Giovanni Paolo Panini, An architectural capriccio with figures among Roman ruins
The post-pandemic #WiseCampus transformation requires significant capital to meet the sustainability goals of its leadership. Campuses are cities-within-cities and are, to a fair degree, financed in a similar fashion. Tax-free bonds are an effective instrument for school districts, colleges and universities — and the host community in which they are nested — for raising capital for infrastructure projects while also providing investors with, say $10,000 to $100,000, to allocate toward a tax-free dividend income stream that produces a return in the range of 2 to 8 percent annually.
An aging population may be receptive to investment opportunities that protect their retirement savings from taxation.
Once a month, we walk through the prospectuses of one or two bond offerings of school districts, colleges and universities and examine offering specifics regarding infrastructure construction, operations and maintenance. We pay particular attention to details regarding “continuing operations”. Somehow the education industry has to pay for its green agenda. See our CALENDAR for the next Finance colloquium; open to everyone.
The interactive map provided by Electronic Municipal Market Access identifies state-by-state listings of tax-free bonds that contribute to the construction and operation of education facilities; some of which involved university-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery enterprises.
CLICK ON IMAGE FOR INTERACTIVE MAP
If you need help cutting through this list please feel free to click in any day at 11 AM Eastern time. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our hope page. We collaborate with subject matter experts at Municipal Analytics and UBS.
*We see the pandemic as a driver for a step-reduction in cost in all dimensions of education communities. We coined the term with a hashtag about two years ago.
*College and university infrastructure projects are classified with public school districts under the rubric “municipal bonds” at the moment. CLICK HERE for more information.
Leyden Jar electric energy storage; and early form of a microgrid. CLICK ON IMAGE for more information
The National Electrical Contractors Association develops a suite of consensus standards titled National Electrical Installation Standards (NEIS) that meet the intent of the National Electrical Code (NEC); particularly where the NEC asserts that an installation be constructed in a “neat and workmanlike manner”. The scope of the original undertaking, begun in the early 1990’s with University of Michigan as an early adopter, has since expanded into operation and maintenance standards; and more recently into design, installation, operating and maintaining integrated systems such as microgrids*.
Some electrotechnology professionals struggle with the notion of a “microgrid” — a trendy term of art for an integrated system of interactive and distributed power sources that many large research universities have had for decades in their district energy plant. There are some noteworthy operational differences, however; as a trend toward local power storage accelerates and education facility leaders are under pressure to prove the they have a Smart Grid (even if they already have one). None of the #SmartCampus conceptions for expansion of microgrids into individual buildings, or regions on campuses, will ever pay for themselves we cannot operate and maintain many of them economically (when set against the operational economics of the electrical supply delivered by the university district energy plant). The university-affiliated medical research and healthcare delivery campus may be a proof-point, however.
The NECA documents are used by construction owners, specifiers, contractors and electricians to clearly illustrate the performance and workmanship standards essential for different types of electrical construction. Because the NEC is intended to be primarily a wiring safety standard, the NEIS suite is referenced throughout the National Electrical Code. Electrical shop foremen and front line electricians take note.
You may obtain an electronic copy from [email protected]. Send comments to Aga Golriz, (301) 215-4549, [email protected] with a copy of your comments [email protected]. Because the proposed change is relatively minor editorial/grammatical change, we will not comment on it but encourage other user-interests in the education facilities industry (electric shops, engineering managers, etc.) to at least become familiar with the NECA suite of standards and to incorporate them by reference into their standard practice guides for electrical trades.
Our door is open every day at 11 AM for consultation on this and other standards. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page. Additionally, we will refer this to the IEEE Education & Healthcare Committee, which is a subcommittee in the IEEE Industrial Applications Society which follows — and leads — the development of the emergent #SmartCampus. That committee meets online 4 times monthly in European and American time zones. See the IEEE E&H Calendar for date, time and login credentials.
