Our project is a cold dark shell, suburban retail development registered for LEED NC certification in 2008. The project is a group of eight buildings being submitted for a single LEED certification for the project. Only 3% of the project is core and shell space. Other than this small CS percentage, Tenants\' scope of work includes wall insulation, HVAC systems and interior lighting for the leased area in the project. Tenants will install these components related to EA credit 1. Tenants are not yet under agreement and details of their improvements are not yet known. We intend to meet the intent of EAc1 in part by inserting requirements in the lease agreements for energy optimization of the Tenant installed energy systems and wall insulation levels. We will also provide modeled solutions to Tenant\'s to help guide their initial analyses. Would the USGBC TAG please clarify whether the stipulations of Tenant Sales/Lease Agreements, which are permitted to be used in conjunction with compliance for EAc1 under the LEED-CSv2.0 Rating System, Addendum 2 and errata dated 11/2/2007, are to be modeled identically in the Proposed/Design and Baseline energy models for the tenant spaces, or if Tenant requirements are permitted to be modeled only in the Proposed/Design energy model (while holding the tenant spaces to the standard minimum performance criteria of ASHRAE 90.1-2004 for the Baseline energy model)? CIRs subsequent to the errata allowing the use of Tenant Sales/Lease Agreements have given contradictory or unclear indications on this matter: Some CIRs appear to indicate that baseline and proposed assumptions for Tenant scope must be equal: CIR 5/27/08 - All buildings are to be modeled per ASHRAE 90.1-2004, LEED-CSv2.0 EA Credit 1 and Appendix 2. For items out of owner\'s control, the parameters for the proposed and the baseline models must be maintained as identical. CIR 4/23/08 - Tenant installed HVAC systems are assumed to be identical to the baseline system Other CIRs appear to suggest that lease agreement requirements can be incorporated in the proposed building energy model: CIR 11/14/2007 - It is acceptable to use Core & Shell building efficiency improvements and tenant leasing efficiency requirements to achieve the minimum energy efficiency requirements. LEED-CS errata for EAc1 (dated November 2, 2007) allows a project to meet the EAc1 credit requirements by incorporating tenant sales or lease agreements requirements as part of the tenant scope of work and should be reflected in the project energy model. CIR 11/28/07 - It is acceptable to include the future design for tenant lighting per published erratum. Submit typical lease/sales agreements clearly highlighting the lighting requirements, per the modeling for this credit, that need to be met, as well as how these requirements will be enforced. And other CIRs seem to contradict the above suggesting only Owner installed systems are to be modeled: CIR 4/25/08 - Minimum energy performance and energy savings only applies to systems supplied by the owner. ASHRAE 90.1-2004 clearly states that "spaces shall be assumed to be conditioned space and shall comply with the requirements for conditioned space at the time of construction, regardless of whether mechanical or electrical equipment is included in the building permit application or installed at that time." CIR 8/27/2007; if the work performed is not within the core and shell scope, it can be excluded from the all relevant prerequisite and credit calculations and should be modeled as energy neutral. Given the limited scope of work in the Core & Shell scope of work in our project, is it acceptable to incorporate energy efficiency minimums in the proposed building energy model based on required performance thresholds stated in the tenant leasing agreement documents? Secondly, should we assume that all aspects of the LEED NC App. Guide for Multiple Buildings and Campus Projects can be applied to this LEED CS project? Specifically for EAc1 the AGMBC states, "To receive a single rating for a group of buildings, use a weighted average for the group of buildings based on their conditioned square footage, or aggregate the data into one PRM calculation, so that performance is achieved by buildings of varying sizes within a certifying group. Each building must still meet EA Prerequisite 1 and may receive its own rating if that is desired." If the AGMBC does not apply to our CS project, is it acceptable for our team to analyze energy optimization using a single energy model with appropriate aggregated areas, orientations and loads for all eight of our buildings?