The purpose of the code is to establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of health, safety, property protection and welfare by controlling the design, location, use or occupancy of all buildings and structures through the regulated and orderly development of land and land uses within this jurisdiction.
CLICK IMAGE
Municipalities usually have specific land use or zoning considerations to accommodate the unique needs and characteristics of college towns:
Mixed-Use Zoning: Cities with colleges and universities often employ mixed-use zoning strategies to encourage a vibrant and diverse urban environment. This zoning approach allows for a combination of residential, commercial, and institutional uses within the same area, fostering a sense of community and facilitating interactions between students, faculty, and residents.
Height and Density Restrictions: Due to the presence of educational institutions, cities may have specific regulations on building height and density to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and maintain the character of the area. These restrictions help balance the need for development with the preservation of the existing urban fabric.
Student Housing: Cities with colleges and universities may have regulations or guidelines for student housing to ensure an adequate supply of affordable and safe accommodations for students. This can include requirements for minimum bedroom sizes, occupancy limits, and proximity to campus.
Parking and Transportation: Given the concentration of students, faculty, and staff, parking and transportation considerations are crucial. Cities may require educational institutions to provide parking facilities or implement transportation demand management strategies, such as promoting public transit use, cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian-friendly designs.
Community Engagement: Some cities encourage colleges and universities to engage with the local community through formalized agreements or community benefit plans. These may include commitments to support local businesses, contribute to neighborhood improvement projects, or provide educational and cultural resources to residents.
This is a relatively new title in the International Code Council catalog; revised every three years in the Group B tranche of titles. Search on character strings such as “zoning” in the link below reveals the ideas that ran through the current revision:
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to the town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which regulated the size, location, and duration of signs based on their content. The court held that the sign code was a content-based restriction on speech and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994): In this Supreme Court case, the court struck down a municipal ordinance that banned the display of signs on residential property, except for signs that fell within specific exemptions. The court held that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a San Diego ordinance that banned off-premises advertising signs while allowing on-premises signs. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as it discriminated against certain types of speech.
City of Ladue v. Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Inc. (1980): In this Supreme Court case, the court upheld a municipal ordinance that prohibited the display of signs on public property, but only if the signs were posted for longer than 10 days. The court held that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a municipal sign code that regulated the size, location, and content of signs in the city. The court held that the sign code violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as it burdened the exercise of religion without a compelling government interest.
The fourth edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.4 was published in late 2025 (superseding the 2022 edition) and it provides leading practice for smaller enterprise level data centers as well as hyperscale campuses.
Key Highlights of the 2025 Edition
Establishes minimum energy efficiency requirements for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of data centers.
Expanded sustainability scope: Goes beyond pure energy efficiency to explicitly include greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and broader resource impacts.
Maintains the performance-based approach using metrics like the Mechanical Load Component (MLC) and Electrical Loss Component (ELC), with refinements to make requirements more stringent.
Applies primarily to data centers with power density >20 W/ft² and IT loads >10 kW. It references ASHRAE 90.1 for non-data-center elements (envelope, lighting, etc.).
This marks a clear evolution toward decarbonization and resource efficiency, especially important for AI-driven hyperscale data centers.
Recent Developments (2025–2026)
Addendum b to the 2022 edition was approved in September 2025, providing clarifications for phased or modular data center designs.
The 2024 IECC now references ASHRAE 90.4-2022 (Sections 6 and 8) as a compliance path for data centers.
ASHRAE continues to advocate for wider adoption of 90.4 in state and local energy codes.
The Standing Standard Project Committee (SSPC 90.4) remains active with working groups on mechanical, electrical, ESG, and marketing aspects.
Data centers are among the fastest-growing energy consumers globally due to AI, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure. ASHRAE 90.4 was created because traditional building codes do not adequately address their unique high-density, mission-critical nature.
The 2025 edition’s inclusion of emissions and water use reflects increasing industry and regulatory pressure on data center environmental footprints.
This title establishes minimum energy efficiency requirements for data centers; a permanent fixture in all education communities now undergoing a virtual +∞ asymptotic spike in generative intelligence transformation in ℝ³. At the moment this title is stable but can be revised in 30-90 day consultation cycles which will make it the dominant standard compared with IEEE and NFPA titles which move on a 3 to 5 year revision cadence.
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.
Edison electric vehicle | National Park Service, US Department of the Interior
Electrical power engineers know that it is unwise to imagine a totally electric mobility system in the mind’s eye of vertical incumbents, policy makers and trendsniffers. That does not mean that, as licensed professionals, we cannot positively respond to the demand for more electric mobility on campuses and within school districts.