*Most seasoned electrical power professionals recognize that many large research universities with district energy systems that generate in parallel with a public utility have, for decades, operated with all the essential characteristics of a microgrid (save for the political “buzz”). On-site power storage for telecommunication and mission critical facilities have been in place for decades; so has back up on-site generation. Scaling these known sources to provide normal power to a single building, or groups of buildings, is an essential difference, however. Electrical engineering expertise and judgement is needed to determine the optimal balance between a smart distributed resource (such as a microgrid) and a central resource from an existing district energy system. An array of microgrids on a large research university campus will have a cost associated with of installing, operating and maintaining them.
Should every campus building generate its own power? Sustainability workgroups are vulnerable to speculative hype about net-zero buildings and microgrids. We remind sustainability trendsniffers that the central feature of a distributed energy resource–the eyesore known as the university steam plant–delivers most of the economic benefit of a microgrid. [Comments on Second Draft due April 29th] #StandardsMassachusetts
“M. van Marum. Tweede vervolg der proefneemingen gedaan met Teyler’s electrizeer-machine, 1795” | An early energy storage device | Massachusetts Institute of Technology Libraries
We have been following the developmental trajectory of a new NFPA regulatory product — NFPA 855 Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems — a document with ambitions to formalize the fire safety landscape of the central feature of campus microgrids by setting criteria for minimizing the hazards associated with energy storage systems.
The fire safety of electric vehicles and the companion storage units for solar and wind power systems has been elevated in recent years with incidents with high public visibility. The education industry needs to contribute ideas and data to what we call the emergent #SmartCampus;an electrotechnical transformation — both as a provider of new knowledge and as a user of the new knowledge.
Transcripts of technical deliberation are linked below:
Comment on the 2026 revision received by March 27, 2025 will be heard at the NFPA June 2025 Expo through NFPA’s NITMAM process.
University of Michigan | Average daily electrical load across all Ann Arbor campuses is on the order of 100 megawatts
A fair question to ask: “How is NFPA 855 going to establish the standard of care any better than the standard of care discovered and promulgated in the NFPA 70-series and the often-paired documents NFPA 110 and NFPA 111?” (As you read the transcript of the proceedings you can see the committee tip-toeing around prospective overlaps and conflicts; never a first choice).
Suffice to say, the NFPA Standards Council has due process requirements for new committee projects and, obviously, that criteria has been met. Market demand presents an opportunity to assemble a new committee with fresh, with new voices funded by a fresh set of stakeholders who, because they are more accustomed to advocacy in open-source and consortia standards development platforms, might have not been involved in the more rigorous standards development processes of ANSI accredited standards developing organizations — specifically the NFPA, whose members are usually found at the top of organization charts in state and local jurisdictions. For example we find UBER — the ride sharing company — on the technical committee. We find another voice from Tesla Motors. These companies are centered in an industry that does not have the tradition of leading practice discovery and promulgation that the building industry has had for the better part of two hundred years.
Our interest in this standard lies on both sides of the education industry — i.e. the academic research side and the business side. For all practical purposes, the most credible, multi-dimensional and effective voice for lowering #TotalCostofOwnership for the emergent smart campus is found in the tenure of Standards Michigan and its collaboration with IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee (E&H). You may join us sorting through the technical, economic and legal particulars and day at 11 AM Eastern time. The IEEE E&H Committee meets online every other Tuesday in European and American time zones; the next meeting on March 26th. All meetings are open to the public.
University of California San Diego Microgrid
You are encouraged to communicate directly with Brian O’Connor, the NFPA Staff Liaison for specific questions. We have some of the answers but Brian is likely to have all of them. CLICK HERE for the NFPA Directory. Additionally, NFPA will be hosting its Annual Conference & Expo, June 17-20 in San Antonio, Texas; usually an auspicious time for meeting NFPA staff working on this, and other projects.
The prospect of installing of energy storage technologies at every campus building — or groups of buildings, or in regions — is clearly transformational if the education facilities industry somehow manages to find a way to drive the cost of operating and maintaining many energy storage technologies lower than the cost of operating and maintaining a single campus distributed energy resource. The education facility industry will have to train a new cadre of microgrid technology specialists who must be comfortable working at ampere and voltage ranges on both sides of the decimal point that separates power engineers from control engineers. And, of course, dynamic utility pricing (set by state regulatory agencies) will continue to be the most significant independent control variable.
