Use the modeled load shapes from one Measure Package for a non-modeled measure package
Background PG&E wants to reuse the Measure Case load shape from SWCR015 (Glassdoor-LED refrigerated cases) as both the Measure Case and Base Case load shape for SWCR018 (standard-efficiency → high-efficiency refrigerator/freezer replacement). Why SWCR015's ACC/load shape pair models "always-open case" (base) vs. "glass door installed" (measure) — a door-addition measure. SWCR018 is an efficiency-upgrade measure where both base and measure cases have doors; only unit efficiency changes. Applying SWCR015's shapes as-is to SWCR018 would incorrectly bake in the "doors vs. no doors" load shape difference, which doesn't reflect SWCR018's actual measure logic. Proposed workaround Set both the "Measure Tech ID" and "Standard Tech ID" fields in the eTRM permutation to the identical value (NE-Ref_Storage-VertDisplay-Glassdoor-LED-AirCond), differing only in UEC. This was tested locally and confirmed to work — CEDARS generates the impact profile fine as long as a permutation exists with matching Tech IDs on both sides and differing UEC values. Confirmed technically CEDARS has no structural issue generating an impact profile where Measure Tech ID = Standard Tech ID, provided the permutation is synced from eTRM with that configuration and UECs differ. Resulting ACC/Impact Profile ID: GroExAny | NE-Ref_Storage-VertDisplay-Glassdoor-LED-AirCond | NE-Ref_Storage-VertDisplay-Glassdoor-LED-AirCond Questions Precedent/policy question: Is reusing a measure-case load shape as both base and measure case an approach that should require sign-off from the broader load shapes group, given it's a workaround rather than a standard/intended use. Downstream clarity/misleading risk: When someone else (analyst, auditor, future CPUC reviewer) encounters an impact profile with identical Tech IDs on both the measure and base side, will they understand why? Scope/generalizability: Is this specific to SWCR018, or should we anticipate other measure packages with a similar "shape doesn't match base/measure logic" mismatch making the same request? If so, should we document a standard process/guidance for this pattern rather than a one-off answer?
cedars team about 6 hours ago
2026
Feedback
Use the modeled load shapes from one Measure Package for a non-modeled measure package
Background PG&E wants to reuse the Measure Case load shape from SWCR015 (Glassdoor-LED refrigerated cases) as both the Measure Case and Base Case load shape for SWCR018 (standard-efficiency → high-efficiency refrigerator/freezer replacement). Why SWCR015's ACC/load shape pair models "always-open case" (base) vs. "glass door installed" (measure) — a door-addition measure. SWCR018 is an efficiency-upgrade measure where both base and measure cases have doors; only unit efficiency changes. Applying SWCR015's shapes as-is to SWCR018 would incorrectly bake in the "doors vs. no doors" load shape difference, which doesn't reflect SWCR018's actual measure logic. Proposed workaround Set both the "Measure Tech ID" and "Standard Tech ID" fields in the eTRM permutation to the identical value (NE-Ref_Storage-VertDisplay-Glassdoor-LED-AirCond), differing only in UEC. This was tested locally and confirmed to work — CEDARS generates the impact profile fine as long as a permutation exists with matching Tech IDs on both sides and differing UEC values. Confirmed technically CEDARS has no structural issue generating an impact profile where Measure Tech ID = Standard Tech ID, provided the permutation is synced from eTRM with that configuration and UECs differ. Resulting ACC/Impact Profile ID: GroExAny | NE-Ref_Storage-VertDisplay-Glassdoor-LED-AirCond | NE-Ref_Storage-VertDisplay-Glassdoor-LED-AirCond Questions Precedent/policy question: Is reusing a measure-case load shape as both base and measure case an approach that should require sign-off from the broader load shapes group, given it's a workaround rather than a standard/intended use. Downstream clarity/misleading risk: When someone else (analyst, auditor, future CPUC reviewer) encounters an impact profile with identical Tech IDs on both the measure and base side, will they understand why? Scope/generalizability: Is this specific to SWCR018, or should we anticipate other measure packages with a similar "shape doesn't match base/measure logic" mismatch making the same request? If so, should we document a standard process/guidance for this pattern rather than a one-off answer?
cedars team about 6 hours ago
2026
Feedback
Planned
Load Shapes – Duplicate Hour in Impact Profile Exports
Load shapes Impact Profile export 8759 unique hours instead of 8760 — one hour appears twice while another is missing entirely, resulting in the output still containing 8,760 rows but with a duplicated hour timestamp rather than a duplicated impact value. Specifically, hour 1587 is missing and hour 1588 appears twice. Likely related to daylight saving time handling.
