Portfolio Manager guidance currently indicates that if vacant space is less than 10%, then it should be grouped with occupied space. However, I read the USGBC Information Guidance version 1 issued 10/8/09 regarding 'Reduced Occupancy', and it indicates that vacant space should be separated. Portfolio Manager recently changed there guidance on this, so this probably is due to the fact that whomever put together the guidance did not notice the change in Portfolio Manager. Or perhaps the change occurred shortly after the guidance was issued. My question is - wouldn't the USGBC align with Portfolio Manager guidance for benchmarking? Would they take a different stance than Portfolio Manager recommendations? And finally, our vacant office space is less than 10%. Should we separate it out? It's frustrating that we have been following Portfolio Manager guidance to the letter, and now discover contradicting guidance from the USGBC. It certainly seems the two should be congruent. As a property manager, it would not make sense to have two entries in Portfolio Manager - one for LEED and one for earning the label. Please advise.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Jenny Carney
Vice PresidentWSP
LEEDuser Expert
657 thumbs up
August 26, 2010 - 4:15 pm
Given that USGBC Reduced Occupancy Guidance document explicitly states that its guidance for EAp2/EAc1 is identical to the Energy Star guidance, seems safe to assume that a) USGBC fully intended to mirror Energy Star, and b) Energy Star subsequently changed its guidance.
If I were you, I would follow the current Portfolio Manager guidance. If you are very worried that it won't be accepted for LEED (seems unlikely), you can always try your hand with GBCI customer service.