Finding a way to make all this hang together is the legitimate work of the academic research side of the university. We find that sustainability workgroups (and elected governing bodies) in the education industry are vulnerable to out-sized claims about microgrids and distributed energy resources; both trendy terms of art for the electrotechnical transformation we call the emergent #SmartCampus.
We remind sustainability trendsniffers that the central feature of a distributed energy resource — the eyesore known as the university steam plant — bears most of the characteristics of a microgrid. In the videoclip linked below a respected voice from Ohio State University provides enlightenment on this point; even as he contributes to the discovery stream with a study unit.
Ohio State University McCracken Power Plant
Issue: [16-131]
Category: District Energy, Electrical, Energy, Facility Asset Management, Fire Safety, Risk Management, #SmartCampus, US Department of Energy
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Bill Cantor ([email protected]). Mahesh Illindala
Electric vehicle charging stations are addressed in the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) within two specific appendices:
Appendix RE: This appendix provides detailed requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, focusing on both residential and commercial buildings. It includes definitions and infrastructure standards to ensure that new constructions are equipped to support electric vehicle charging
Appendix CG: This appendix offers guidance on electric vehicle power transfer and charging infrastructure, emphasizing the integration of EV-ready requirements into building designs. It outlines the necessary provisions for installing and managing EV charging stations, ensuring compliance with energy conservation standards
.These appendices are part of the broader efforts to incorporate EV infrastructure into building codes, promoting energy efficiency and supporting the transition to electric vehicles.
Recharging infrastructure at at Google’s Mountain View (California) campus | Pretty ugly, eh?
“Gas” 1940 Edward Hopper
This standard will be updated within a reconfigured code development cycle linked below:
Keep in mind that many electric vehicle safety and sustainability concepts will track in other titles in the ICC catalog. It is enlightening to see other energy related proposals tracking in the most recent Group A code revision cycle
The following proposals discussed during the Group A Hearings ended earlier this month are noteworthy:
R309.6 Electric vehicle charging stations and systems. Where provided, electric vehicle charging systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70. Electric vehicle charging system equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2202. Electric vehicle supply equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2594.
IBC 406.2.7 Electric vehicle charging stations and systems. Where provided, electric vehicle charging systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 70. Electric vehicle charging system equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2202. Electric vehicle supply equipment shall be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 2594. Accessibility to electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided in accordance with Section 1108.
TABLE R328.5 MAXIMUM AGGREGATE RATINGS OF ESS (Energy Storage Systems) – PDF Page 1476
Incumbents are socking in EV concepts all across the ICC catalog. We refer them to experts in the Industrial Applications Society IEEE E&H Committee.
One of the more spirited debates in recent revision cycles is the following:
Who shall pay for electrical vehicle charging infrastructure?
The underlying assumption is that the electrification of the global transportation grid has a net benefit. We remain mute on that question; the question of net gain.
Of course, many proposals pointed the finger at the stakeholder with the deepest pockets. Accordingly, new commercial building owners will be required to install charging stations for new buildings. During 2018 and 2019 we tracked the action in the workspace below so that we could collaborate with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee:
Given that most higher education facilities are classified as commercial, the cost of charging stations will be conveyed into the new building construction budget unless the unit takes an exception. Generally speaking, most colleges and universities like to display their electric vehicle credentials, even if the use of such charging stations remains sparse.
Cornell University
Issue: [11-40]
Category: Electrical, #SmartCampus
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey
* The education industry has significant square footage this is classified as residential; particularly on the periphery of large research campuses.
