mike@standardsmichigan.com | Standards Michigan

Author Archives: mike@standardsmichigan.com

Loading
loading...

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 April 2019 by the US education industry proceeded at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $80.0 billion, 2.1 percent above the March estimate of $78.3 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:

$99.765 billion  | Educational

$100.179 billion | Power

$114.682 billion | Highway and street

$ 85.573 billion | Commercial

$78.217 billion | Office

$43.098 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 July 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


LEARN MORE:

National Center for Education Statistics

 

From our archives:

Medical Practice Electrical equipment

“The Agnew Clinic” | Thomas Eakins (1889)

One of the subcommittees of International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 62 (IEC TC/62) has released a number of redlines that are now open for public review.   University affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises are large stakeholders in this space.

The scope of IEC TC/62 and a link to the subcommittee home page is listed below:

Scope: To prepare international standards and other publications concerning electrical equipment, electrical systems and software used in healthcare and their effects on patients, operators, other persons and the environment. NOTE : This scope includes items that are also within the scopes of other committees and will be addressed through cooperation. Attention will focus on safety and performance (e.g. radiation protection, data security, data integrity, data privacy and environmental aspects) and will contribute to regulatory frameworks. Healthcare includes medical practice as well as emergency medical services, homecare, and support of persons with disabilities in their daily lives (i.e. Ambient Assisted Living).

SC 62A Common aspects of electrical equipment used in medical practice

The redlines are listed in the link below:

IEC TC 62 Electrical equipment used in medical practice | Comments due July 16th

Cardiac surgical procedure at Gemelli Hospital in Rome

It is our custom to collaborate with the US National Committee to the International Electrotechnical Commission (USNA/IEC) primarily, though we have significant professional relationships with academic scholars in other nations through the IEEE Standards Association and the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee IEEE E&H).  We are happy to discuss any consensus product, any day at 11 AM Eastern time, however the expertise for responding to invitations for public comment like this is usually present during the IEEE E&H Committee meetings which take place four times monthly in European and American time zones.

Issue: [11-66]

Category: Electrical, Healthcare Facilities, International

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Giuseppe Parise, Luigi Parise, Massimo Mitolo


LEARN MORE:

Facility Management

“Parthenon” / Frederic Edwin Church (1871)

The internationalization of the education industry continues at a brisk pace and so do the enterprises that support the primary business of learning, teaching and discovering.   Educational campuses, and related university-affiliated medical research and healthcare enterprises, represent one of the largest assets owned and operated by any state.

The managers charged with building, maintaining and operating those assets should have a working knowledge of how leading practice is discovered and promulgated in the multi-dimensional facility management discipline which now includes mastery of ubiquitous computing assets in which electrotechnologies are embedded in various physical objects to form a network and communicate information.  Faculty and students expect that the facility manager is able to support interaction of heterogeneous devices connected through wireless links to a gateway.

In a state such as the State of Michigan, for example, with a gross state product of about $500 billion, the value of public real property assets may be on the order of $50 billion*.  If taking 2 percent off the cost owning, operating and maintaining those assets every year resulted in a savings of $1 billion million every year simply because conformance to a standard that reduced destructive competition and redundancy is meaningful, then those agencies should pay attention.   Alas, they do not, or not yet; a condition we describe in our ABOUT.

More meaningful to stewards of public assets, at least in the United States, is the International Property Maintenance Code,  a regulatory product that is widely understood by front-line enforcement authorities and incorporated by reference into the public safety laws, and some real asset management policies of many states and local governments.

An update of our previous coverage of the relevant work of ISO/TC 267 is linked below:

Working Group 4 Update

ISO 41001 Facility Management Conformity Standard Approved

“…Another milestone in the profiling of Facility Management as a Strategic Professional Discipline is about to be achieved. ISO/IEC TS 17021-11 has finally been completed and approved. This Conformity Standard, when published, will now formally enable Certification bodies around the world to audit any in-house or outsourced FM organisation for compliance against the standards of ‘ISO 41001 Facility management – Management systems – Requirements with guidance for use’…”

This is the highest global level standard in this space, though there are many national non-profit trade associations claiming some part of it.   A typical facility manager would have a choice of about twenty trade association curricula and events to choose from.  At the very least it establishes a vocabulary; a platform for apples-to-apples comparisons and a framework for conformance that national standards bodies may use to guide discussion among the accredited standards developers under their purview.