cedars team about 6 hours ago
2026
Bug Reports
Planned
Load Shapes – Duplicate Hour in Impact Profile Exports
Load shapes Impact Profile export 8759 unique hours instead of 8760 — one hour appears twice while another is missing entirely, resulting in the output still containing 8,760 rows but with a duplicated hour timestamp rather than a duplicated impact value. Specifically, hour 1587 is missing and hour 1588 appears twice. Likely related to daylight saving time handling.
cedars team about 6 hours ago
2026
Bug Reports
In Progress
PA Measure Developer users are unable to view and adjust notifications
It was brought to our attention during the Dev Demo meeting (9/9/2026) that PA Measure Developer user types hit a "Permission Denied" page. Currently, they are unable to view and adjust their preferences for Load Shapes derived Impact Profile completion notifications that were introduced in https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/add-email-notification-when-load-shape-derived-impact-profile-generation.
cedars team about 8 hours ago
Accounts & Admin
Bug Reports
In Progress
PA Measure Developer users are unable to view and adjust notifications
It was brought to our attention during the Dev Demo meeting (9/9/2026) that PA Measure Developer user types hit a "Permission Denied" page. Currently, they are unable to view and adjust their preferences for Load Shapes derived Impact Profile completion notifications that were introduced in https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/add-email-notification-when-load-shape-derived-impact-profile-generation.
cedars team about 8 hours ago
Accounts & Admin
Bug Reports
New review team file download
Request from Peter B’s team. New impact profile file for download that includes: a. Impact Profile ID / E3MeaElecEndUseShape b. PA / IOU c. E3TargetSector d. E3ClimateZone e. avoided-cost version f. avoided-cost combination ID / AC Elec Key g. BldgType h. BldgVint i. BldgHVAC j. Measure TechID k. Baseline TechID l. TechGroup and TechType, where applicable m. first-baseline vs second-baseline indicator, if applicable n. source year/calendar used, e.g. 2009 non-leap Thursday-start o. baseline load-shape ID used p. measure load-shape ID used q. baseline annual UEC used r. measure annual UEC used s. denominator/savings used in the impact formula t. validation status/results u. generation timestamp v. eTRM measure package ID w. eTRM permutation ID x. eTRM source snapshot/extract timestamp And also provides additional files containing: 1. baseline load-shape 8760 csv 2. measure load-shape 8760 csv Please give files descriptive names that include the Impact Profile ID or AC Elec Key.
sepidehs about 16 hours ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feature Request
New review team file download
Request from Peter B’s team. New impact profile file for download that includes: a. Impact Profile ID / E3MeaElecEndUseShape b. PA / IOU c. E3TargetSector d. E3ClimateZone e. avoided-cost version f. avoided-cost combination ID / AC Elec Key g. BldgType h. BldgVint i. BldgHVAC j. Measure TechID k. Baseline TechID l. TechGroup and TechType, where applicable m. first-baseline vs second-baseline indicator, if applicable n. source year/calendar used, e.g. 2009 non-leap Thursday-start o. baseline load-shape ID used p. measure load-shape ID used q. baseline annual UEC used r. measure annual UEC used s. denominator/savings used in the impact formula t. validation status/results u. generation timestamp v. eTRM measure package ID w. eTRM permutation ID x. eTRM source snapshot/extract timestamp And also provides additional files containing: 1. baseline load-shape 8760 csv 2. measure load-shape 8760 csv Please give files descriptive names that include the Impact Profile ID or AC Elec Key.
sepidehs about 16 hours ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feature Request
Additional load shape derived impact profile validation
Request from Peter B’s team to add validation before impact profiles are generated/exported to confirm that each profile has exactly 8,760 rows no missing or duplicate hours hour_of_year values from 1 through 8,760 matching baseline and measure hour sequences input/output shapes that sum to 1.0 within an appropriate tolerance
sepidehs about 16 hours ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feature Request
Additional load shape derived impact profile validation
Request from Peter B’s team to add validation before impact profiles are generated/exported to confirm that each profile has exactly 8,760 rows no missing or duplicate hours hour_of_year values from 1 through 8,760 matching baseline and measure hour sequences input/output shapes that sum to 1.0 within an appropriate tolerance
sepidehs about 16 hours ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feature Request
Add 2023–2025 Statewide Claims "Record-level Measure Input and Cost Effectiveness Output" files to Data tab
The Statewide Claims "Record-level Measure Input and Cost Effectiveness Output" file was added for 2026 to the record-level data page. Equivalent files already exist for 2023–2025 on the Statewide confirmed dashboard, but they are not yet surfaced on the record-level Data tab for those years.
cedars team 2 days ago
Design Upgrade
Feedback
Add 2023–2025 Statewide Claims "Record-level Measure Input and Cost Effectiveness Output" files to Data tab
The Statewide Claims "Record-level Measure Input and Cost Effectiveness Output" file was added for 2026 to the record-level data page. Equivalent files already exist for 2023–2025 on the Statewide confirmed dashboard, but they are not yet surfaced on the record-level Data tab for those years.
cedars team 2 days ago
Design Upgrade
Feedback
Completed
Budget Filing History page year drop-down is showing 2017 but has 2028 records
We found a bug on the Budget Filing History page where the year drop-down shows 2017 but the data is actually for 2028 (current budget filing year). Once you use the drop-down to select a year, the URL gets updated to contain the year parameter and shows the correct data. This issue is only present when first navigating to the page, but we would like to clean this up so that it's not misleading to users.
cedars team 7 days ago
Design Upgrade
Bug Reports
Completed
Budget Filing History page year drop-down is showing 2017 but has 2028 records
We found a bug on the Budget Filing History page where the year drop-down shows 2017 but the data is actually for 2028 (current budget filing year). Once you use the drop-down to select a year, the URL gets updated to contain the year parameter and shows the correct data. This issue is only present when first navigating to the page, but we would like to clean this up so that it's not misleading to users.
cedars team 7 days ago
Design Upgrade
Bug Reports
Planned
Update Primary Sector for these two programs – SoCalREN
Please update Primary Sector to "Portfolio Support" for SCR_MS_PortfolioSupport and SCR_RA_PortfolioSupport as these were assigned "Cross-Cutting" in error. We would like this fix in place for the BPA resubmissions due 9/18.
SoCalREN_TEC 7 days ago
2026
Feedback
Planned
Update Primary Sector for these two programs – SoCalREN
Please update Primary Sector to "Portfolio Support" for SCR_MS_PortfolioSupport and SCR_RA_PortfolioSupport as these were assigned "Cross-Cutting" in error. We would like this fix in place for the BPA resubmissions due 9/18.
SoCalREN_TEC 7 days ago
2026
Feedback
SW Budget Filing Inputs Download
Other IOUs should be able to download the SW budget filing input zip files for the programs they don’t lead from CEDARS. Currently we can only download files uploaded by our own PA. There is no PII in budget filings, this would allow us to easily get the inputs from the other leads.
Jake Richardson (PG&E) 7 days ago
2026
Feedback
SW Budget Filing Inputs Download
Other IOUs should be able to download the SW budget filing input zip files for the programs they don’t lead from CEDARS. Currently we can only download files uploaded by our own PA. There is no PII in budget filings, this would allow us to easily get the inputs from the other leads.
Jake Richardson (PG&E) 7 days ago
2026
Feedback
In Progress
Reopen 2028-31 filings for all PAs
Cedars team requested to proactively reopen the 2028-31 filings. Archive the previous filing data on the data tab. To support: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M616/K587/616587387.PDF
cedars team 7 days ago
2026
Feedback
In Progress
Reopen 2028-31 filings for all PAs
Cedars team requested to proactively reopen the 2028-31 filings. Archive the previous filing data on the data tab. To support: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M616/K587/616587387.PDF
cedars team 7 days ago
2026
Feedback
Planned
Participant Output issue with SW programs
Not sure if this was brought up before while I was out. When downloading the SW claims output from the SW Confirmed Dashboard, the Participant Output only includes the SCG programs which were the last group to upload. I think the overriding of the previous Participant Table uploads needs to be PA specific for SW
GGolden42 8 days ago
2026
Bug Reports
Planned
Participant Output issue with SW programs
Not sure if this was brought up before while I was out. When downloading the SW claims output from the SW Confirmed Dashboard, the Participant Output only includes the SCG programs which were the last group to upload. I think the overriding of the previous Participant Table uploads needs to be PA specific for SW
GGolden42 8 days ago
2026
Bug Reports
Completed
Update email subscription URL in email template
We found a place in an email signature that still had @sound-data.com and are fixing it.
cedars team 10 days ago
2026
Feedback
Completed
Update email subscription URL in email template
We found a place in an email signature that still had @sound-data.com and are fixing it.
cedars team 10 days ago
2026
Feedback
To Be Considered
Export Load Shape Library Table
As a user of the Load Shapes Library, I want to export the library table to CSV or Excel, so that I can more easily search, filter, and review the full list of load shapes outside the application. Description Add an export function that lets users download the load shape library table (currently containing thousands of entries) as a CSV or Excel file, since searching/filtering within the current table interface is difficult at this volume.
cedars team 10 days ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feature Request
To Be Considered
Export Load Shape Library Table
As a user of the Load Shapes Library, I want to export the library table to CSV or Excel, so that I can more easily search, filter, and review the full list of load shapes outside the application. Description Add an export function that lets users download the load shape library table (currently containing thousands of entries) as a CSV or Excel file, since searching/filtering within the current table interface is difficult at this volume.
cedars team 10 days ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feature Request
Impact Profile download – Field should be "Published Date"
To be more inclusive of DEER and Load shape derived impact profiles. https://cedars.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/
cedars team 14 days ago
Design Upgrade
Feedback
Impact Profile download – Field should be "Published Date"
To be more inclusive of DEER and Load shape derived impact profiles. https://cedars.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/
cedars team 14 days ago
Design Upgrade
Feedback
How long do we want CEDARS to hold onto CET output files?
Question for the data reporting PCG: The CET module was added to CEDARS in 2018 and to date more than 120K CET runs have been done in production. We currently keep CET input/output files from runs indefinitely. It would help us plan for future disk size updates to know if we want to continue to keep all files and make them available to the person who uploaded them indefinitely, or if we want to set a window where files uploaded more than X years ago are deleted.
cedars team 15 days ago
Feedback
How long do we want CEDARS to hold onto CET output files?
Question for the data reporting PCG: The CET module was added to CEDARS in 2018 and to date more than 120K CET runs have been done in production. We currently keep CET input/output files from runs indefinitely. It would help us plan for future disk size updates to know if we want to continue to keep all files and make them available to the person who uploaded them indefinitely, or if we want to set a window where files uploaded more than X years ago are deleted.
cedars team 15 days ago
Feedback
Completed
Confirm impact profile generation logic for identical load shapes with differing UECs
Reported by: Sepi (split out from SWWH014-09) Technical confirmation needed. Follow-up discussion should be posted in this ticket, not email, so it's visible to all stakeholders.
cedars team 16 days ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feedback
Completed
Confirm impact profile generation logic for identical load shapes with differing UECs
Reported by: Sepi (split out from SWWH014-09) Technical confirmation needed. Follow-up discussion should be posted in this ticket, not email, so it's visible to all stakeholders.
cedars team 16 days ago
Impact Profiles & Load Shapes
Feedback
In Progress
Latest CET database snapshot file appears invalid
I downloaded the latest CET database file from CEDARS, “2025 CET Database Version 25.1 - 26 June 2026 release,” and it won’t run when loaded into our internal CET SQL Server instance. The database structure contains references to an E3AvoidedCostElecCO2Seq2027 table but that table does not exist. I did see there was a new 2026corrected table and I tried adjusting and using that instead, but it didn’t work. Am I missing something or could there be an issue with the database snapshot currently on CEDARS? Is it possible to get an updated snapshot/export?
Jacob Baker-Kretzmar 17 days ago
2026
Feedback
In Progress
Latest CET database snapshot file appears invalid
I downloaded the latest CET database file from CEDARS, “2025 CET Database Version 25.1 - 26 June 2026 release,” and it won’t run when loaded into our internal CET SQL Server instance. The database structure contains references to an E3AvoidedCostElecCO2Seq2027 table but that table does not exist. I did see there was a new 2026corrected table and I tried adjusting and using that instead, but it didn’t work. Am I missing something or could there be an issue with the database snapshot currently on CEDARS? Is it possible to get an updated snapshot/export?
Jacob Baker-Kretzmar 17 days ago
2026
Feedback
Add FAQ: Expenditures
As an EE data user, I am uncertain about how “expenditures” are derived (and I always forget, so I need a reference.) This includes understanding what the cost fields include, since they are added to create “expenditures.” I would like to know if someone on the cedars team could draft a table that identifies how expenditures are derived for various types of claims and where they are parameter-dependent, as well as how “total expenditures” are aggregated for the dashboards. Let’s talk about how we can most effectively/efficiently describe “expenditures” for the FAQ section.
Amy.reardon@cpuc.ca.gov 17 days ago
2026
Feedback
Add FAQ: Expenditures
As an EE data user, I am uncertain about how “expenditures” are derived (and I always forget, so I need a reference.) This includes understanding what the cost fields include, since they are added to create “expenditures.” I would like to know if someone on the cedars team could draft a table that identifies how expenditures are derived for various types of claims and where they are parameter-dependent, as well as how “total expenditures” are aggregated for the dashboards. Let’s talk about how we can most effectively/efficiently describe “expenditures” for the FAQ section.
Amy.reardon@cpuc.ca.gov 17 days ago
2026
Feedback