1) Why is column regularly occupied sf in leedonline EAp2-1 table needed? 2) We have filled out EAp2-1 as per the spaces used in the energy model, not the project per say...i.e. thermal zones, not zones. Is this correct? 3) Our review comments state that the regularly occupied sf must be consistant across credits. We have a model with thermal zones which we declared either regularly occupied or not. The thermal zone may contain areas which are not regularly occupied. We are taking a % approach to subtract these spaces from the thermal zone sf for the sake of the table. The result will be that the project gross sf = 291627, where the model has 297494...the project regularly occupied sf = 142176, where the model has 146673. Is this what the reviewers want?

Post a reply

Marcus Sheffer

LEED Fellow

7group / Energy Opportunities

LEEDuser Expert

4454 thumbs up

Thu, 07/11/2013 - 15:11

1) I don't know. I agree it does not appear to serve any real purpose. 2) Sounds like you filled it out correctly. 3) I am not sure what the reviewer wants beyond a consistency that has no real affect. When we do this review work we do not cross reference the information in the EAp2 form with the other credits that require regularly occupied spaces. There are obvious reason why the value would not necessarily be consistent. I would just explain why it does not match or demonstrate why it really does match. I am reminded of a quote by Emerson, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds . . ." Apologies to the reviewer who is not really to blame, as it is the system which causes these kinds of comments.

Jean Marais

b.i.g. Bechtold DesignBuilder Expert

LEEDuser Basic Member

581 thumbs up

Fri, 07/12/2013 - 06:10

Thanks again for the input. I am just wondering if the table is just perhaps, not supposed to have anything to do with the model and its thermal zones, but with the project generally. The typical room list. Perhaps this is not clear to users or reviewers alike. Perhaps the fact that it ended up in this credit form was just because this credit gives the best insight into the project as a whole. I will ask for a clarification.

Marcus Sheffer

LEED Fellow

7group / Energy Opportunities

LEEDuser Expert

4454 thumbs up

Fri, 07/12/2013 - 13:10

The table should have to do with the models specifically. There are other areas of the submission like the PIf 1 to 4 that are for general information shared by different credits. It does not make much logical sense to bury something in a prerequisite that might not even be used (if using Options 2 or 3) to obtain general information about the submission. The table is intended to give the reviewers a breakdown of the building by space type and to show any unconditioned spaces. Using the term "regularly occupied" here provides no useful information. Personally I would change it to three columns - conditioned, semi-conditioned and unconditioned. Now that would make sense for the models!

Christopher Schaffner

CEO & Founder

The Green Engineer

LEEDuser Expert

630 thumbs up

Mon, 07/15/2013 - 19:18

We seem to get "regularly occupied", "occupiable" and "conditioned" confused throughout LEED. All have specific definitions and uses. It would be extraordinary if they were to be the same values.

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.

You are currently logged in under an enterprise account

FAQs about EAp2 :

regularly occupied sf

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

Add new comment