ASHRAE 90.4 defines an alternate compliance path, specific to data centers, while the compliance requirements for “non-data center” components are contained in ASHRAE 90.1 . The 90.4 structure also streamlines the ongoing maintenance process as well ensures that Standards 90.1 and 90.4 stay in their respective lanes to avoid any overlap and redundancies relating to the technical and administrative boundaries. Updates to ASHRAE 90.1 will still include the alternate compliance path defined in ASHRAE 90.4. Conversely the 2022 Edition of 90.4-2022 refers to ASHRAE 90.1-2022; cross-referencing one another synchronously
Links to noteworthy coverage from expert agencies on the 2022 revisions:
This title resides on the standing agenda of our Infotech 400 colloquium; hosted several times per year and as close coupled with the annual meetings of ASHRAE International as possible. Technical committees generally meet during these meetings make decisions about the ASHRAE catalog. The next all committee conference will be hostedJanuary 20-24, 2024 in Chicago. As always we encourage education industry facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals to participate directly in the ASHRAE consensus standard development process. It is one of the better facilities out there.
Proposed Addendum g makes changes to definitions were modified in section 3 and mandatory language in Section 6 to support the regulation of process heat and process ventilation was moved in the section for clarity. Other changes are added based on comments from the first public review including changes to informative notes.
Consultation closes June 4th
Update: February 10, 2023
The most actively managed consensus standard for data center energy supply operating in education communities (and most others) is not published by the IEEE but rather by ASHRAE International — ASHRAE 90.4 Energy Standard for Data Centers (2019). It is not required to be a free access title although anyone may participate in its development. It is copyrighted and ready for purchase but, for our purpose here, we need only examine its scope and purpose. A superceded version of 90.4 is available in the link below:
It is likely that the technical committee charged with updating this standard are already at work preparing an updated version that will supercede the 2019 Edition. CLICK HERE for a listing of Project Committee Interim Meetings.
We maintain many titles from the ASHRAE catalog on the standing agenda of our Mechanical, Energy 200/400, Data and Cloud teleconferences. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Originally posted Summer 2020.
ASHRAE International has released four new addenda to its energy conservation consensus document ASHRAE 90.4-2016 Energy Standard for Data Centers. This document establishes the minimum energy efficiency requirements of data centers for design and construction, for the creation of a plan for operation and maintenance and for utilization of on-site or off-site renewable energy resources.
It is a relatively new document more fully explained in an article published by ASHRAE in 2016 (Click here). The addenda described briefly:
Addendum a – clarifies existing requirements in Section 6.5 as well as introduce new provisions to encourage heat recovery within data centers.
Addendum b – clarifies existing requirements in Sections 6 and 11 and to provide guidance for taking credit for renewable energy systems.
Addendum d – a response to a Request for Interpretation on the 90.4 consideration of DieselRotary UPS Systems (DRUPS) and the corresponding accounting of these systems in the Electrical Loss Component (ELC). In crafting the IC, the committee also identified several marginal changes to 90.4 definitions and passages in Section 8 that would add further clarity to the issue. This addendum contains the proposed changes for that aim as well as other minor changes to correct spelling or text errors, incorporate the latest ELC values into Section 11, and to refresh information in the Normative Reference.
Addendum e adds language to Section 11 intended to clarify how compliance with Standard 90.4 can be achieved through the use of shared systems.
Comments are due September 6th. Until this deadline you may review the changes and comment upon them by by CLICKING HERE
Education facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals are encouraged to participate directly in the ASHRAE standard development process. Start at ASHRAE’s public commenting facility:
The ASHRAE catalog is a priority title in our practice. This title appears on the standing agenda of our Infotech sessions. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Managing capital‐intensive campus infrastructure embedded within a politically sensitive community presents challenges not present in private industry real assets. Differences in everything from department culture to annual facility use patterns mean that facility managers cannot implement the same safety approaches in all buildings. Approaches must be scaled and tailored to the occupancy type and informed by the interconnectedness and the specifics of a given facility. Accordingly, the original University of Michigan standards advocacy enterprise (see ABOUT) began following the development of safety concepts in both NFPA 730 and NFPA 731 with the release of the 2008 Edition. Thereafter, it collaborated with trade associations and subject matter experts from other universities (notably Georgetown University and Evergreen State University) to advocate user-interest concepts in the 2011 revisions.
