Comments are due February 20th. You may direct inquiries about how to mark up this document to email@example.com or by contacting the Standards Program Manager at 920-579-1153. Standards Michigan will the APCO document suite, and other trade association activity in codes, standards and regulations that affect the education industry on the standing agenda of its weekly Open Door teleconference — every Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern time — to which everyone is welcomed. Login information is available in the link below:
One of the standing items on the agenda of the IEEE Education and Healthcare Facilities Committee is a continuing discussion of the marquee issues in campus power systems which capture the imagination of facility executives, presidents and trustees. Separating speculative hype from practical contribution to #TotalCostofOwnership agenda is a continuing challenge in light of the ambitious sustainability agenda of the US education facilities industry. (The sale of the Ohio State University campus power system provides an example.) Speculative hype about microgrids as “content” to draw trade association conference attendance at the moment seems to outstrip the practical affect upon the #TotalCostofOwnership agenda of the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States.
Nevertheless, we are sensitive to the priority the academic side of the education industry gives to seeking grants to fund more research into this area. We are a friend of innovation and risk-taking and hope to develop a set of choices from a continuation of these discussions. We remain respectful and collegial observers — and cheerleaders — for findings that may close the gap between the promise and the reality of this buzzword as it pertains to safety, sustainability and reliability of power and telecommunication systems on the customer side of the electric service and telecommunication demarcation.
We will revisit the topic of microgrids during each of the two regularly scheduled European and American session on February 14th. Anyone is welcomed to join either of them with the login information in the link below:
Question 1: What are the characteristics of microgrids that distinguish them from most of the medium voltage campus power delivery systems that are generating in parallel with a regulated utility?
During the June 16th teleconference of the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee,Mahesh Illindala (Ohio State University) and Mike Anthony (University of Michigan) discussed a few technical specifics of power delivery technologies already in place in many campuses. Many cogeneration plants — particularly those that are generating in parallel with a public utility — are already communicating interactively with the public utility and upstream renewable resources; one of many defining characteristics of microgrids. They also have islanding capability and can participate real-time in energy markets.
Is there a optimal base electrical load, or demand profile, for which investment in microgrid technologies is a practical financial solution (in terms of cost and reliability)?
Knowing that almost all building power systems in the education facilities industry are 2 to 3 times larger than they need to safely and reliably serve the load, should we not avoid building upon existing waste before we invest in microgrid concepts? (See “Safer” page)
This the first of several breakout discussions that we hope will draw in a variety of opinions — including manufacturers, trade associations, engineering companies and energy regulators — to educate the stewards of education and healthcare facility energy systems about what an economical migration path toward microgrid operation might look like. Our industry spends approximately $30 billion per year on energy and is seeking to be a “net zero” industry but we have to distinguish between the speculative “hype” of microgrid and the comparative advantage of simply doing what we already know works at a greater scale.
Question 2: Is the business side of the education industry getting sold on more than what it needs at the moment?
A significant part of the microgrid zeitgeist is putting gloss on integrated power and ICT systems that are largely already in place. A nuanced discussion is presented in two videorecordings linked below:
Professor Illindala has already developed a small scale microgrid for American Electric Power. A more complete presentation of Professor Illindala’s work is available in the video:
Many colleges, universities, trade and technical schools have stakeholders — either as faculty and students — in the United State manufacturing sector. Many allocated significant resources to facilities and grant administrators that support this activity. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) encourages the US standards federation to participate in this process. Some of the questions to inform development of the plan are as follows:
In priority order, what should be the near-term and long-term objectives for advanced manufacturing, including R&D objectives, the anticipated time frame for achieving the objectives, and the metrics for use in assessing progress toward the objectives?
How can Federal agencies and federally funded R&D centers supporting advanced manufacturing R&D foster the transfer of R&D results into new manufacturing technologies and United States-based manufacturing of new products and processes for the benefit of society to ensure national, energy, and economic security? What role can public-private partnerships play, and how should they be structured for maximum impact?
What innovative tools, platforms, technologies are needed for advances in manufacturing? Of those that already exist, what are the barriers to their adoption?
How can such Federal agencies and centers develop and strengthen all levels of manufacturing education and training programs to ensure an adequate, well-trained U.S. workforce for the new advanced manufacturing jobs of the future?