As of this posting the list of work ISO/TC 267 work products is shown below

ISO 41011:2017 Facility management – Vocabulary

ISO 41012:2017 Facility Management – Guidance on strategic sourcing and the development of agreements

ISO/TR 41013:2017 Facility management – Scope, key concepts and benefits

ISO 41001:2018 Facility management – Management systems – Requirements with guidance for use

ISO/IEC 17021-11:2018 Competence requirements certification of Facility MS

The landing page for this committee is linked below:

ISO/TC 267

At the moment ANSI has identified the US TAG Administrator as the International Facility Management Association however direct management of the US delegation is also being supported by ANSI staff.   You are encouraged to communicate directly with Chris Leake, 1 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77046, Phone: (713) 623-4362,  Email: chris.leake@ifma.org.   Contacts at ANSI are Jason Knopes <JKnopes@ansi.org> and Rachel Hawthorne rhawthorne@ansi.org

Facility management is a multidisciplinary profession.  The work products of this committee, more than any other that we can see, secures that claim.  Given the accelerating growth of the built environment, however, it should be no surprise that since the launch of this product in 2010 (in which the University of Michigan was the first US university to participate) there are many education industry trade associations that claim some part of the facility management profession.   We do our best to keep up.

We spend an hour every month walking through the status of both international standards and facility management standards.  See our CALENDAR for the date of our next teleconferences on these topics.   Anyone is welcomed to click in with the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

ISO/TC 267 Project Kickoff Meeting | Berlin 2012 | The University of Michigan was the first US university to participate in the launch of this standard and acted as a technical liaison for IFMA.

Issue: [11-33]

Category: Facility Asset Management

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


LEARN MORE:

ARCHIVED POSTS ON THIS STANDARD

ISO Focus January 2015 Anthony-Robben – Education Enterprise pp 33-37

IFMA Releases New Floor Area Measurement Standard

International Code Council International Property Maintenance Code

Key Facilities Management

IFMA Announcement

International Property Maintenance Code

ASTM Office Facility Management Standard

 

 

Office Facility Management

“Outside the Principal’s Office” | Norman Rockwell (1953)

ASTM International Committee E06 on Performance of Buildings was formed in 1946 — at the leading edge of the explosive expansion of instructional, research and healthcare delivery square-footage — but well after a group of physical plant administrators at Midwestern colleges and universities (Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio) began meeting in the 1920’s to trade experiences on how to manage their campuses; the largest publicly-owned assets other than roads and infrastructure.

Committee E06 meets twice a year, usually in April and October, with approximately 240 members attending three to four days of technical meetings.  Membership count at the moment is 1050, has jurisdiction of over 245 standards, These standards have and continue to play a preeminent role in the building industry and address issues relating to the performance of buildings, their elements, components, and the description, measurement, prediction, improvement and management of the overall performance of buildings and building related facilities.   The landing page for the ASTM E06 Committee is linked below:

Committee E06 on Performance of Buildings

The ASTM Subcommittee E06.25 on Whole Buildings and Facilities will meet again in October 20 through October 23th at the Marriott Marquis Houston in Houston, Texas.  A few of the standing items on the E06.25 agenda that should be recognizable to education and healthcare facility managers:

  • Building Enclosure Commissioning
  • Steep Roofs
  • Drainage and Ventilation Materials
  • Durability Performance of Building Constructions
  • Building Economics
  • Forced Entry Resistance

And so on.  These are meaningful technical specifics that show up in education facility design guidelines, construction contracts and operations and maintenance manuals under the general purpose language” “Conform to all applicable standards”.  We encourage our colleagues in the Denver region to participate.  CLICK HERE for more information about attending the meeting.   More information is available by communicating directly with ASTM Staff (CLICK HERE for directory).

The entire ASTM suite is on the standing agenda of our daily teleconferences.  We also devote one hour every month for a status check on all facility management standards.  See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconference; open to everyone.

Issue: [18-37], ASTM International

Category: Architectural, Space Planning, Facility Asset Management

Colleagues: Jack Janveja, Richard Robben


*LEARN MORE:

ASTM Committee E06 Agenda for April 2019 Committee Week

ARCHIVE: ASTM E06

 

Laboratory Design

ISO Member Nations | Click on image

 

“Science, my boy, is made up of mistakes,

but they are mistakes which it is useful to make,

because they lead little by little to the truth.” 

― Jules Verne, Journey to the Center of the Earth

 

The Standardization Administration of China (SAC) — the ISO member body for China — has submitted a proposal for a new field of ISO technical activity on “Laboratory Design” with the following scope statement:

“…Standardization in the field of laboratory design including site selection and design planning, the functional division of experimental areas, the determination of scientific and technological processes, layouts and design of furniture, and the scientific design of the facility taking into account environmental conditions and impact.  Excluded:

– IEC/TC 64 (Electrical installations and protection against electric shock);
– IEC/TC 81 (Lightning protection);
– IEC/TC 66 (Safety of measuring, control and laboratory equipment);
– IEC/TC 85 (Measuring equipment for electrical and electromagnetic quantities).

