LEED 2009 DES Projects - Rule Change - August 2016

I'm working on a project on a collegiate campus that utilizes district chilled water and steam, and I have run into what appears to be a rule change that was snuck into the v2009 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator. In the past, the DES Guidance document was in effect and allowed an Option 1 (cost-neutral) path that relied on calculated district energy rates rather than actual energy rates. The DES guidance document has equations for determining district chilled water, steam, and hot water rates based on your virtual electricity and natural gas rates. We have used this on many district energy projects, and in LEED Online we used the EAp2 Table 1.4 spreadsheet to document our work. As of September 2016, all group certification projects (projects on a campus, shared credits, etc) are now required to use the v2009 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator instead of the EAp2 Table 1.4 spreadsheet. Buried in the v2009 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator are selectable options for compliance path for DES projects, and Option 1 in the DES Guidance document is not an allowed path. ASHRAE Addendum ai is allowed, but it includes a major difference in that you now have to use actual rates for district utilities rather than calculated rates for district utilities (and I assume by extension you must also use the actual electricity and natural gas rates since state-wide average rates cannot be mixed with local rates). Is Option 1 in the DES Guidance document now disallowed for all DES projects as of September or August 2016 (when the spreadsheet was dated), or is it disallowed only when you are using shared credits between several buildings on the same site and must use the v2009 Minimum Energy Performance Calculator (and you cannot use the EAp2 Table 1.4 spreadsheet)? It's very difficult to commit to a path early on and give solid guidance to a project team when these rules appear to change at any time via updates to the required spreadsheets in LEED Online. The rate disparity between DES Guidance document Option 1 and actual rates can be severe, and it can sway the score drastically in either direction. Seems very arbitrary to require a different energy modeling methodology based on a technicality in forms required based on your submission path.