These are the standards most U.S. campuses apply at residence-hall move-in. They mix fire/life-safety codes with energy and cost controls. Details vary by school, but the pattern is consistent.
Fire and electrical safety
No open flames: candles, incense, fireworks, Sterno, grills.
No appliances with exposed heating elements: hot plates, toasters, toaster ovens, skillets, deep fryers; air fryers are banned on most campuses.
Cooking only in designated kitchens; in rooms, usually only a UL-listed microwave (often 700–1,000 W) or a university MicroFridge combo.
No halogen lamps, lava lamps, plastic-shade multi-bulb lamps, or space heaters unless the university issues them.
Extension cords banned or tightly limited; only UL-listed surge protectors plugged directly into the wall. No daisy-chaining.
Keep a clear 36-inch path to the door; do not block exits or prevent the door from opening 90 degrees.
Wall coverings limited (often 10–25% of a wall); hanging fabric/tapestries often banned unless fire-rated.
Upholstered furniture must meet fire-resistance labels such as CAL TB117-2013.
No lithium-ion micromobility devices (e-bikes, e-scooters, hoverboards) stored or charged in rooms on many campuses.
Do not cover, disable, or hang items from smoke detectors or sprinklers.
Health-and-safety inspections shortly after move-in.
Building and personal security
Card/fob access; do not prop exterior or stairwell doors.
Lock the room whenever you leave, even briefly.
Guests must be escorted; residents are responsible for them.
Weapons, ammunition, and realistic replicas prohibited.
Economy / energy standards
Mini-fridges typically capped at about 3.6–4.5 cubic feet; Energy Star models preferred or required.
One fridge and one microwave per room; extra units banned to avoid overloaded circuits and higher utility costs.
Many schools rent or install MicroFridge units because they use less energy than two separate appliances.
Personal window/portable ACs usually prohibited; cooling is centralized.
LED bulbs recommended; high-watt lamps discouraged.
Limit how many devices run at once so circuits do not trip.
Property-economy / damage control
No nails, duct tape, or adhesives that peel paint; Command strips often allowed.
No lofting with cinder blocks or unapproved risers (especially risers with built-in outlets).
No extra mattresses, waterbeds, or large non-university furniture.
Damage found at check-in/check-out is billed to the student.
U.S. public school teachers post donation requests on X because official classroom budgets rarely cover what students actually need. Surveys find about 95–97% of teachers spend their own money; recent averages run roughly $600–$1,000 a year, and higher in some states. School allotments often sit near $200. That gap buys pencils, paper, books, snacks, hygiene items, and decor so every child can participate.
Pay has not kept pace with those costs, inflation, and (lately) tariff-driven supply-price jumps. Many teachers also work second jobs. District purchasing is slow, restricted, or aimed at core curriculum, not daily consumables or student basics. Platforms like DonorsChoose exist for the same reason; X is simply a faster way to share a wishlist with parents, alumni, and strangers.Teachers say they do it so students are not left without materials. Crowdfunding is a workaround, not a substitute for adequate school funding.
Thank you for finding and supporting my list! So much color here to brighten my classroom!!
💙🩵💚🧡❤️💜 pic.twitter.com/PdM5QH91qa
Many settlements use well water as their primary or supplemental source for potable water, irrigation, or campus operations. This is common in regions where municipal water infrastructure is limited or costly, and groundwater from private or on-site wells provides a reliable alternative. For context, about 13 million U.S. households rely on private wells for drinking water, and many educational institutions follow suit due to similar geographic and economic factors.
Examples of Colleges and Universities Using Well Water:
Rural Campuses in General: Numerous small liberal arts colleges and community colleges in rural settings (e.g., in the Midwest, Northeast, or Pacific Northwest) draw from on-site wells. For instance, a 2025 analysis of campus water systems notes that rural colleges often contend with well water challenges like high total dissolved solids (TDS) or iron content, requiring specialized treatment such as reverse osmosis purifiers.
Oregon Institutions: Approximately 23% of Oregon households use domestic wells, and this extends to educational facilities. Oregon State University’s Well Water Program actively educates on groundwater protection for well-dependent users, implying local campuses (including community colleges in areas like Jackson County) rely on wells for potable supply.
Utah System of Higher Education Campuses: Public colleges like Snow College (in Ephraim, UT) and Dixie State University invest in filtration systems specifically for processing secondary or well water used in irrigation and operations. Snow College’s upgrades target well-sourced water to cut usage by 30%, while DSU filters secondary water (often well-derived) for campus landscaping.
Why Well Water is Used
Location-Driven: Campuses far from urban centers (e.g., in agricultural states like Iowa, Kansas, or Vermont) opt for wells to avoid high municipal hookup costs.
Sustainability and Cost: Wells support self-sufficiency, especially for non-potable needs like cooling towers or grounds maintenance, aligning with green initiatives on many campuses.
Treatment Needs: Institutions often add purification (e.g., UV systems for bacteria or softeners for hard water) to meet safety standards, as wells can introduce contaminants like arsenic or nitrates.
The CPU upgrade yesterday was not entirely successful but we had a workaround at the ready to manage contingencies. All animal related standards we covered in yesterday’s session is linked here.
This page will be posted to our X-feed: @StandardsMich to remind our colleagues and followers that software needs to be “maintained”
Located 15 minutes from Traverse City, this Laker alum and his family are celebrating their 10th season at Rove Winery this summer! 🍷🍇 Read about Creighton Gallagher ’06 and his journey to the vineyard here: https://t.co/lJ0eYlL7z7pic.twitter.com/iAXWXRuglO
Article 206 Non-Power-Limited Remote-Control and Signaling Circuits | Article 300 General Requirements for Wiring Methods and Materials | Article 335 Instrumentation Tray Cable — formerly Article 727 | Article 720 Limited-Energy System Installations | Article 721 Limited-Energy Power Sources | Article 722 Limited-Energy Cables | Article 723 Raceways, Cable Routing Assemblies, and Cable Trays for Limited-Energy Systems | Article 724 Class 1 Power-Limited Remote-Control and Signaling Circuits | Article 725 Class 2 and Class 3 Power-Limited Circuits | Article 726 Class 4 Fault-Managed Power Systems | Article 728 Fire-Resistive Cable Systems | Article 760 Fire Alarm Systems | Article 772
Chapter 9 Tables
Top 10 Issues
Issue
Summary
1. Consistency of Code Language
Standardize terminology throughout the NEC by eliminating inconsistent wording, duplicate phrases, and varying expressions that describe the same technical concepts.
2. Compliance with the NEC Style Manual
Many proposals seek removal of redundant requirements already addressed elsewhere in the Code, resulting in a cleaner, more concise document.
3. Restoring Lost Requirements
Numerous submitters argue that important technical provisions disappeared during recent article reorganizations and should be restored.
4. Article Organization
Improve article formatting, numbering, and overall structure to make the NEC easier to navigate and maintain.
5. Emerging Technologies
Expand the Code to better accommodate fault-managed power, battery energy storage, portable power systems, EV-based power sources, hydrogen technologies, and new circuit classifications.
6. Installation Clarification
Clarify requirements for raceways, wet locations, roof decks, cable trays, conductor spacing, barriers, and other installation practices.
7. Installer Safety & Reliability
Enhance electrical safety through improved wiring practices, better physical protection, stronger cable support requirements, and fewer failure points.
8. Definition Ownership
Assign definitions to the Code-Making Panels having primary technical expertise to improve long-term consistency and maintenance.
9. Coordination with Other Standards
Improve harmonization between the NEC and companion standards such as UL, ANSI, NFPA 79, and hazardous-location requirements.
10. Reducing Complexity
A recurring objective is to simplify the NEC by reducing duplication, improving readability, and making the Code easier for installers, inspectors, designers, trainers, and licensing authorities to use.
The Public Inputs demonstrate a broad desire to make the National Electrical Code more consistent, technically complete, better coordinated with related standards, and easier to understand without compromising electrical safety. Many proposals emphasize restoring requirements inadvertently lost during recent reorganizations while preparing the Code to accommodate rapidly emerging electrical technologies.
Mike recommends these issues as priority for the Joint IEEE IAS/PES committee
N.B. Public Input No. 2633-NFPA 70-2026 [ Global Input ] PDF Page 6, regarding re-organization of the NEC into below 1000 V and above 1000 V.
Noteworthy proposal concepts:
Cable trays interfering with HVAC ductwork and fire sprinkler lines. Parallel cable tray feasibility
Difficulty accessing lighting fixtures and fire alarm components for maintenance.
Potential violation of plenum clearance and airflow requirements. Some cable trays in plenums reportedly contain non-plenum-rated cables, which is a fire code violation.
Document flags this as a high-priority remediation item before any LED lighting retrofit proceeds.
Existing security wiring (CCTV, access control, intrusion detection) is a mix of old analog coax and early Cat 5 cables.
Many runs exceed recommended length for reliable video transmission. Frequent signal degradation and reliability complaints.
Security cables are sharing overcrowded cable trays with power-limited lighting control wires and fire alarm cabling.
Risk of electromagnetic interference (EMI) noted due to proximity to higher-voltage lines.
Plenum space constraints make it difficult to add new IP-based security cameras without major reorganization.
Current security wiring cannot support newer high-resolution IP cameras or PoE+ powered devices.
Several editorial proposals by Mike Holt. (He’s generally correct on clarity improvements that he needs for educational purposes)
Ω
For discussion next meeting, when we march through all proposals of interest to IEEE:
When electricians work in ceiling plenums above hallways while students pass below, several serious hazards emerge. Tools, screws, cable scraps, or ceiling tiles can fall, causing head injuries or slips. Disturbed dust, fiberglass, or potential asbestos particles may rain down, creating respiratory risks.
Live electrical work on lighting or cable trays raises shock/fire dangers if a fault occurs or debris shorts circuits. Open plenums can compromise fire-rated barriers, allowing smoke or flames to spread rapidly in an emergency.
Noise and visual distractions increase trip hazards for students. Without full barricades, lockout/tagout, and proper fall protection, these overhead activities expose young people to preventable injury. Scheduling work after hours or using full corridor closures is essential.
Power-limited (Class 2) cabling operates at low voltage (<60V DC) with current/power caps (~100VA), dramatically reducing shock and fire risks. Installation is simpler and cheaper—no conduit or heavy mechanical protection needed in many cases, allowing flexible routing. LEDs run cooler and more efficiently with remote drivers, improving lifespan and energy savings. Easier maintenance and safer for retrofits.
Severe distance and power limits due to voltage drop and 100W/5A caps require multiple drivers or shorter runs. Higher upfront costs for specialized power supplies. Potential reliability issues from more connection points. Less suitable for high-power or long-distance applications compared to line-voltage wiring.
Public Inputs Relevant to School and College Facilities
Campus Facility
Relevant Issue
Why It Matters
Student Health Centers, Medical Schools & Campus Hospitals
Improved protection of underground feeders, raceways, and wiring methods, together with replacement of conductors damaged by water, fire, corrosion, or severe physical impact.
Enhances electrical reliability for healthcare occupancies where continuous operation is essential.
Athletic Stadiums & Arenas
Improved protection of underground services, direct-buried conductors, warning ribbons, and raceways.
Supports reliable electrical service for stadium lighting, scoreboards, concessions, and outdoor utility infrastructure.
Temporary Athletic & Campus Events
Recognition of modern portable power sources, including battery energy storage systems and portable fuel cells, in addition to traditional generators.
Useful for commencement ceremonies, concerts, athletic tournaments, festivals, and temporary event power.
Research Laboratories
Expanded wiring methods for hazardous (classified) locations, including ITC-HL cable installations.
May affect university research laboratories, pilot plants, engineering facilities, and chemical research buildings.
Residence Halls & Classroom Buildings
Improved protection against concealed wiring damage caused by nails, screws, and furring strips during construction and renovation.
Helps reduce wiring damage during frequent campus remodeling and maintenance projects.
Campus Utility Infrastructure
Clarifications involving direct boring, underground raceways, service feeders, and warning ribbon installation.
Relevant to the large underground electrical distribution systems commonly found on university campuses.
Although these proposals would benefit campus infrastructure, the CMP-3 transcript contains very little discussion directed specifically at educational occupancies. Topics such as healthcare facilities (Article 517), stadium emergency systems, data centers, laboratories as occupancies, residence halls, libraries, and central utility plants largely fall within the jurisdiction of other NEC Code-Making Panels such as CMP-1 and CMP-15 where Mike has been a Principal or Alternate for IEEE.
April 29, 2026
At the request of IEEE Joint IAS/PES Standards Michigan, Mike Anthony moved to CMP-3 from CMP-15.
Articles Under CMP 3
Article 300 — General Requirements for Wiring Methods and Materials
Article 335 — Instrumentation Tray Cable (in some references for the 2029 cycle)
Article 590 — Temporary Installations (being relocated/renumbered in the 2026 cycle, e.g., potentially to Article 140 in Chapter 1, as temporary wiring is not treated as a special occupancy)
Article 720 — Limited-Energy System Installations (new/general article covering wiring methods for limited-energy systems)
Article 723 — Raceways, Cable Routing Assemblies, and Cable Trays for Limited-Energy Systems (newly created in the 2026 cycle)
Article 725 — Class 2 and Class 3 Remote-Control, Signaling, and Power-Limited Circuits
Article 726 — Class 4 Fault-Managed Power Circuits and Equipment
Article 727 — Instrumentation Tray Cable
Article 728 — Fire-Resistive Cable Systems
Article 760 — Fire Alarm Systems (power-limited and non-power-limited portions)
CMP 3 also handles associated content in: Chapter 9 — Tables, including Tables 11(A) & (B) and Tables 12(A) & (B) (related to conductor properties and other supporting tables for the above topics).
Notes on Changes and Scope CMP 3 focuses on general wiring rules, cable types, raceways/trays for low-energy applications, and signaling/communications-related wiring (distinct from higher-power utilization equipment or special occupancies handled by other panels).
In the 2026 NEC cycle, there has been significant reorganization of Chapter 7 to consolidate limited-energy systems under articles like 720–726 (and related ones), moving away from older structures. This includes new articles for raceways/cable trays specific to limited-energy systems and adjustments to scopes for clarity.
Article 206 (Non-Power-Limited Remote-Control and Signaling Circuits) appears in some 2026-related references as newly designated or relocated material handled in this area. Temporary installations (Article 590) are transitioning out of “special” categories in restructuring efforts.
During today’s sessions of the IEEE E&H Committee and our own we will prepare draft proposals relevant to the safety and sustainability agenda of the USA education facility industry. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
The University of Michigan has supported the voice of the United States education facility industry since 1993 — the second longest tenure of any voice in the United States. That voice has survived several organizational changes but remains intact and will continue its Safer-Simpler-Lower Cost-Longer Lasting priorities on Code Panel 3 in the 2029 Edition.
Today, during our customary “Open Door” teleconference we will examine the technical concepts under the purview of Code Panel 3; among them:
Article 206 Signaling Circuits
Article 300 General Requirements for Wiring Methods and Materials
Article 335 Instrumentation Tray Cable
Article 590 Temporary Installations
Chapter 7 Large sections of limited energy cabling for signaling and information technology
Since the lifespan of educational buildings make the building core and shell susceptible to multiple changes not typically associated with commercial buildings, additional pathways should be placed in areas where the core and shell components of the facility are likely to re-main for extended periods of time
It is recommended that all areas of an educational building have wireless coverage unless prohibited
The rapid growth of data centers presents genuine challenges to electric power systems: very large concentrated loads, accelerated interconnection schedules, new transmission requirements and concern over who ultimately pays for the necessary infrastructure. These problems deserve careful attention, but they are fundamentally engineering problems — and therefore problems capable of engineering solutions.
Electrical power systems have repeatedly adapted to new classes of load. Electrification of industry, air conditioning, electric heating and large computing facilities each altered planning assumptions in their time. Data centers will do the same.
Power engineers are already developing better methods for load forecasting, staged interconnection, demand response, energy storage, on-site generation and microgrids. Data centers themselves can become more flexible loads, reducing consumption during stressed grid conditions rather than operating continuously at maximum demand. Improved transmission planning, advanced protection and controls and better coordination between utilities, system operators and large customers will further reduce adverse effects.
The present difficulties should therefore not be mistaken for permanent conditions. Engineering practice evolves when operating experience reveals new constraints. The extraordinary concentration of electrical demand created by artificial intelligence will test the grid, but it will also accelerate improvements in how large loads are designed, connected, controlled and supplied.
1. Build vertically — Stack rack “white space” across three to five floors, including one or two below grade, to reduce building footprint and land consumption.
2. Make architecture an asset — Treat the exterior as an architectural statement appropriate to its community rather than as an anonymous industrial enclosure.
3. Support municipal infrastructure — Design electrical and standby-generation capacity to support critical municipal loads, including water and wastewater systems during major regional contingencies.
4. Co-locate emergency management functions — Provide space and resilient infrastructure for local or regional emergency management operations.
5. Provide community swing space — Incorporate adaptable space that can support sports, recreation and other community uses when not required for primary facility operations.
A data center need not be only a data center.A very large, extraordinarily well-powered and resilient building can return some of that resilience to the community hosting it.
Important 2024 IEBC Changes Affecting College & University Facilities
Code Change
Campus Impact
1. Occupiable Roofs
New provisions coordinate rooftop occupancy requirements with the 2024 IBC. Universities converting roofs into terraces, student gathering areas, dining spaces, green roofs, or observation decks must evaluate structural capacity, means of egress, accessibility, guardrails, and fire protection.
2. Risk Category Clarification for Additions
Provides clearer guidance when additions have a different occupancy than the existing building. This is particularly important for laboratory expansions, medical research buildings, student health facilities, and emergency operations centers.
3. Storm Shelter Coordination
Storm shelter provisions now coordinate directly with IBC Section 423 and ICC 500. Campus projects in tornado-prone regions should verify shelter requirements early during planning.
4. Smoke Compartment Requirements
Certain renovations involving healthcare occupancies, student medical clinics, and assisted-living facilities may require additional smoke compartmentation during major alterations.
5. Adult Changing Stations
Projects adding toilet facilities may now require adult changing stations in certain accessible family or assisted-use restrooms. This primarily affects stadiums, arenas, student unions, libraries, and performing arts centers.
6. Exterior Wall Renovations on High-Rise Buildings
Installation of combustible exterior wall coverings or envelope systems on existing high-rise buildings may trigger automatic sprinkler requirements. This should be evaluated during residence hall and research tower renovations.
7. Existing Automatic Sprinkler Systems
New provisions establish conditions under which certain non-required sprinkler systems may be removed following occupancy changes. Campus owners should review this carefully before renovation projects.
8. Temporary Emergency Building Uses
New Appendix E provides guidance for temporary emergency use of existing buildings. Universities can incorporate these concepts into emergency operations planning during natural disasters or public health emergencies.
9. Construction Site Safety Planning
New owner responsibilities emphasize development of site safety plans and designation of responsible personnel during construction. This is especially valuable on occupied campuses where construction occurs adjacent to classrooms, residence halls, hospitals, and pedestrian routes.
10. Better Coordination with the 2024 IBC
Many provisions have been reorganized or updated to improve consistency between the IEBC and the current International Building Code. Campus design teams can expect fewer conflicts between existing-building and new-construction requirements during modernization projects.
Facilities Most Likely to be Affected
Research laboratories
Residence halls
Athletic stadiums and arenas
Libraries
Student unions
Classroom buildings
Central utility plants
Medical schools and student health clinics
Performing arts centers
High-rise academic buildings
“`
November 30, 2021
Every month we direct our colleagues in the education industry to the US Census Department’s monthly construction report to make a point: at an average annual clip of about $75 billion, the education industry is the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States. A large part of that construction involves infrastructure upgrades of existing buildings that contribute to sustainability goals but may not make flashy architectural statements for philanthropists.
The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) is a model code in the International Code Council family of codes intended to provide requirements for repair and alternative approaches for alterations and additions to existing buildings (LEARN MORE). A large number of existing buildings and structures do not comply with the current building code requirements for new construction. Although many of these buildings are potentially salvageable, rehabilitation is often cost-prohibitive because compliance with all the new requirements for new construction could require extensive changes that go well beyond the value of building or the original scope of the alteration.
Education facility planners, architects and managers: Sound familiar?
ICC administered workgroups have been convening with considerable frequency over the past several months to pull together a number of relevant concepts for the next (2019 Group B) revision. For the purpose of providing some perspective on the complexity and subtlety of the issues in play, a partial overview of working group activity is available in the links below. Keep in mind that there are many other proposals being developed by our ICC working group and others.
It is a large document — 2919 pages — so keep that in mind when accessing it. There are many issues affecting #TotalCostofOwnership of the education facility industry so we will get cracking on it again next week. See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconference. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Finally, we persist in encouraging education industry facility managers (especially those with operations and maintenance data) to participate in the ICC code development process. You may do so by CLICKING HERE. Real asset managers for school districts, colleges, universities and technical schools in the Albuquerque region should take advantage of the opportunity to observe the ICC code-development process. The Group B Hearings are usually webcast — and we will signal the link to the 10-day webcast when it becomes available — but the experience of seeing how building codes are determined is enlightening when you can watch it live and on site.
Issue: [16-169]
Category: Architectural, Facility Asset Management, Space Planning
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben
How much irreversible infrastructure should a society build when a technological competitor may be able to obsolete the demand for it faster than the infrastructure can recover its capital cost? Nobody has to behave maliciously for it to happen.
Engineering has always advanced by converting apparent limits into tractable problems. New technologies commonly arrive before the infrastructure, standards and operating experience needed to support them. Railways, electric power, telecommunications, aviation and computing each produced genuine hazards and public anxieties before engineers learned how to manage them.
Solutions emerged in the fullness of time through measurement, experiment, failure analysis, improved materials, better design and the patient development of technical standards. Data centers belong to this tradition. Their scale creates difficult problems of power, cooling, reliability and community infrastructure, but difficulty is not novelty. Engineering proceeds by defining constraints, testing alternatives and building workable solutions.
A few thoughts off the beaten path:
Stack the white space. Vertical construction has precedent in multi-story urban data centers. Consider three to five floors plus basements as a community land-use mitigation strategy. A smaller footprint leaves more land available for housing, recreation, landscape and other community uses.
PC’s can, and probably will, reduce AI data center sizes. There is a real literature behind this idea, although researchers usually call it edge AI, collaborative inference, distributed inference, AI PCs, device-edge-cloud computing or volunteer computing, rather than “moving data-center load onto desktops.”
Think of data centers as urban energy assets. A 2025 study models data centers not simply as loads but as “heat-active urban energy prosumers.” Using the EPFL campus in Lausanne, the authors find that flexible computing and district-heating integration can allow a data center to contribute materially to the surrounding energy system. This supports the larger proposition that a facility consuming extraordinary amounts of community infrastructure should return infrastructure value to its host community. Waste-heat recovery provides one route. Yuan et al. review integration of data-center heat into district-heating networks through heat pumps, thermal storage and related systems. Aalto University — Data Center Waste Heat for District Heating Networks
Look for novel secondary uses. Terenius, Garraghan and Harper consider data-center waste heat for buildings, agricultural and commodity processes, energy storage and other social uses. Their case studies deliberately place data centers within different community settings rather than treating them as isolated industrial loads. Frontiers — A Material Social View on Data Center Waste Heat
The community scale reliability problem is not new:
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
_Mauritshuis_171.jpg)