Once the new TC is established, liaisons with other relevant ISO technical committees will be established, including ISO/TC 48(laboratory equipment), ISO/TC 212 (Clinical laboratory testing and in vitro diagnostic test systems)and CASCO as well as relevant IEC technical committees (IEC/TC 45(Nuclear instrumentation), IEC/TC 62 (Electrical equipment in medical practice), IEC/TC 65 (Industrial-process measurement, control and automation), IEC/TC 76 (Optical radiation safety and laser equipment) and IEC/TC 104 (Environmental conditions, classification and methods of test).  Note: the TC will support the contribution of the laboratory design industry to UN Sustainable Development Goals and enable countries to address a wide range of global issues including eradication of hunger and poverty, health, climate change and economic development….”

“…The new TC will stipulate technical design requirements for a diverse range of laboratories with different functions and responsibilities. It will include, but not limited to:

1. site selection and design planning;
2. layouts and design of furniture (e.g workbenches, fume hoods, safety showers, biological safety cabinets, etc);
3. electrical, water and gas supply systems, drainage, fire prevention, HVAC, auto-control and decoration;
4. laboratories featuring bio-safety, constant temperature and humidity, and other special laboratories;
5. laboratory safety, staff health, environmental protection, and energy saving;
6. Smart laboratory (use of new technologies such as big data, cloud computing, block chain, etc. to empower laboratories, e.g. increase the depth and width of services provided to clients, improve the servicing level during the consulting, design and maintenance phases.)…”

A Giant Traditional Chinese Painting | CLICK ON IMAGE

A Giant Traditional Chinese Painting | CLICK ON IMAGE

“…The setting up of laboratory design TC and establishment of laboratory design standards will benefit organizations and groups as follows:

      1. Laboratory owners (including governments, scientific agencies and enterprises, etc.): Laboratory owners will understand the principles and methods of laboratory design for better management of laboratory design, construction, acceptance and operation. The investment budget will have a reference basis; construction cost will be better controlled; investment risk will be lowered; project quality can be better evaluated; construction cycle will be shortened; capital usage efficiency will be raised;
      1. Laboratory designers: Laboratory designers will understand the principles and methods of laboratory design, and will have standards to follow and verify by, make fewer design faults and ensure laboratory design to be more scientific and professional; laboratory environmental facility will be improved in terms of safety, energy conservation, environmental friendliness, as well as impacts on human health and well-being.
      1. Laboratory constructors: Laboratory constructors will have construction and acceptance standards to refer to; the construction quality will be raised; technology advancement will be promoted; the industry will be further regulated.
      1. Laboratory users: Laboratory users will understand the principles and methods of laboratory design; stakeholders can communicate with each other in a more informed way and evaluate laboratories based on common standards, making laboratory use, operation and management more scientific and regulated. Smart laboratories will allow more functions and add value by integrating technologies of big data, cloud computing and internet of things, etc.
      1. Laboratory operators: Laboratory operators will understand the principles and methods of laboratory design, which will facilitate the maintenance of laboratories; Smart laboratories will enable the remote digital control of laboratory operation and facilitate reliable, efficient and convenient maintenance.
      1. Society:  The society will be able to cultivate more professional personnel in the field of laboratory design; a more sound and fair development of laboratory design and construction both home and abroad will be facilitated; more energy-saving and environmental-friendly design will promote the sustainable development of the society; the premium laboratories will inspire the creativity of researchers and promote the advancement and development of technologies. Smart laboratories will facilitate technological progress, product quality improvement, data recognition as well as international trade….”

“Louis Pasteur” | Albert Edelfelt (1885)

If the proposal is accepted, China is willing to undertake the work of secretariat of the new TC and will provide all necessary resources including financial and human resources as well as facility supports.   A partnership agreement between China and France at committee level is foreseen.   

Anyone wishing to review the proposal can request a copy by contacting ANSI’s ISO Team (isot@ansi.org), with a submission of comments to Steve Cornish (scornish@ansi.org) by close of business on Friday, June 28th

N.B. This proposal will be featured in an ANSI Online news story and open for public review and comments from relevant US stakeholders via notice in Standards Action. In addition, ANSI will conduct targeted outreach to gather input on this proposal.  Based on the input received from US stakeholders, a recommended ANSI position and any comments will be developed and presented to the AIC for approval before the ISO voting deadline of August 13, 2019.  Contact Steve Cornish (scornish@ansi.org)

ANSI has scheduled an online meeting for July 1st.  Contact Steve for login credentials and agenda.