Since 2008, campus security issues have only become more complex technically; across an expanding minefield of sensitivities. Since 2008 we have observed the emergence of about one-hundred new consensus products being developed by the same number of new trade associations and producers presenting campus security solutions.
NFPA 730 Guide to Premise Security is a consensus document that describes construction, protection, occupancy features, and practices intended to reduce security vulnerabilities to life and property. Related document — NFPA 731 Standard for the Installation of Electronic Premises Security Systems covers the application, location, installation, performance, testing, and maintenance of electronic premises security systems and their components. The first is a performance document; the second a prescriptive document for the construction, operation and maintenance of electrotechnologies that support premise security.
Public consultation on the 2023 revision closed January 5, 2022 however the NITMAM process permits additional comment at the 2023 NFPA Annual meeting in Las Vegas in June 2023.
The 2026 Edition is now open for public input until January 4, 2024.
Public Comment on the First Draft of the 2026 Edition will be received until January 3, 2025
As always, we encourage direct participation by user-interests supporting the education facility industry. You may do so by CLICKING HERE.
It is never a bad idea to key in comments on your own but if you would like some insight into our advocacy vectors since 2008 you are welcomed to click in our periodic Risk and Public Safety colloquia during which time we pick through technical, policy and enforcement specifics. We have been hammering on Chapters 11 and 12, Education and Healthcare Facilities, respectively; for five cycles. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [10-3], [11-58], [14-44] and [16-127]
Category: Electrical, Telecommunications, Information & Communications Technology, Public Safety, Risk Management, #SmartCampus
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jim Harvey, Richard Robben
Many school districts, colleges and universities are affected by annual spring flooding in the Central United States; seasonal inspiration for revisiting the technical and management codes and standards to avoid and/or mitigate water damages that may be originate with host municipality water supply and control authorities.
The standards developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and its affiliate institute — Environmental Water Resource Institute (EWRI) — should appear in the design guidelines given to professional services firms retained by the facility construction, operations and maintenance workgroups. We encourage our colleagues in these units to update their design guidelines with the latest versions of the documents linked below:
ASCE/EWRI 56: Guidelines for the Physical Security of Water Utilities. These water utility guidelines recommend physical and electronic security measures for physical protection systems to protect against identified adversaries, referred to as the design basis threats (DBTs), with specified motivation, tools, equipment, and weapons.
ASCE/EWRI 57: Guidelines for the Physical Security of Wastewater/Stormwater Utilities. These wastewater/stormwater utilities guidelines recommend physical and electronic security measures for physical protection systems to protect against identified adversaries, referred to as the design basis threats (DBTs), with specified motivation, tools, equipment, and weapons. Additional requirements and security equipment may be necessary to defend against threats with greater capabilities.
Note that these documents are “paired” for the obvious reason that potable water systems must be separate from all other water systems.
No redlines that are in the upper tier of our priority rankings are open for public comment at this time; though there are two that might interest building contractors:
Public Comment for ASCE-SEI 24 Flood Resistant Design and Construction (Comment Deadline 9/26/24)
Public Comment for ASCE/SEI 32-01 Design and Construction of Frost-Protected Shallow Foundations (Comment Deadline 8/05/2024
Public Comment on ASCE 7-22 Supplement for Chapter 5 (Comment Deadline 1-15-2023)
Public Comment on ASCE 7-22 Supplement for Referenced Standards (Comment Deadline 1-15-2023)
We encourage direct engagement by education industry leaders, their engineering consultants, or municipal water management experts to participate in the development of these standards through the ASCE standards portal:
You will need to set up an access account. You may also communicate directly with the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Reston, VA 20191. Contact: James Neckel ([email protected]).
We keep water-related ASCE titles on the standing agenda of our Water colloquium. See our CALENDAR for the next teleconference; open to everyone.