Today we run through current codes, standards and guides to make that power supply chain safe and sustainable. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
In addition to the “NEC canonicals” — listing, coupler heights, disconnect, grounding, voltage, ampacity and overcurrent protection that would likely be applied in a fleet enclosure, more specific passages are relevant when the charging stations are widely dispersed in exterior locations:
Article 225 Outside branch circuits and feeders
Article 625 Electric Vehicle Power Transfer System
We will deal with cable management, IEC 61851 titles, Level 1 & 2 equipment, load management, placement of charging stations at motor fuel dispensing installations and wireless charging systems in a separate session.
Much like designing and building campus outdoor lighting systems, there are more site-related issues to be reckoned with. For example:
Charging infrastructure: One of the biggest space usage problems with EVs is the need for charging infrastructure. EV owners require access to charging stations in order to recharge their vehicles, and these charging stations can take up valuable space in public areas or campus parking structures that may require additional fire protection systems (that also require upgraded electrotechnologies.
Battery storage: Another space usage issue with EVs is the need for battery storage. EV batteries are large and heavy, and require adequate storage space for safe and secure disposal at the end of their life cycle.
Vehicle size: Many EVs are larger and heavier than traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, which can create space usage problems in urban areas where parking and road space is limited.
Recycling infrastructure: As EVs become more common, the need for specialized recycling infrastructure for EV components, including batteries, motors, and electronics, is likely to increase. These facilities require additional space and resources to safely and efficiently process and recycle these components.
Addressing these space usage problems will require a combination of policy interventions, technological innovations, and public awareness campaigns to promote the benefits and potential of EVs while minimizing their environmental impact and spatial footprint.
Abstract: One of the most common questions in the early stages of designing a new facility is whether the normal utility supply to a fire pump is reliable enough to “tap ahead of the main” or whether the fire pump supply is so unreliable that it must have an emergency power source, typically an on-site generator. Apart from the obligation to meet life safety objectives, it is not uncommon that capital on the order of 100000to1 million is at stake for a fire pump backup source. Until now, that decision has only been answered with intuition – using a combination of utility outage history and anecdotes about what has worked before. There are processes for making the decision about whether a facility needs a second source of power using quantitative analysis. Fault tree analysis and reliability block diagram are two quantitative methods used in reliability engineering for assessing risk. This paper will use a simple one line for the power to a fire pump to show how each of these techniques can be used to calculate the reliability of electric power to a fire pump. This paper will also discuss the strengths and weakness of the two methods. The hope is that these methods will begin tracking in the National Fire Protection Association documents that deal with fire pump power sources and can be used as another tool to inform design engineers and authorities having jurisdiction about public safety and property protection. These methods will enlighten decisions about the relative cost of risk control with quantitative information about the incremental cost of additional 9’s of operational availability.
Today we amble through the literature providing policy templates informing school district, college and university-affiliated transportation and parking facilities and systems. Starting 2024 we will break up our coverage thus:
Mobility 100 (Survey of both ground and air transportation instructional and research facilities)
Mobility 400 (Reserved for zoning, parking space allocation and enforcement, and issues related to one of the most troublesome conditions in educational settlements)
Today’s session will be the last when we cover both land and air transportation codes, standards, guidelines and the regulations that depend upon all them. We will break out space and aerospace mobility into a separate session — largely because many universities are tooling up square footage and facilities in anticipation of research grants.
Like many SDO’s the SAE makes it very easy to purchase a standard but makes it very difficulty to find a draft standard open for public review. It is not an open process; one must apply to comment on a draft standard. Moreover, its programmers persist in playing “keep away” with landing pages.
The public school bus system in the United States is the largest public transit system in the United States. According to the American School Bus Council, approximately 25 million students in the United States ride school buses to and from school each day, which is more than twice the number of passengers that use all other forms of public transportation combined.
The school bus system is considered a public transit system because it is operated by public schools and school districts, and provides a form of transportation that is funded by taxpayers and available to the general public. The school bus system also plays a critical role in ensuring that students have access to education, particularly in rural and low-income areas where transportation options may be limited.
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
National School Transportation Association
School Bus Manufacturers Association
…and 50-state spinoffs of the foregoing. (See our ABOUT for further discussion of education industry non-profit associations)
There are several ad hoc consortia in this domain also; which include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Charging specifications are at least temporarily “stable”; though who should pay for the charging infrastructure in the long run is a debate we have tracked for several revision cycles in building and fire codes.
Because incumbents are leading the electromobility transformation, and incumbents have deep pockets for market-making despite the “jankiness” of the US power grid, we can track some (not all) legislation action, and prospective public comment opportunities. For example:
Keep in mind that even though proposed legislation is sun-setted in a previous (116th) Congress, the concepts may be carried forward into the following Congress (117th).
Public consultations on mobility technologies relevant to the education facility industry are also covered by the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which meets 4 times monthly in European and American time zones.
