Changelog

Welcome to the CEDARS feedback portal

Using our feedback portal, you can:

  • Share feedback to help us improve CEDARS and the CET

  • Request new features

  • Submit bug reports

  • Ask questions not covered in the user guide

Planned

Load Shape Library: Sync eTRM draft measures to Cedars database

Set up a sync between Cedars and eTRM to pull the eTRM draft measure package data into Cedars to support the load shape library. eTRM data will be available in staging on Jan 30 and in production on Feb 12. As a user I want CEDARS to be synced with the most up to date list of draft measure packages, so I can use them to add load shapes. Draft workflow including questions

Jennifer Scheuerell 7 days ago

7
💡

Feature Request

2026 Fixed Development

Data - Claims Record-level download to include 2026 input and outputs

Add any new input fields from the 2026 claims spec update and the new set of CET v25.1 cost effectiveness outputs to the data tab record-level download for Claims so that the data is accessible for CPUC analysis. Fields to include are: Fuel ID Unit Tax Credits Water Energy Benefits Water Energy Benefits Gross Water Energy Cost Water Energy Cost Gross Electric Bill Reduction Electric Bill Increase Gas Bill Reduction Gas Bill Increase Electric Benefits Gross SCB Electric Benefits Gross SCH Electric Benefits SCB Electric Benefits SCH Electric Supply Cost Gross SCB Electric Supply Cost Gross SCH Electric Supply Cost SCB Electric Supply Cost SCH Gas Benefits Gross SCB Gas Benefits Gross SCH Gas Benefits SCB Gas Benefits SCH Gas Supply Cost Gross SCB Gas Supply Cost Gross SCH Gas Supply Cost SCB Gas Supply Cost SCH RIM Cost No Admin SCB Cost SCB Cost Gross SCB Ratio No Admin SCH Cost SCH Cost Gross SCH Cost No Admin SCH Ratio No Admin Tax Credits Tax Credits Gross Water Energy Benefits Gross SCB Water Energy Benefits Gross SCH Water Energy Benefits SCB Water Energy Benefits SCH Water Energy Cost Gross SCB Water Energy Cost Gross SCH Water Energy Cost SCB Water Energy Cost SCH

Amyreardon 10 days ago

1
💡

Feature Request

Planned

Load shape library: Load shape upload and file validation

The Load Shape library is similar to the impact profile library. As a PA user, I want to access the load shape area in the Impact Profile module, where I can select a draft measure package from the eTRM list and view the list of unique load shapes in that measure package, so I can determine which load shape data to prepare and upload to create load shape derived impact profiles. PA users have access to the load shape area within the Impact Profile library When a PA user goes to add a load shape, they can view the draft measure package available to their PA They can select a draft measure package, and CEDARS displays the measure packages' unique load shapes list If no draft measure packages are available, a clear message explains what this means and what to do next If the package details cannot be loaded, a clear error message is shown that does not assume prior setup or existing data Display the date the list was last synced As a PA user, I want to upload a load shape file for a draft measure package. File upload succeeds Upload is linked to the selected draft measure package UI confirms upload success As a PA user, I want CEDARS to read and validate my uploaded load shape file so I can immediately see whether the data is usable or needs fixing. Files with multiple 8760 series are parsed successfully Validation runs on each 8760 series Invalid series are clearly identified Multiple validation errors are returned and displayed together

Jennifer Scheuerell 7 days ago

💡

Feature Request

Completed

Budget Filing Value Lists - Values that expire in 2027

PG&E notes that some additional value list values that expire in 2027 need the same treatment as values that expired in 2025. Because we are using the same measure packages as the MCAL, measure packages with updated value list values were not available for the application forecasts. Noteable TechType popped up as an issue for PG&E.

JakeRichardson About 1 month ago

9
📨

Feedback

Claims validation: SEM Phase and Measure Impact Type

Add claims validation so PAs can catch SEM issues at submission time rather than during Quantum review, saving time and rework. Review checks that the validation replaces: SEM claims must populate SEMPhase SEM claims must specify MeasImpactType = Cust-SEM or Cust-SEM-FuelSub Requirements: Applies to all claim types, not just placeholders Applies to both zero-savings and nonzero-savings claims Claims with SEMPhase populated and non-SEM MeasImpactType fail validation Claims with SEM MeasImpactType and missing SEMPhase fail validation Validation applies consistently across all claim types and savings values Error messaging clearly explains what field needs to be corrected and why Proposed draft rules: Claim.SEM_Phase is populated if Measure.MeasImpactType = Cust-SEM or Cust-SEM-FuelSub Measure.MeasImpactType = Cust-SEM or Cust-SEM-FuelSub if Claim.SEM_Phase is populated

cedars team 29 days ago

2
💡

Feature Request

No Fix Required

SW claims measure inputs discrepancy in record-level downloads

It appears that the CEDARS record-level download is inaccurate because the SW claims data—such as per-unit savings, gross measure costs, incentive costs, AGIC, and refrigerant benefits and costs—are being split by IOU-specific SW allocation factors. This approach is not aligned with the SW module specification. While it is correct that the CET outputs are split by these allocation factors, it is important to note that the SW measure inputs should be a direct pass-through to the PA downloads without any splitting by allocation factors. To illustrate this issue, I have attached a sample 2025Q3 claim (PGE_SW-2025-00k3r00000rSfSQAA0) as an example. Row #4 below has the correct values, while row #8 values highlighted in orange are incorrect. Please review these per unit values (and any others if missing) for accuracy:

Roopa Reddy 25 days ago

1
🐛

Bug Reports