Issue: [18-52]
Category: Civil Engineering, Water, #SmartCampus
Colleagues: Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Steve Snyder, Larry Spielvogel
Scope: It is the purpose of these specifications to assure that tested electrical equipment and systems are operational, are within applicable standards and manufacturer’s tolerances, and are installed in accordance with design specifications.
Project Need: The purpose of these specifications is to assure that tested electrical systems are safe, reliable, and operational; are in conformance with applicable standards and manufacturers’ tolerances; and are installed in accordance with design specifications. These specifications are specifically intended for application on electrical power equipment and systems.
Stakeholders: Commissioning agents, governmental agencies, A&E firms, inspection authorities, owners of facilities that utilize large blocks of electrical energy, electrical testing firms.
This standard is not intended to be submitted for consideration as an ISO, IEC, or ISO/IEC JTC-1 standard.
NETA standards are typically referenced in electrical system construction documents for setting safety criteria before local authorities permit initial system energization and building occupancy. The NETA suite is also among the constellation of consensus documents that set the standard of care for the safety of building electrical systems across the full span of an electrical system life cycle.
We review the NETA catalog jointly with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which is the locus of the most informed technical and business opinions on customer-owned electrical power generating facilities for the education facilities industry. That committee meets online twice today:
All standards dealing with the #TotalCostofOwnership of distributed electrical energy resources are on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Door teleconferences which are hosted weekly on Wednesday at 11 AM Eastern time. Click here to log in.
With acoustic considerations a substantial contributor to the effectiveness of learning spaces — classrooms, lecture hall, performance arts and athletic venues, etc. — we follow action in the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) suite of ANSI-accredited standards.
For example, building codes in the United States identify horizontal and vertical acoustic insulation between floors and between walls, respectively, as design considerations. Section 1206.2 of the International Building Code deal with horizontal and vertical wall sealant applications for “airborne sound” mitigation, for example. Fire protection and mass notification systems identified in NFPA 72 and UL 2572 depend upon alarms actually being heard by the occupants underscore the importance of acoustic design. When lively art spaces are also instructional spaces we seek to understand the standard of care for acoustic design of classroom spaces. Of particular interest to us in the ASA bibliography is the title linked below:
This is a fairly stable standard; though other sound related technologies we cover in other sound related technologies (ISO TC/43 Acoustics and IEC Electroacoustics TC 29). Last year’s update was required by ANSI and we had no comments to submit; absent queries from students, faculty and staff. It is wise to keep it on our radar, however, given the step-change in education communities owed to the pandemic.
On your own you may communicate with Caryn Mennigke at ASA: (631) 390-0215, [email protected]. The ASA uses ANSI Standards Action for issuing live public consultation notices.
Since acoustic technologies cut across many disciplines we maintain it on the standing agenda of our Construction, Lively Art and Nota Bene teleconferences. See our CALENDAR next scheduled meeting; open to everyone.
Campus exterior lighting systems generally run in the 100 to 10,000 fixture range and are, arguably, the most visible characteristic of public safety infrastructure. Some major research universities have exterior lighting systems that are larger and more complex than cooperative and municipal power company lighting systems which are regulated by public service commissions.
While there has been considerable expertise in developing illumination concepts by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Illumination Engineering Society, the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers, the International Electrotechnical Commission and the International Commission on Illumination, none of them contribute to leading practice discovery for the actual power chain for these large scale systems on a college campus. The standard of care has been borrowed, somewhat anecdotally, from public utility community lighting system practice. These concepts need to be revisited as the emergent #SmartCampus takes shape.
Electrical power professionals who service the education and university-affiliated healthcare facility industry should communicate directly with Mike Anthony ([email protected]) or Jim Harvey ([email protected]). This project is also on the standing agenda of the IEEE E&H committee which meets online 4 times monthly — every other Tuesday — in European and American time zones. Login credentials are available on its draft agenda page.
Issue: [15-199]
Category: Electrical, Public Safety, Architectural, #SmartCampus, Space Planning, Risk Management
Contact: Mike Anthony, Kane Howard, Jim Harvey, Dev Paul, Steven Townsend, Kane Howard
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
