AVA CEDARS-2 Metrics and Indicators Dashboard

There is no 2026 information for AVA.

MCE EE Portfolio Dashboard Feedback

In the Cost Effectiveness tab the Forecasted values for Commercial on CEDARS2 shows 1.06 but CEDARS shows 1.14, Cross Cutting 0.35 v 0.41. Some values in the budget and expenditures tab are off by 1 (most likely some rounding issue).

RRN CEDARS-2 EE Portfolio and Metrics Dashboard Testing

The TSB in the data dashboard is correct, but for the metrics, they are all different than what we reported in 2025. There also is not 2026 data.

IREN EE Portfolio and Metrics Dashboard Testing

For IREN Portfolio Dashboard, in the Budget and Expenditures tab, the cross-cutting total expenditures on CEDARS2 is $1,481,296 and on CEDARS it's $2,043,688. For the Metrics Dashboard, there is no 2026 data showing but it was reported.

TCR EE Portfolio and Metric Dashboard Testing in CEDARS-2

As of this morning but may have just been updated, the metrics and indicators dashboard only covers ones pulled directly from CET outputs, which are correct for 2025 but missing UVMs + EMS indicators. Only 2025 is showing up but I see 2026 for other PAs.

Unprocessed Q1-Q2 Claims for MCE

During the Quantum Feedback for Q1-Q2 Claims, there was a note that some of the claims were unable to be processed due to an error with the CET. Looking to finding out why there was not CET output for these claims

Missing Measure Detail ID

The following Measure Detail ID is missing from the CEDARS Value List: SWHC046-06-BN-NR-Down-Com-OfS-Ex-cDXHP-CZ12-FuelSubst-Default-Def-GSIA-Any-Any

Hide the inactive PAs on the claim dashboard

Delete load shapes for measure package SWHC062

From PG&E We … need to re-upload the SWHC062 load shape. Please delete the previous uploaded files on CEDARS.

Add page for DEER 2028

Per request from Sepi and Peter.

Metrics and Indicators Part 2 - 2026 Claim

As a Cedars user, I want the remaining metrics and indicators available with clear names, sector and quarter, so that I can filter and compare results without needing to interpret raw field names. Part two of the metrics and indicators work. Part one delivered the initial set of metrics; this ticket covers the remaining metrics that can be derived from data already held within Cedars, and adds friendly names, sector and quarter so they're easier to find, read and compare.

Onboard and add new PA - CCEA (CalChoice Energy Authority)

Non-DEER Impact profiles download issue

Several non-DEER impact profile CSV files include missing data that require review.

As a CEDARS claims reviewer, I want Measure.FuelID to be required in the 2027 claims spec, so that fuel substitution claims always go through fuel substitution validation

During 2026 Q1–Q2 QC, Corina found that many PY2026 fuel substitution measures are missing a Fuel ID and still pass CEDARS validation. Fuel substitution is no longer flagged in Delivery Type, so these claims now skip the fuel substitution logic whenever neither Fuel ID nor Measure Impact Type flags them. Roopa confirmed that validation uses Fuel ID when it is filled in and falls back to Measure Impact Type when it isn't. This ticket tightens Fuel ID validation for the 2027 claims spec and accounts for legacy measure packages that were built without a Fuel ID. "In the Q1-2 QC, we notice that, since Fuel Sub is no longer specified in the Delivery Type, many Fuel Sub measures are lacking FuelIDs and getting through the CEDARS validation process when we think they should have been errored."

SoCalREN 2025 data correction

SoCalREN discovered that some expenditures from 2025 were miscategorized and would like CEDARS to reflect the correct categorization. The total amounts are correct and do not need to be changed.

Exclude From Budget/CE Flagged Programs Record Level Data

CEDARS should not remove calculated values for programs with exclude from budget or exclude from CE in the record level downloads - the full data should be available and PAs apply the flags appropriately when filtering for specific values. Zeroing them out removes transparency in what was being excluded.

Avoided Cost Combo download error

The link to the Avoided Cost Combo on https://cedars.cpuc.ca.gov/cet_ui/spec/ doesn’t seem to be working.

Update CEDARS Data Validation Rules to Support New DEER Delivery Types (PY2026+)

Business Justification: New DEER Delivery Types have been introduced for Program Year 2026 and must be incorporated into existing CEDARS data validation rules and business logic. This enhancement will ensure accurate validation, processing, and reporting of 2026+ claims while maintaining compatibility with legacy delivery types used for pre-2026 program years. Request Update all applicable CEDARS data rules and validations (e.g., DATE rules and other delivery type-dependent validations) to incorporate the new DEER Delivery Types. Ensure the new delivery types are supported for Program Year 2026 and future years. Maintain compatibility with the legacy delivery types for pre-2026 program years to avoid impacts on historical data and reporting. Review all rules, calculations, and reporting logic that reference delivery type values and update them as needed.

"Budget Filing Summary" table C/E

The Cost Effectiveness Ratios on the budget filing summary table seems to be buggy for specifically the cross-cutting sector. For PG&E’s 2028-2031 years, the values should be: Primary Sector Year TRC (dashboard) TRC (recalc) TRC Var PAC (dashboard) PAC (recalc) PAC Var RIM (dashboard) RIM (recalc) RIM Var Status Cross-Cutting 2028 1.98x 1.52x -0.4613 33.08x 18.98x -14.1042 0.94x 0.48x -0.4597 REVIEW Cross-Cutting 2029 2.08x 1.54x -0.5363 30.35x 16.98x -13.3720 1.05x 0.51x -0.5421 REVIEW

Understand how FuelID affects CET outputs

On behalf of BayREN, I’d like clarity on how populating the Measure table FuelID field affects CET outputs for fuel sub measures. In claims reporting, my team is considering using this field to identify all fuel sub claims because some fuel sub measure packages don’t use the fuel sub measure impact type values by default. With the Q1-Q2 claims we’ve filed, including/removing the fuel sub FuelID for only one fuel sub claim (using measure SWHC044-07) affected CET outputs (TRC, PAC, RIM, SCT, ElecBens). We don’t understand why this is the case and whether we should expect similar results for other fuel sub claims. For reference, I’ve attached our analysis comparing FuelID vs. no FuelID, along with a copy of the claims file with FuelID populated for BAYREN02 (the program in the Q2 submission containing fuel sub claims).