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

Identify correct Measure Package version or reset uploads

Danny Ng is unable to determine which draft Measure Package (Unitary Air-Cooled Air Conditioner & Heat Pump, Over 65 kBtu/hr, Commercial) matches the latest eTRM version and may have uploaded load shapes against the wrong Measure Package. Development team will help Confirm which draft Measure Package is the correct version. Advise whether the existing uploads are correct or should be discarded. If necessary, delete the generated Impact Profiles and Avoided Cost Combinations so Danny can re-upload against the correct Measure Package. Note: An enhancement currently in testing will hide removed eTRM draft Measure Packages from the upload dropdown while retaining historical versions with existing uploads, reducing some of duplicate Measure Package confusion.

cedars team 2 days ago

📨

Feedback

Planned

Display UEC proportion values when selecting draft measure package

As a Measure Developer, I want to see proportion UEC values when selecting a Measure Package so that I can confirm I am uploading load shapes against the correct eTRM version. Description Multiple versions of the same Measure Package can appear in CEDARS following draft commits or discards in eTRM. The current Measure Package Values table does not display UEC proportion values, making it difficult to determine which version should be used. Selecting the wrong version may result in Impact Profiles and Avoided Cost Combinations being generated using outdated savings assumptions.

cedars team 3 days ago

💡

Feature Request

Participant table - add ability to remove ParticipantCount records

Program Administrators need the ability to remove previously submitted ParticipantCount records in cases where overriding the data is not sufficient. Currently, validation rules do not allow ParticipantCount values of 0, preventing the removal of records through a new upload. Update the ParticipantCount submission process so that each new Participant table submission replaces any previously submitted ParticipantCount records. Only the records included in the latest submission would be retained.

cedars team 3 days ago

📨

Feedback

Provide Export Functions of Load Shapes Library

It would be useful to add two separate functions to the load shape library for current/future users, particularly if the functionality of the load shape process allows for load shapes to be used between measure package (as is planned). First, it would be good to be able to export the library table itself as a csv or excel file. We have thousands of load shapes now, and searching/filtering in the current table can be challenging. Being able to export to excel and review there would be helpful. Second, being able to export the actual hourly data for a specific load shape in the library. This would be important for users who want to adopt load shapes between measure packages, or use them for other purposes, such as billing impact or other hourly analysis.

Lake Casco 3 days ago

📨

Feedback

Completed

Continue eTRM Sync of Valid Measure Packages When Invalid Data is Encountered

EDARS synchronizes draft Measure Packages from eTRM to support Load Shapes functionality. Occasionally, some Measure Packages contain data that cannot be processed by CEDARS due to invalid, incomplete, or unexpected data structures. Currently, a single problematic Measure Package can cause the entire synchronization process to fail, preventing valid Measure Packages from being made available in CEDARS.

cedars team 4 days ago

1
🐛

Bug Reports

In Progress

Provide Record-Level Field Mapping for New Inputs and Outputs

To support upstream system updates and integration activities, stakeholders have requested additional documentation showing where newly introduced input and output fields will appear within record-level downloads. In particular, Greg requested visibility into: - Which new fields have been added - The position of those fields within each record-level file - Example values for each new field - There is a strong preference for newly introduced fields to be appended to the end of record-level

cedars team 4 days ago

2
🗒️

Testing Feedback

Planned

Unable to upload claims without ProgramCost table

When I try to upload a claims file with only the Measure, Claim, Site, ContactClaim, and Participant tables (i.e., without ProgramCost) as an XLSX file, I encounter a server error. I tested this with both the example claims file and some of my PA’s claims. I didn’t see any issues uploading an XLSX file with all tables or only with the ProgramCost table.

SoCalREN_TEC 4 days ago

4
🗒️

Testing Feedback

In Progress

Regression testing SavingsDate

Feedback from Greg “The attached file downloaded from CEDARS shows the SavingsDate field at the end of the Claims table. The SavingsDate field is no longer part of the 2026 input spec but will be added to the record-level output file.” Investigate if the SavingsDate output is behaving as expected for 2026

cedars team 5 days ago

1
🗒️

Testing Feedback

In Testing

Investigate Missing Avoided Cost Combo SWHC006

Srushti Koli reported that after uploading new load shapes for SWHC006, CET runs are failing because certain avoided cost combinations cannot be found. It’s confirmed that the corresponding load shape files were included in the upload and processed in CEDARS. However, the expected avoided cost combinations do not appear to have been generated or made available to CET. This issue prevents users from completing CET runs and creates uncertainty regarding whether uploads have processed successfully.

cedars team 5 days ago

1
🐛

Bug Reports

To Be Considered

Support Baseline Tech Group and Tech Type in Load Shape Uploads

As a Measure Developer, I want CEDARS to recognise baseline technology information separately from measure technology information so that I can upload baseline load shapes using their correct Tech Group and Tech Type values. Background CEDARS currently only synchronise the measure case Tech Group and Tech Type from eTRM permutations. As a result, both measure and baseline load shapes are expected to use the measure case values during upload. For example: Measure: SWWH031-07 Measure Tech Type: HP_COP Baseline Tech Type: Stor_UEF Although the Tech ID correctly identifies the baseline technology, uploads currently fail unless the baseline load shape is generated using HP_COP. This behaviour has caused user confusion and ongoing troubleshooting effort.