How can such Federal agencies and centers assist small and medium-sized manufacturers in developing and implementing new products and processes?
How would you assess the state of the following factors and how they impact innovation and competitiveness for United States advanced manufacturing?
Comments are due March 7th. You may access the page to review the complete document, to key in comments or to communicate directly with the agency leading this effort at this link: (Federal Register.)
LES-CLIP 1.1-201x, Conduct in Licensing of Intellectual Property (new standard). This LES standard will prescribe the business processes and conduct to be adopted and performed by persons in the intellectual property management community for negotiating and completing transactions involving the licensing of intellectual property. The standard will apply to the licensing of intellectual property of all types, i.e., copyright, trademark, patents, and trade secrets. The business processes and conduct to be prescribed in the standard will be applicable to businesses and individuals participating in the pursuit of or engaged in the negotiation of an intellectual property transaction and persons associated with those participants who provide information and/or services that are material to decisions whether and in what manner to continue to engage in the licensing transaction, together with the people associated with a participant who participate in making said decisions. It is anticipated that the adoption of this standard will, among other things, encourage efficiency and reduce time-to-licensing, expedite the commercialization of newly developed technologies, and facilitate the settlement or avoidance of intellectual property litigation.
BSR/LES-IABR 1.1-201x, Intellectual Assets in the Boardroom (new standard) This standard intends to provide the premise for the need for adequate board oversight of IA management in order to (a) maximize the shareholder value of the company’s IA and (b) mitigate the risks to which the company may be exposed based on the unlicensed use of third-party IA. The standard intends to identify key principles central to adequate board IA oversight. The standard intends to identify practices and/or processes for adequate board IA strategic oversight of senior corporate management. The standard intends to identify materials and/or tools sufficient to educate boards and better enable them to implement these principles and processes, which are intended to enhance IA value and mitigate IA risk in manners consistent with this standard. This standard does not intend to proscribe sources or methods that are singularly required to achieve the standard, but rather to enable a variety of pathways to meet the requirements (and various recommendations) of the standard.
The purpose of LES Standards — listed on its Standards web page — is as follows:
Raise the standards of business conduct in IP-oriented transactions
Improve the practice of IP management and, by doing so, mitigate its risks
Reduce the cost and time required to do IP-oriented transactions and IP management
Protect and preserve the value of IP for innovative individuals and enterprises
Thereby encouraging investment in innovation and enhancing the economic well-being of society
The Licensing Executives Society has been added to our list of trade associations of interest to the education industry. Its emergent standards suite is identified here for the convenience of our visitors; though Standards Michigan will not advocate in this space at this time. More information is available from Tanya Coogan, (703) 234-4109, firstname.lastname@example.org
Of particular interest to subject matter experts in several building technologies may be a recent release by IEC Technical Committee 56 Dependability. A “clean” version (i.e. a draft with strike-and-bold removed) of its dual-logo risk management document — IEC/ISO 31010 Risk management and risk assessment techniques — is now open for public comment. This, and other documents produced by the IEC and ISO should be regarded as templates for the development of national technical and business policy; hence our frequent reference to consensus standards as “regulatory products”.
Dependability — or reliability as it is understood in other technical disciplines — affects decisions about electrical power generation, fire safety, information technology, finance — to name a few. With so many stakeholders moving to meet the needs of economies that are growing, it is not unwise to at least be sensitive to the needs of other economies as reflected in the standards for dependable products and systems.
The CDV provides guidance on the selection and application of various techniques that can be used to help improve the way uncertainty is taken into account and to help understand risk. Comments are due February 16th.
Hybrid operating theatre | Rome, Italy
Because access to this document is “coordinated” we refer this the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (which meets online again on Tuesday, January 30th) and we will also place this on the agenda of our Open Door teleconference this coming Wednesday, 11 AM Eastern time. Anyone is welcomed to join this teleconferences with the login information in this link (Click here)
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) encourages its members and stakeholders to respond to a newly released draft report by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), issued as a response to the May 11, 2017, Executive Order on Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure. The draft report highlights the role of globally relevant standards in strengthening cybersecurity worldwide.
The Executive Order called for “resilience against botnets and other automated, distributed threats,” directing the departments to “lead an open and transparent process to identify and promote action by appropriate stakeholders” with the goal of “dramatically reducing threats perpetrated by automated and distributed attacks (e.g., botnets).”