 

Perspective:  We have been down this road before.  The original University of Michigan user-interest advocacy enterprise — through ANSI — was persuasive in having “facilities” struck from the scope of the original ISO TC/276 Biotechnology project proposal (Global Secretariat: Deutsches Institut für Normung) back in 2012.  Now we circle back to a proposal that captures the facility component as an articulated enterprise which, in large research colleges and universities, is a delicate risk aggregation that generates significant revenue.

As always, we are happy to discuss any consensus product coming from anywhere on earth that affects the safety and sustainability agenda of the education facility industry.   Just click the login credentials at the upper right of our home page any day at 11 AM Eastern time.    We also sweep through the status of international consensus products emerging from ISO, IEC and ITU technical and management committees.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.

Issue: [19-134]

Category: Academic, International

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

Source: ANSI Standards Action | Page 33

LINK TO ORIGINAL UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ISO STANDARDS WORKSPACE


LEARN MORE:

 

High-Performance Green Buildings

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

TO BE UPDATED WITH CONTENT LINKED HERE: ANSI STANDARDS ACTION PAGES 65-95

With about one hundred technical committees administered by accredited standards developers globally, the stream of standards action in the building energy conservation space is one of the fastest-moving; and a space that demonstrates remarkable adaption.  As the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States the education facility industry is on the receiving end of prescriptive and performance requirements produced by these technical committees that are enforced by state agencies and/or sustainability consortia.

Now comes another candidate revisions to another fast-moving standard — ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1 Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings — co-developed (and significantly re-branded recently) by four different organizations that are accessible at the link below:

Public Review Draft Standards / Online Comment Database

The technical committee has released Addendum ab for public comment.  From the addendum forward:

[Addendum ab] would add a requirement to Section 8, Indoor Environmental Quality, that a view to the outdoors or an indoor atrium must be provided from at least 50% of the floor area in three specific space types: offices, classrooms, and patient rooms in healthcare facilities.

Comments are due July 1st.  

There are nearly 8 pages of strike and bold so the proposed change is not trivial. (Anecdotally, we are tracking similar daylighting concepts in the IES suite; covered in a related post.)

We welcome real-time discussion on these and other energy conservation proposals any day at 11 AM Eastern time.   We sweep through the entire span of the codes and standards found in design guidelines, construction project contracts and facility management consensus documents once per month.  See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our homepage.

 

Issue: [Various]

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

Colleagues:  Eric Albert, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel

Standards Georgia

Yale University Art Museum


Posted December 26, 2018

 

With about one hundred technical committees administered by accredited standards developers globally, the stream of standards action in the building energy conservation space is one of the fastest-moving; and a space that demonstrates remarkable adaption.  As the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States the education facility industry is on the receiving end of prescriptive and performance requirements produced by these technical committees that are enforced by state agencies and/or sustainability consortia.

Now comes three more candidate revisions to another fast-moving standard — ASHRAE/ICC/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1 Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings — co-developed (and significantly re-branded recently) by four different organizations that are accessible at the link below:

Public Review Draft Standards / Online Comment Database

To paraphrase some of the issues in play:

Addendum a: The first public review draft added Climate Zones 4A and 4B to those required to meet heat island mitigation criteria in Section 5.3.5.3 for roofs. In response to the first public review, two additional exceptions were added.

Addendum m: This addendum adds new provisions to enable right-sized tubing for efficient delivery of water through hot water distribution systems. The new requirement balances health, energy and plumbing code intents with energy and water efficiency strategies. The addendum is based in part on research by the California Energy Commission on the energy implications of hot water supply. The volume of water in a pipe is the primary determinant of how long a user must wait for hot water to be delivered at a fixture. This has significant implications for both energy use to heat the water and the volume of water wasted before delivery. Similar provisions are currently included in the IECC and the IgCC.

[Comment: This addendum for “right-sized” piping resembles proposals we have made in previous revisions of ASHRAE 90.1; though there are counter-arguments that involve Legionella mitigation]

Addendum n: This addendum clarifies the indoor environmental quality requirements for composite wood and related materials, by adding the recent USEPA’s regulation on composite wood products, requiring that products be certified as meeting the requirements of CARB or USEPA as being manufactured either with ultra-lowemitting formaldehyde resins or no added formaldehyde resins and updating the language on lab certification to make it consistent with the language already in the 189.1-2017 for the other building material categories in Section 8.4.2.

Comments are due January 20th.

We welcome real-time discussion on these and other energy conservation proposals any day at 11 AM Eastern time.   Our next Mechanical Engineering monthly teleconference is scheduled for February 19th, 11 AM.   Use the login credentials at the upper right of our homepage.

St. Norbert College

Issue: [Various]

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

Colleagues:  Eric Albert, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel

Standards Georgia

 


Posted October 8, 2018

“New York from Brooklyn” | Colin Campbell Cooper (1910)

With about one hundred technical committees administered by accredited standards developers globally, the stream of standards action in the building energy conservation space is one of the fastest-moving.  As the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States the education facility industry is on the receiving end of prescriptive and performance requirements produced by these technical committees that are enforced by state agencies or sustainability consortia.

At the moment, the four-partner collaboration of the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers (ASHRAE), the International Code Council (ICC). the United States Green Building  Council (USGBC) and the Illumination Engineering Society (IES) opens the proposals of its technical committees to public review in 30 to 90 day intervals according to ANSI’s Continuous Maintenance process.  Keep in mind that ANSI/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES/ICC Standard 189.1-2017 Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings is not necessarily a safety document but it deserves our attention because it is referenced into ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 — Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings which is incorporated by reference into many local, state and national energy conservation laws.

Little Big Horn College

Now comes two more candidate revisions that are accessible at the link below:

Public Review Draft Standards / Online Comment Database

Note that Addendum j and Addendum k are the First Public Review of candidate changes that are significant renewable energy concepts.

Comments are due October 22nd.

We welcome real-time discussion on these and other energy conservation proposals any day at 11 AM Eastern time.   Our next Mechanical Engineering monthly teleconference is scheduled for November 19th, 11 AM.  Even though the deadline for commenting on the proposals listed here will have passed, there is another batch of addenda open for public comment right behind it which we will identify in separate posts.

Use the login credentials at the upper right of our homepage.

Issue: [Various]

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

Colleagues:  Eric Albert, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel


Posted August 1, 2018

Grand Valley State University

ASHRAE is an ANSI-accredited continuous-maintenance standards developer (a significant tributary in what we call the regulatory product development “stream”).   Technical committees developing continuous maintenance regulatory products release public review documents in 30-to-90 day intervals.  The technical committee writing ASHRAE 189.1 Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings has released the following redlines for public review:

Addendum f

This addendum replaces the current definition of “construction documents,” which references Standard 90.1, with a definition that is consistent with the 2015 International Green Construction Code. The Standard 90.1 definition does not address building sites or land development which are included in the scope of Standard 189.1.

Addendum g

This addendum replaces the current defined term of “design professional” from Standard 90.1 with “registered design professional,” which is consistent with the terms used in the 2015 International Green Construction Code. Standard 189.1 addresses subject matter for which the traditional titles of architect and engineer, used in the Standard 90.1 definition) do not necessarily align with typical requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. For example, it is common for jurisdictions to have tiered requirements for designer qualifications, often permitting licensed master tradespeople to design certain projects within their respective discipline. The proposed definition also better accommodates specialty design categories such as onsite wastewater system designer, irrigation system designer, landscape designer and soil scientist.

Addendum h

This addendum clarifies that it is the alternate on-site sources of water or municipally reclaimed water are not required to be “acceptable” because it is given that anything not disallowed by an AHJ is acceptable.

All addenda may be found in their entirety at the link below:

ASHRAE Online Standards Actions & Public Review Drafts

Comments are due August 8th.

Technical committees developing ASHRAE codes and standards typically meet face-to-face twice a year at ASHRAE Conferences; the next one in Atlanta, Georgia January 14-16 2019.   We encourage education facility professionals in within driving distance of this conference to attend the ASHRAE technical standards meetings.   Ahead of these conferences we will also host a dedicated markup session for mechanical engineering standards on July 24th, 11:00 AM during which time we will examine and markup documents released for public review by ASHRAE, ASME, AWWA, IAMPO and other organizations developing documents that determine #TotalCostofOwnership of education facilities.

Issue: [Various], ASHRAE

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

Colleagues: Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel

Link to ANSI Announcement:  ANSI Standards Action (PDF Pages 42-24).


Somerset Community College

Emergency and Standby Power Systems

Electrical building, World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago (1892)

Recent disasters in the United States inspires a revisit of our advocacy agenda in power system reliability. The effective cost of forced outages run about $100,000 to $1,000,000 PER MINUTE on a large research university, for example. We collaborate closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which tracks campus power outages and is tooling up for the 2022 revision. [Public input is due June 26, 2019]

The 2019 edition of  NFPA 110 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems and related document NFPA 111 Stored Electrical Energy for Emergency and Standby Power Systems was released for use by regulating agencies earlier this fall.   Some states incorporate it by reference “automatically” when the National Electrical Code becomes public safety law.   As a heavily referenced document it is essential to understand the context in which it appears in other consensus documents developed by the International Code Council, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, for example

Common mode failures for this classification of power system — when they are designed according to the NEC and IEEE standards — are statistically associated with inspection, testing and maintenance.   This makes Chapter 8 — Routine Maintenance and Operational Testing — a chapter with elevated debate.  Good minds disagree on how much maintenance and operational testing is too much.[1]

Another area of elevated debate resides in Section 5.1.3:

[5.1.3* A public electric utility that has demonstrated reliability shall be permitted to be used as the EPS where the primary source is by means of on-site energy conversion.]

[A.5.1.3 On-site energy conversion is not restricted to rotating-type generating systems.  Other types of continuous energy conversion systms can be used, including fuel-cell systems]

This means that if a large research university with its own, reliable district energy plant that is recognized by the Authority Having Jurisdiction as the primary source of power to the campus; then power available from a public utility may be used as an emergency power source for a facility located on the perimeter of the campus; contingent upon the occupancy classification.  Tapping a power source available from a utility on the perimeter of a campus, contributes significantly to lower #TotalCostofOnwership in the most common occupancy classifications in higher education facilities.  It also reduces the number of on-site generators and greenhouse has emissions.[2]

Click on image for more information

Public input on the 2022 revision is due June 26, 2019.  We collaborate with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee on electrotechnology consensus documents that contribute to the safety, sustainability and #TotalCostofOwnership goals of the education industry.  This committee meets online 4 times monthly in Europe and the Americas.

As with all codes and standards we are happy to discuss them any day at 11 AM Eastern time.   Hard data, war stories and anecdotes are always gratefully received and, perhaps a proposal or two might come of it.  Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.  We also have an NFPA 110/111 Workspace set aside for gathering data and developing public input.  CLICK HERE for free access to the workspace  (Send bella@standardsmichigan.com a password request)


Issue: [16-25]

Category: Electrical, Facility Asset Management

Contact: Mike Anthony, Robert Arno, Neal Dowling, Jim Harvey, Joe Weber

Standards Massachusetts

[1]   ITM of Emergency Power Systems

[2]  Planning for Higher Education Journal: Revisiting the Campus Power Dilemma: A Case Study


 

LEARN MORE:

IEEE Power System Reliability Recommended Practice

NEMA Evaluating Water Damaged Electrical Equipment

 


Posted September 1, 2019

The 2019 edition of  NFPA 110 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems and related document NFPA 111 Stored Electrical Energy for Emergency and Standby Power Systems will be released for use by regulating agencies any day now.  There is a Tentative Interim Amendment regarding emergency fuel testing that is now open for public review:

NFPA 110-Proposed 2019 Edition Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems | TIA Log No.: 1388

Comments on the TIA are due September 20th.

Many college and universities have hundreds of free-standing emergency generators which use diesel fuel so this TIA may be of interest to personnel who are charged with budgeting, operating and maintaining emergency generators.  These experts are welcomed to “click in” any day at 11 AM to formulate a response to the TIA.   In any case, we will refer this commenting opportunity to the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (E&H) maintains a database of campus power outages and meets online 4 times per month.

One of the standing study questions on the technical agenda of the E&H Committee is the following:

Given that the size of many campus power systems is larger than many municipal and cooperative power grids, how much of the technical discipline in IEEE 1366 – Guide for Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices — which is incorporated by reference into many state utility regulations — be conveyed into the planning, design operation and maintenance of campus power systems?  Should it, or should it not be?  Given that losses on large campus power distribution systems run on the order of $100,000 to $1,000,000 per minute, can parts of IEEE 1366 be or should another IEEE standard be developed?

 

Issue: [Various]

Category: Electrical, Facility Asset Management

Contact: Mike Anthony, Robert Arno, Neal Dowling, Jim Harvey

*LEARN MORE:

Who are “incumbent stakeholders”?

 


Indiana University Data Center

Posted May 5, 2018

We are now reviewing public input for the 2019 revision to NFPA 110 Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems and related document NFPA 111 Stored Electrical Energy for Emergency and Standby Power Systems through various Task Groups set up by the NFPA ahead of its Annual Meeting in June 2018 in Las Vegas.  These documents are generally developed together by most of the same committee members.

In previous public input, we have advanced the following concepts:

• Identify the concept of “ingress illumination” which would provide an illuminated ingress path for first responders traveling toward a hazard or accident

•  Clarify that in district energy systems — common in large research university campuses — that a utility source of power that is identified as independent by the Authority Having Jurisdiction — may be used to supply power to emergency and standby systems supplying illumination, fire pumps, critical operations power systems and the like.  The use of utility source of power for such use is already permitted; we only recommended wordsmithing the paragraph in Section A.5.1.3 for additional clarity.

Both public inputs were rejected in the 2016 revision (NFPA 110 2016 Public Input Issue 13-12).  Although we missed the leading edge of the 2019 revision cycle for NFPA 110 and NFPA 111, we intend to continue advocating for these concepts — and other concepts essential for the power reliability of the emergent #SmartCampus —  in other related NFPA documents and in the IEEE suite of consensus standards for electrical power systems.