cedars team 5 days ago

💡

Feature Request

In Testing

Missing Avoided Cost Comb for Measure case: NE-WaterHtg_eq-HP_COP-Any-120gal-4.3COP

Reported by Lake: We are trying to run the CET using the new load shapes and are running into some issues. It looks like the following combos are not showing up in the avoided cost combo and causing a CET error. However, we have confirmed that load shape files that we uploaded in CEDARS include these load shapes. Furthermore, the load shapes show up in the load shape library: Load shape combos not allowed are all related to the 120 gal COP rated HPWH TechID. Measure case: NE-WaterHtg_eq-HP_COP-Any-120gal-4.3COP Base Case: NE-WaterHtg_eq-HP_UEF-Any-80gal-3.45UEF Base Case: NE-WaterHtg_eq-HP_UEF-Any-65gal-3.44UEF Base Case: NE-WaterHtg_eq-Stor_UEF-Any-50gal-0.93UEF This load shape shows up in the CEDARS load shape library, but it’s not in the avoided cost combo sheet (link)

cedars team 9 days ago

🐛

Bug Reports

In Progress

Confirm why the AR combinations are rejected

Reported by Safia: Hi CEDARS Support Team, We are encountering AvoidedCostCombo validation errors uploading the CET input for SWHC049-09 (Ducted Residential Heat Pump). Impact profiles were generated on July 12, 2026. We uploaded the CET input zip from eTRM into CEDARS and encountered these errors - here'a summary: What passed / failed: AR and NR failed for all building types Error seen across all failing rows: Values = (CZ, Electric Impact Profile ID, Sector, PA) are not allowed for AvoidedCostCombo. Example: Values = ('1', 'DMoExrDXHPRE-dxHP_eq-pkgSEER-17.8-SEER2-8.1-HSPF2RE-dxHP_eq-pkgSEER-14.3-SEER2-7.5-HSPF2*RE-dxHP_eq-pkgSEER-12.5-SEER2-6.4-HSPF2', 'Res', 'PGE') are not allowed for AvoidedCostCombo. The profile ID is built by eTRM as: Could you confirm why the AR and NR combinations are rejected and what the correct format should be if this format doesn't look right? Res building type - planned fix: Res rows failed because no load shapes were uploaded for the Res aggregated building type. Per our load shape meeting, the agreed approach is to use the highest-weighted residential building type as a proxy. Based on DEER weights (wts_res_bldg.csv), SFm holds ~69% of total residential weight and will be used as the proxy for Res for this measure. We will upload Res load shapes but we think the existing format error will still persist for this one as well. Update: AR rows only are failing - across all building types (DMo, MFm, SFm). The failure is due to the 6-segment Electric Impact Profile ID format required for AR (which includes the pre-existing technology ID). CEDARS is rejecting that under the AvoidedCostCombo validation. NR rows for DMo, MFm, and SFm are passing - no errors for these combinations. Res load shapes have since been uploaded successfully, and impact profiles have been generated in CEDARS. Since the Res building type only applies to NR and NC application types (not AR), the issue is not seen in the Res rows. So, the only remaining open issue is the AR rows failing AvoidedCostCombo validation. Please let us know if any additional detail would be helpful for the investigation.

cedars team 9 days ago

1
🐛

Bug Reports

Planned

Allow users to replace previously uploaded load shapes, impact profiles, and avoided costs

Currently load shapes are overwritten when re-uploaded. The generated impact profiles should be replaced. Background Measure Developers may need to update previously submitted load shapes due to: Corrections to uploaded data Changes to eTRM permutations or assumptions Re-running simulations with updated modeling inputs QC findings identified after initial upload Currently, CEDARS allows users to re-upload load shape files, which replaces the underlying load shape data. However, any previously generated Impact Profiles remain locked and cannot be recalculated. This can result in inconsistencies between the latest load shape data and the Impact Profiles and avoided cost combinations being used downstream. In addition, users currently receive an error when attempting to regenerate Impact Profiles that have already been generated: “Impact profiles have already been generated for the load shapes in this upload. Existing impact profiles cannot be recalculated.” This limitation prevents Measure Developers from correcting or updating previously submitted data. Proposed Enhancement Allow users to replace previously uploaded load shapes and regenerate associated Impact Profiles and avoided cost combinations so that CEDARS reflects the latest approved data. The enhancement should: Permit replacement of existing load shapes for a draft measure package. Allow existing Impact Profiles to be removed and regenerated from the updated load shapes. Provide transparency and safeguards to prevent unintended overwrites.

Jennifer Scheuerell 9 days ago

1
📨

Feedback