DOC and DHS identified five complementary goals that would improve the resilience of the ecosystem:
Identify a clear pathway toward an adaptable, sustainable, and secure technology marketplace
Promote innovation in the infrastructure for dynamic adaptation to evolving threats
Promote innovation at the edge of the network to prevent, detect, and mitigate bad behavior
Build coalitions between the security, infrastructure, and operational technology communities domestically and around the world
Increase awareness and education across the ecosystem
The draft report emphasizes the need to augment standards to improve the resilience of the ecosystem. According to the document, “the U.S. government and industry should also jointly engage with developers of international standards and specifications, such as the IETF and the Joint Technical Committee 1 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (ISO/IEC JTC 1), to establish globally relevant standards. As these standards evolve, federal profiles should be re-aligned or replaced as appropriate.”
Responses are due to DOC at Counter_Botnet@list.commerce.gov by 5 p.m. ET on February 12, 2018.
Photovoltaic array the roof of the James Forrestal Building, US Department of Energy | The US Department of Energy is one of the beneficiaries of successful advocacy in the National Electrical Code by the original University of Michigan business and management standards enterprise. See ABOUT.
As part of its implementation of, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” (Executive Order 13771) the Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist the DOE-EERE in identifying potential modifications to its 1991 “Process Rule” for the development of appliance standards to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department’s statutory obligations in the development of appliance standards. As the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States the education industry is a significant consumer of portable and fixed-in-place lighting, heating and cooling appliances.
DOE held public meetings and received 13 comments from trade associations and individual stakeholders during the original December 2017-January 2018 commenting period but is now responding to requests for more time to review the proposed revisions to the original 31-page, 26-year old regulation. A sample letter is linked below:
Some trade associations claimed that they did not have enough time to accumulate responses from their membership. Accordingly, the DOE has issued an extension until March 2nd (though there seems to be some conflict with another stated deadline of March 16th).
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. All federal regulations that affect the education facilities industry are on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Door Teleconference every Wednesday 11 AM Eastern Time. Everyone is welcomed to “click in” with the login information linked here: Standards Michigan Open Door Teleconference.
Category: Energy, US Department of Energy. Facility Asset Management
These proposals are comprehensive in scope — likely to affect risk management cost/safety considerations for education industry physical asset managers — particularly in large research university healthcare enterprises with ambulatory care facilities. These are cross-cutting concepts which are likely to inform broader technical discussions across the entire ICC suite of standards (and effect standards setting in the NFPA Internationalsuite of standards). They are listed as items K711 and K712 on pages 23 through 36 of the document linked below:
Ahead of these meetings, or information about how to participate at the 2018 Group A Committee Action Hearings, further inquiries may be directed to Kimberly Paarlberg (email@example.com). We keep the ICC suite of standards as a standing item on our weekly Open Door teleconferences that are open to the public.
The Illumination Engineering Society (IES) is one of the first names in non-profit trade associations whose consensus documents are heavily referenced in the specifications of building construction projects for the US education industry. We are following developments in a few technical committees put together by the IES who set the standard of care for illumination technologies by integrating leading practice consensus in other consensus documents developed by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (whose interest lies in leveling the playing field for its member manufacturers), the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (whose interest lies in the research activity), ASHRAE International. (whose interest lies in energy conservation), and NFPA International (whose interest lies in fire safety of lighting systems within building premises). There are a number of other trade associations that are participants in research and open source standards for faster moving parts of the illumination science. We will cover these in future posts.
Comments are due February 4, 2018. You are encouraged to send comments directly to IES (with copy to firstname.lastname@example.org) c/o email@example.com. Application information to participate in the IES process is available at this link: https://www.ies.org/standards/technical-committees/
We will place this on the agenda of our next Open Door teleconference (every Wednesday, 11:00 AM Eastern) which is open to everyone with the login information below:
Large research universities must collaborate as well as
compete internationally for talent and funding
There are several noteworthy proposals now under consideration by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC) that are being prepared for the 2021 International Code Council’s meetings April 15 to 25, 2018 in Columbus, Ohio. These proposals are intended to set safety standards for evolving occupancies and use classes; one of which — a chapter title change and the mandatory installation of emergency showers — should be of interest to the facility managers of laboratory facilities in university-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises. See Item K22 on Page 10 of the document linked below: