See all forum discussions about NC-2009 EAp2
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-2009 EAp2 Post a new question aboutNC-2009 EAp2
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-2009 EAp2»
FAQs about EAp2 :

Can the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) be used to energy model for LEED?

Is it acceptable to model a split-type AC with inverter technology compressor as a heat pump, like modeling VRF?

Can the Trace 700 'LEED Energy Performance Summary Report' by uploaded to LEED Online in lieu of the Section 1.4 tables spreadsheet?

A portion of our building envelope is historic. Can we exclude it from our model?

Which baseline HVAC system do I use if my building has no heating or air conditioning?

For an existing building, do I need to rotate the model?

Our project has a diesel backup generator. Should we include it in our energy model?

Our project has a large process load—75%. Despite our efforts to make an efficient HVAC design, the cost savings are minimal. What can we do to earn this prerequisite and be eligible for LEED certification? Is there any flexibility in how we model the p

Can SHGC be higher in the proposed than in the baseline model?

Our process load is higher than 25%. Do we have to justify that?

Do I need to justify the electrical and fuel rates I am using in my model?

Our local code references ASHRAE 90.1-2010. Should I use that for my documentation, or 90.1-2007?

Can I claim exterior lighting savings for canopy lighting even though a baseline model cannot include shading elements?

The project is built on a site with existing exterior lighting installed. How should this be accounted for?

Can mezzanines open to floors below be excluded from the energy model?

How do I provide a zip code for an international location?

For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the climate zone?

For a project outside the U.S., how do I determine the Target Finder score?

Do hotel rooms need automatic light shut-off control?

How commonly are the 90.1 mandatory compliance forms submitted as part of EAp2/EAc1?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-2009 EAp2:Minimum Energy Performance

EAp2 Online form - Table EAp2-1. Space Usage Type -

Greetings, There is a clarification question associated with a reviewer's remark. From the modeling software (Trace 700) reports, the spaces are divided to Regularly occupied and Unconditioned (as shown also in the EAp2-1 form). In the column of Regularly occupied, the software report practically is listing the conditioned spaces and we are entering them in the same way in the form. There is however a conflict, because according to other credits, some of these spaces are not considered as regularly occupied. This is for stairs, active storage areas, corridors, which according to IEQp1 are also considered as unoccupied - meaning that there are no persons there (Rp = 0). There are also spaces like museums, which also could not be considered as regularly occupied, because the people are just passing there. The question is: in this table (EAp2-1) which areas to enter - the ones from the modeling report (which is practically the conditioned areas) or the areas established in PI forms. Thanks.

0
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Thu, 12/04/2014 - 17:08

The information in this table should be consistent with the information entered for other credits. If it is not consistent then provide an explanation for why it is not consistent. There can be legitimate reasons why there would be some variation.

Thu, 12/04/2014 - 19:04

Thanks for the reply. For sure there has to be consistency, but getting back to my question, I'll rephrase it like this: If in table EAp2-1, in the Regularly occupied spaces column, the entered areas are consistent with other credits, but are not consistent with modeling software report (in respect if they are conditioned or unconditioned), should this be a problem with all of the remaining info of credit EAp2 or does this table (EAp2-1) really matters with energy saving analysis and calculations of EAp2 credit. Thanks
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Thu, 12/04/2014 - 19:14

This is just more consistency. The information should be consistent across all documentation for all credits. If it is not then explain why it is not. So yes it could matter. The information entered in this table does matter relative to EAp2. It is often used to double check modeling inputs for consistency within the documentation for EAp2.

Thu, 12/04/2014 - 21:08

Hi Marcus, thanks very much for your explanation. There is however something which still kind of sounds controversial to me. This is when there is a space, which is considered as unoccupied like corridor and in the same time is conditioned. As there is no sure statement whether to entered it or not in the EAp2-1 table in such cases, this appears to be an area which is always potentially open for reviewer remarks, because in every such case there could be a remark for explanations to be provided or may be I'm getting something wrong. Your comment would be highly appreciated. Thanks
Profile picture for user sheffer
Marcus Sheffer
LEED Fellow
7group / Energy Opportunities
LEEDuser Expert
4454 thumbs up

Thu, 12/04/2014 - 21:20

Ok. Specifics help my understanding of your issue. I see your confusion now. Since Table EAp2-1 does not separate conditioned and unconditioned (which is how it should be set up), I would but the conditioned corridor in the regularly occupied area even though they do not meet the definition of regularly occupied for the other credits. If you provide sufficient breakdown by space usage type the reviewer should be able to see which of the conditioned spaces you entered in the "regularly occupied area" column are really regularly occupied. Every reviewer is a different person who tends to concentrate on slightly different issues. When I review this credit I do not look for consistency between the information in Table EAp2-1 and some of the other credits that are based on regularly occupied spaces for the very reasons that you are pointing out. Perhaps your reviewer saw something specific that led them to question this information, hard to say.

Add new comment

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