The conceptual framework for how fire safety documents (developed by the NFPA) and electrical power engineering documents (developed by the IEEE) is on the standing agenda of the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (IEEE E&H) which meets online 4 times monthly.   Anyone is welcomed to join these teleconferences to prepare original public input or to comment upon the public input of others with the login information available on the top menu tab of the IEEE E&H website.

Issue: [Various]

Category: Electrical, Facility Asset Management

Contact: Mike Anthony, Robert Arno, Neal Dowling, Jim Harvey

 

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 month 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 design, construction, operations, maintenance, training and conformity assessment for power systems in education and healthcare facilities.

The results of the Albuquerque Committee Action Hearings has been released in video format and now as a downloadable document linked below: (Search on the proposal number)

2019 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ACTION HEARINGS ON THE 2018 EDITIONS OF THE GROUP B INTERNATIONAL CODES

We have until July 24th to respond with written comments.

A first reading of the unofficial results indicates that all of the proposals we marked for priority attention were accepted by the IECC-C  and IECC-R 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

 

Michigan Electrical Administrative Act | §338.883

We follow state adaptations of the NFPA and IEEE family of consensus documents that set the standard of care for electrical safety in education facility design, construction, operation and maintenance; starting with the State of Michigan (a state with a $490 billion gross domestic product; and ranked the 13th largest state in the United States from an economic point of view).

The education facility construction industry is a significant part of that $490 billion of economic activity.  According to the US Census Bureau the education industry is the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States; running at a clip of about $80 billion annually (CLICK HERE).

We have been advocating for changes to the State of Michigan Electrical Administrative Act that currently requires all electrical work valued above $100 to be installed by a licensed journeyman electrician and inspected by an accredited electrical inspector.    The $100 threshold was set decades ago and has never been challenged by another other advocacy enterprise representing the user interest.  Almost all of the stakeholders on the present Electrical Administrative Board are stakeholders who benefit economically from the $100 threshold.    Much of the reason for the apparent imbalance of interests lies in tradition; but also because no user interest has been present to advocate for an update of the formal, fee schedule.

This advocacy priority was on the Do-List of the original University of Michigan codes and standards advocacy enterprise which was focused on strengthening the voice of the user/owner/final fiduciary in the promulgation of regulations affecting Michigan educational facilities (CLICK HERE for link to the legacy Advocacy Project 14-1).   Of all the trades covered in the parent legislation — Stille-Derossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act (Act 230 of 1972) — the electrical power discipline is the only discipline in Michigan building technology regulations that sets a dollar criteria for electrical work to be performed and inspected.   While we recognize the need for safe installation of the electrical power chain within a building; we propose another criteria for establishing the requirement for a licensed electrician and a licensed inspector should be determined (as it is in all other construction disciplines administered by the Bureau of Construction Codes, a division of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs).

The actual text of the present regulation is available by clicking here:   338.881 Definitions | Electrical Administrative Act 217 of 1956

Father Marquette

As a consequence of former Governor Snyder’s Office of Regulatory Reinvention significant changes to both the Bureau of Construction Codes, a division of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs) have taken place within the past twelve months; which make us optimistic about political support for our proposals.   We will be collaborating with our colleagues at Michigan State University to make necessary legislative changes we believe will lower the #TotalCostofOwnership of education facilities in the State of Michigan.

We will refer the Michigan Electric Code, and other state electrical codes to the IEEE Education and Healthcare Facilities Committee which hosts bi-weekly breakout teleconferences with electrical professionals in the education facilities industry as required by the demand for them.

Electrical Administrative Board Responsibilities and Meeting Schedule

The next meeting of the Michigan Electrical Board is August 15th.   We have been attending the meetings in Lansing and have made our proposal to revisit the dollar criteria known to the entire board.  We hope the Electrical Administrative Board will develop another criteria; inspired by the electrical administrative boards of other states.

Issue: [14-1]

Contact: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Kane Howard

Category: Electrical, State & Local Legislation

Link to Issue 14-1 Legacy Website


LEARN MORE:

Wide Variations in State Adoptions of the NEC® Reveal Neglect of Electrical Safety

 

 

Planning and Design of the Microgrid

Arguably, the first microgrid. (Source: Wikipedia, via Edison Muckers)

 

We are on the hunt for case studies

that demonstrate “scale”

 

Should every campus building, or groups of campus buildings, have its own power system?   Sustainability partisans and the net-zero community seem to think so.  They have captured the imagination of business and finance leadership in the upper administration of many colleges and universities who want to demonstrate their green credentials.  Microgrids may pay for themselves in facilities located off the core heating and power grid that is present in many large research universities but if lower #TotalCostofOwnership is the objective, a fair argument can be made that microgrids are a solution looking for a problem; at least insofar as meeting the peak demand and reliability of the core campus power systems is concerned.

We are open to counter-arguments, however.  So far, education facility industry professionals claiming “microgrid” have not forthcoming with their numbers to the best of our knowledge. The IEEE Industrial Applications Society provides a platform for peer review of microgrid accomplishments.  We encourage electrical professionals to participate in that forum or to click into the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee teleconferences hosted twice per month.

Leaving virtue-signaling aside (though we acknowledge the role of the academy as a study unit for cities of the future), can engineers, energy managers and facility managers draw a control volume around the safety and sustainability characteristics of campus microgrids and make the case that a campus microgrid reduces #TotalCostofOwnerhip?  So far, no one has, to the best of our knowledge, though the academic side of the education industry finds revenue in providing research; admittedly very important.

A stronger case for microgrids can be made around reliability criteria; a topic that has been studied by the IEEE Industrial Applications Society (IEEE IAS) long before microgrids became revenue drivers for trade association conferences.   Since many university-affiliated healthcare systems provide a base thermal load for district energy plants; it may well be that most of the functional characteristics of a microgrid is already been in place.  Within the IEEE IAS structure The IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (IEEE E&H) maintains a research agenda in which following question is remains prevailing  question remains: Wouldn’t electrical infrastructure money be better spent increasing the reliability of the campus district energy plant?

IEEE Silicon Valley Chapter

Now comes a public review draft of the only authoritative microgrid consensus standard from electrical power professionals administered by the IEEE Standards Association.

IEEE Draft P2030.2018 Recommended Practice for the Planning and Design of the Microgrid

From the project prospectus:

Abstract:  This recommended practice focuses on the factors that should be taken into account for planning and designing microgrids. It provides approaches and good practices to be considered in the planning and design, including system configuration, electrical system design, safety, power quality monitoring and control, electric energy measurement and scheme evaluation. This recommended practice applies to AC microgrids that can be either grid-connected or stand-alone microgrids

Scope: This recommended practice focuses on factors that should be taken into account for planning and designing microgrids. It provides approaches and good practices relevant to planning and designing considerations such as power generation prediction, load forecast, micro-sources configuration, system architecture, grounding, protection and information exchange. This recommended practice applies to AC, DC or hybrid microgrid that can be either grid-connected microgrid or islanded microgrid.

Purpose: This project aims at the standardization of the microgrid design and planning process, the technical requirement specification of microgrid design and the evaluation of the microgrid planning scheme. The implementation of the proposed recommended practice will enhance the safe, reliable and economic operation of microgrid.

Public comment was harvested by the IEEE Standards Association SCC-21* last month and is now being collated for consideration by several IEEE committees in the Power Engineering Society and the Industrial Applications Society.  Most decisions about the content of this standard will be made at the annual meetings this year after which balloting will take place.   This will be the most authoritative consensus document on microgrid design in the world and will be coordinated with standards action in the relevant International Electrotechnical Commission technical committees.

You are welcomed to join the discussion about the reality of campus microgrids with a broader group of electrical professionals who meet online 4 times per month in Central European and American time zones.   All online meeting dates, times, login credentials and draft agendas are on the IEEE E&H home page.

 

The emergent #SmartCampus is an electrotechnical transformation.   Though there are many open source consortia moving rapidly to claim ownership of this space these consortia may not meet the criteria for large scale adoption that often results from market acceptance, recognition and endorsement by local, state and federal government.

The IEEE E&H Committee has been exploring the more difficult question of how existing building power systems, and existing campus power systems (many of which run into the 100-200 megawatt of load) can be run reliably to protect the safety and sustainability of the #SmartCampus.  There is no government regulation of large campus power systems and, if we are successful, there will not need to be.

Issue: [18-290] [18-291] [18-292]

Category: #SmartCampus, Electrical, Telecommunications, Information and Computer Technology, Facility Asset Management

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Robert G. Arno, Jim Harvey, Mahesh Illindala, Van Wagner

*If this page will not load for you, we recommend you contact the IEEE-SA (CLICK HERE)

The IEEE E&H Committee has been exploring the more difficult question of how existing building power systems, and existing campus power systems (many of which run into the 100-200 megawatt of load) can be reliably.  There is no government oversight and, if we are successful, there will not need to be.


LEARN MORE:

IEEE SCC21 Standards Coordinating Committee on Fuel Cells, Photovoltaics, Dispersed Generation, and Energy Storage

IEEE P2030.9 Microgrid PAR

International Electrotechnical Commission: Microgrids for disaster preparedness and recovery

NEMA: How to Talk to Decision Makers About Microgrids

NEMA: The Power of Microgrids

 


 

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