEVATOR & ESCALATOR MEETING)

CE214-19 | Include customer-owned service conductors in the 5 percent voltage drop limit identified in the National Electrical Code

CE215-19*, et al | More electrical power monitoring hardware

CE216-19*. et al | More automatic receptacle control hardware

CE217-19 | Include electric vehicle charging fixtures in new construction

CE219-19 | Expansion of required energy efficiency requirements

CE224-19 | HVAC system electrical power efficiency requirements

CE237-19*. et al | More electrical power monitoring hardware

CE238-19 | Electrical Energy Storage Systems

CE261-19 | Change of occupancy energy use intensity

CE262-19 | Electrical energy storage system-ready area

CE263-19 Part I&II&III* | Required PV systems for all commercial buildings larger than 5000 square feet/community solar facilities

CE265-19 | Energy Storage Systems

Many large research universities have customer-owned power systems that supply average demand upwards of 100 megawatts daily.  We hope for informed, fair discussion.

* There are so many proposals for expansion of electrical control, monitoring and metering hardware that we identify only one of many conceptually related proposals here.   Refer to the standing agenda of the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee for additional technical specifics.

The next meeting of the ICC Group B Codes Committee will take place in Las Vegas, Nevada, October 20-23rd (CLICK HERE for more information).  We encourage our colleagues in the region to attend the conference.

University of Nevada Las Vegas

 

Issue: [16-169]

Category: Architectural, Facility Asset Management, Space Planning

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Scott Gibbs, Jim Harvey, Jose MeijerJoe Tedesco

#StandardsNewMexico


LEARN MORE:

ICC Group B Code Development Schedule

 

Energy Management Systems

We follow and participate in about thirty international standards; either through the US Technical Advisory Group Administrator assigned by the American National Standards Institute or through colleagues in educational institutions elsewhere in the world; mostly faculty in European colleges and universities engaged in research in electrotechnology.

Since 2013 (starting with the original University of Michigan standards advocacy enterprise we explain in our ABOUT) we have been keeping pace with the consensus documents produced by International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 301 Energy Management and Energy Savings.  The work of ISO/TC 301 provides a globally recognized standard of practice for managing energy over time and for calculating and reporting energy savings. A key deliverable — ISO 50001 Energy Management — unites, on a broad level, the concept and execution of energy management system standardization for a range of stakeholders, including, but not limited to: industry, buildings, energy efficiency organizations, standards authorities, energy service providers, government agencies, energy management practitioners, and conformance and energy auditing firms.

Link to ISO TC/301 Strategic Business Plan.

Of particular interest to us back in 2013 were the performance provisions — fairly typical for international standards — for adopting organizations and industries to set their own benchmarks (i.e. agree upon a rate of change, rather than an absolute target).   We monitor about half of the standards action in ANSI accredited standards developers every day and decided to propose references to the work products of ISO TC/301 to US-based standards developers such as ASHRAE International and the International Code Council.  They were rejected for the same reason: US-based standards developers prefer bright-line, prescriptive standards that can be enforced by the conformance and compliance industry.

Good minds will disagree upon whether performance standards promulgated by the sister Geneva organizations (IEC, ISO and ITU) are appropriate for all industries.  Performance standards may be appropriate for the energy, manufacturing and financial industries in all nations but they may not meet the rather well-financed energy conservation goals of the education facilities industry.

The United States and China are Co-Secretariats | Click on image for more information

Georgia Tech Energy & Sustainability Services (GTESS) is the US Technical Advisory Group Administrator for the American National Standards Institute and has posted an announcement a commenting opportunity on a spinoff (auxiliary document) from the parent ISO 50001 — ISO 50004 Guidance for the implementation and maintenance of ISO 50001 — which provides practical guidance and examples for establishing, implementing, maintaining and improving an energy management system (EnMS) in accordance with the systematic approach of ISO 50001.   You may have a look at the last revision of ISO 50004 at the link below:

ISO 50004: 2014 PREVIEW

As of this posting, no drafts have been released for public comment.

We encourage our colleaguees in the energy conservation and sustainability community to communicate directly with Georgia Tech Energy & Environmental Management Center (GTESS); Deann Desai, 75 Fifth Street N.W, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30332-0640, (770) 605-4474, deann.desai@innovate.gatech.edu, OR melody.mcelw ee@innovate.gatech.ed to obtain review copies of these documents and to submit comments (with a copy to psa@ansi.org).  We will collaborate on energy issues separately with our colleagues at other universities in Europe through the IEEE Industrial Applications Society

All international standards that affect #TotalCostofOwnership and the safety and sustainability agenda of the education industry are on the standing agenda of our monthly international standards teleconference and our monthly energy standard teleconference.  See our CALENDAR for to next online meetings; open to everyone.

 

Issue: [13-98]

Category: Energy Management

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Christine Fischer, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel

Link to legacy website

 


LEARN MORE:

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