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.

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).

Managing Obsolete Load Shapes/Impact Profiles

When a measure package's TechIDs change after load shapes/impact profiles have already been uploaded, the original ("obsolete") upload data remains in Cedars even though it will never be used. We need a documented best practice for whether these obsolete uploads should be deleted or retained. Background/Example For SWCR018, load shapes were initially uploaded (Upload 447) using the original TechIDs for a non-modeled measure package, but with values borrowed from a modeled measure package (SWCR015). Following further discussion, it was decided that the TechIDs from the modeled measure package should be used instead, resulting in a new upload (Upload 453). As a result: Upload 453 will be the load shapes/impact profiles actually used going forward. Upload 447 is now obsolete and will never be used. Problem There is currently no defined process for handling obsolete uploads. Leaving unused, obsolete load shapes and impact profiles in the system risks: Duplication of records Confusion between correct and incorrect/outdated load shapes Potential for the wrong upload to be referenced downstream Questions for Discussion Should obsolete uploads be deleted outright, or is there a preferred archiving/flagging mechanism instead? Is there a technical or audit-trail reason to retain obsolete uploads? If deletion is the agreed approach, who is responsible for performing it — the original uploader or anyone on their team?

Data Record-level archived downloads available for 2028-2031 budget filings

As a user, I want to be able to download the archived 2028-2031 Budget Filings the are superseded.

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?

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.

Allow users to delete CET runs from their history (CET tab)

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.

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/

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.

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?

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.

Population NMEC Cohort - Align initial and true-up claim

Request to have more and improve cohort documentation. Claim and Parent ID Project indentifiers Participant ID & Contact Information Projected and True-up savings Installed Measures EUL, Realization Rates, & NTG Values Implementation Partners Take into account Res and Non-res differences.

Check CES 5.0 DAC & HTR doesn't impact our HTR fields and validation

Review Requirement for Site ID in the Participant Table

During Claims 2026 UAT, stakeholders provided feedback on the new Site ID field in the Participant table. The feedback was that participant counts are generally managed and analysed at the program level, rather than the individual site level. Requiring a Site ID introduces additional complexity to the submission process and may provide more granularity than is needed for the intended reporting outcomes. The reporting objective should be reviewed with Energy Division staff to confirm whether participant reporting is intended to occur at the site level or whether a program-level approach would better meet the business need. Questions for Energy Division What reporting or analytical use case requires participant records to be associated with a Site ID? Are participant counts expected to be reported at the site level or only at the program level? Would program-level participant reporting satisfy the reporting requirements? If Site ID is retained, how will participant records be used differently from the existing Site table?

Do not allow program segment to be changed

Since we use program segment to show data in CEDARS dashboard we should not allow it to be changed, which brings it into alignment with the other fields that are used in dashboard summary tables.

Button to sync eTRM draft measure packages

Put a button on the add load shapes page where the user selects a measure package to do an on-demand sync to eTRM to pull in the current draft measure package data. Today eTRM staff are emailing the dev team and asking for manual ad-hoc syncs. This is in addition to the scheduled sync that happens every night.

Bring all PII QC rules forward into the specification page

Not all PII rules are captured in the CEDARS specification page; let’s fix that and ensure that PAs can see all QC rules for PII easily in the PII spec pages.

Export Hourly Data for a Specific Load Shape

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.

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.