CET avoided cost version update: 2028 version utility rate tables

Required CET data update alongside the 2028 version avoided cost data. Each PA provides the data for their organization and the CEDARS team compiles them into the CET database rate schedule tables.

CET: Discounting is being handled inconsistently in RIM bill reduction and bill increase calcuations

I was asked to provide plan language explanations of the four bill reduction and bill increase calculations done in the CET for the RIM test and while reviewing that code, saw two ways the discounting rate is being applied. Discounting is inconsistent between the first baseline and the rest. The first baseline divides by Raf^(Qy−Yr1), which discounts back to the first year. Every other slice divides by Raf^Qy, which discounts back to the 2024 base year (Yr1 is the claim year minus 2024). It appears to be a bug that the first-baseline slice is on a different time basis. I believe all of the code time blocks should discount back to the first year.

Custom memo area

Custom memo area, modeled similarly to ex-ante memos, to capture guidance for early opinions.

As a CEDARS user, I want TOU profiles valued through the standard 8,760 avoided-cost pipeline, so that TOU-based claims no longer carry the legacy T&D and calendar errors

Move TOU profiles to the CEDARS 8,760 pipeline The legacy TOU calculators divide T&D by 1,000 twice, so T&D avoided costs come out about 1,000× too small. They also have calendar and SDG&E period errors. Jake Richardson has already generated replacement 8,760 profiles, and Jennifer Scheuerell said the CEDARS team will work out how to ingest them. Loading is on hold until Jake Richardson shares the generated 8,760 profiles, and the ACC team's input on the TOU map. As a CEDARS engineer, I want to define the steps to transform and load the TOU-derived 8760 profiles, so that converted TOU shapes are valued through the standard hourly avoided cost pipeline. As a CEDARS user, I want TOU-derived profiles to be clearly labeled in the impact-profile library, so that I can tell converted shapes apart from empirical hourly load shapes. As a CEDARS administrator, I want to identify any specification or validation changes the converted TOU profiles need, so that they load and validate correctly without disrupting downstream references. As a CEDARS analyst, I want a defined way to control when the legacy TOU method or the 8,760 method applies for each ACC vintage, so that results stay consistent and traceable as ACC versions change.

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.

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.