This topic is growing rapidly and it may well be that we will have to break it up into more manageable pieces. For the moment, today’s colloquium is open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
The International Code Council (ICC) introduced dedicated provisions for higher education laboratories in 2018. This includes Section 428 in the International Building Code (IBC) (laboratory suites in Group B occupancies) and the new Chapter 38 in the International Fire Code (IFC). These provisions allow colleges/universities to use “laboratory suites” (instead of stricter control areas) with higher maximum allowable quantities (MAQs) of hazardous materials, without triggering a high-hazard (Group H) occupancy classification, provided enhanced fire safety, separation, ventilation, emergency power, and other requirements are met.
§
The 2027 revision of the IBC is in production and will be released for public use in early 2027.
Safety and sustainability concepts for research and healthcare delivery cut across many disciplines and standards suites and provides significant revenue for most research universities. The International Code Council provides free access to current editions of its catalog of titles incorporated by reference into public safety law. CLICK HERE for an interactive edition of Chapter 38 of the 2021 International Fire Code.
During today’s colloquium we will examine consultations for the next edition in the link below:
We encourage our colleagues to participate directly in the ICC Code Development process. The next revision of the International Fire Code will be undertaken accordingly to next ICC Code Development schedule; the timetable linked below:
We encourage directly employed front-line staff of a school district, college or university that does not operate in a conformance/compliance capacity — for example, a facility manager of an academic unit — to join a committee. Not the Fire Marshall. Not the Occupational Safety Inspector. Persons with job titles listed below:
Fire Safety System Designer
Fire Alarm Technician (Shop Foreman)
Building Commissioner
Electrical, Mechanical Engineer
Occupational Safety Engineer
These subject matter experts generally have a user-interest point of view.
Contact Kimberly Paarlberg (kpaarlberg@iccsafe.org) for information about how to do so.
These Guidelines cover fossil-fueled power plants, gas-turbine power plants operating in combined cycle, and a balance-of-plant portion including interface with the steam supply system of nuclear power plants. They include performance monitoring concepts, a description of various methods available, and means for evaluating particular applications.
Since the original publication of these Guidelines in 1993—then limited to steam power plants—the field of performance monitoring (PM) has gained considerable importance. The lifetime of plant equipment has been improved, while economic demands have increased to extend it even further by careful monitoring. The PM techniques themselves have also been transformed, largely by the emergence of electronic data acquisition as the dominant method of obtaining the necessary information.
These Guidelines present:
• “Fundamental Considerations”—of PM essentials prior to the actual application, so you enter fully appraised of all the requirements, potential benefits and likelihood of tradeoffs of the PM program.
• “Program Implementation”—where the concepts of PM implementation, diagnostics and cycle interrelationships have been brought into closer conjunction, bringing you up-to-date with contemporary practice.
• “Case Studies / Diagnostic Examples”—from the large amount of experience and historical data that has been accumulated since 1993.
Intended for employees of power plants and engineers involved with all aspects of power production.
From ANSI’s PINS registry:
Project Need: This document is being developed in order to address performance monitoring and optimization techniques for different power generating facilities. The latest trends and initiatives in performance monitoring as well as practical case studies and examples will be incorporated.
Stakeholders: Designers, producers/manufacturers, owners, operators, consultants, users, general interest, laboratories, regulatory/government, and distributors.
This document will cover power generation facilities including steam generators, steam turbines, and steam turbine cycles (including balance of plant of nuclear facilities), gas turbines, and combined cycles. The guidelines include performance monitoring concepts, a description of various methods available, and means for evaluating particular applications.
No drafts open for public consultation at this time. The PINS announcement was placed on October 11th*. The PINS registry is a stakeholder mapping platform that identifies the beginning of a formal process that may interest other accredited, competitor standards developers. Many ASME consensus products may be indirectly referenced in design guidelines and construction contracts with the statement “Conform to all applicable codes”
The landing page for the ASME standards development enterprise is linked below:
Note that you will need to set up a (free) account to access this and other ASME best practice titles.
We maintain all ASME consensus products on the standing agenda of our periodic Mechanical and Energy teleconferences. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
*After the Roman period, Bath remained a small town until the 18th century, when it became a fashionable spa destination for the wealthy. The architect John Wood the Elder designed much of the city’s Georgian architecture, including the famous Royal Crescent and the Circus. Bath also played an important role in the English literary scene, as several famous authors, including Jane Austen, lived and wrote in the city. During the 19th century, Bath’s popularity declined as other spa towns became fashionable. In the 20th century, the city experienced significant redevelopment and preservation efforts, including the restoration of its Roman baths and the construction of a new spa complex.
Today, Bath is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a popular tourist destination known for its historical and cultural significance.
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
.jpg)
