Claim Spec 2027

Claims: Remove Measure.Upstream_Flag

No longer used by eTRM

Bay REN added to Statewide reporting in Claims

Measure.SourceDesc: remove field (claims)

The SourceDesc field is being retired following the addition of the MeasDetailID from eTRM. (SourceDesc is the first field in the MeasDetailID concatenation.)

Claim & CET IDSM Reporting (Placeholder)

As a PA and CPUC, I would like IDSM reporting requirements introduced once policy guidance is available, so that costs and benefits can be reported consistently. Background Current IDSM requirements lack clear guidance on what should be reported, where it should be reported, and how benefits should be measured. Future scope (TBC) Introduce IDSM reporting fields with clear definitions. Confirm whether fields belong in the ProgramCost table. Confirm whether IDSM should run through the CET. Include reporting of relevant benefits. Provide examples and guidance for consistent reporting. Keep in mind the duplication of IDSM costs reported in other fields Include examples (Load shifting with existing equipment, Multi-DER coordination, Water heater control programs)

Move MeasDetailID to the Measure table

Currently we only use MeasDetailID to link to eTRM for claims; the data are reported in the Claim table. If we want to know MeasDetailID for future deemed measures in budget filings we need to move MeasDetailID to the Measure table.

Claims – Validate Claim.ClaimType Against Allowed Value List

As a Program Administrator and someones reviewing claims data, I want Claim.ClaimType to only accept valid claim type values, so that claim data remains consistent and invalid values are prevented from being submitted. The Claim.ClaimType field is intended to only accept the values defined in the Claim Specification Value List: Deemed Custom Currently, no validation is applied to this field. As a result, Program Administrators have been able to submit unsupported values (for example, NMEC), leading to inconsistent data. Update validation so that Claim.ClaimType must match one of the values defined in the Claim Specification Value List. Field Claim.ClaimType Reference Value List: https://cedars.cpuc.ca.gov/claims/specification/values-list/claim-type/

Add AnalysisMethodology to Claim table

Data Type: Text Value list: Top‑down Bottom‑up Mixed Analysis Description Indicates the primary evaluation approach used to estimate SEM savings for the claim, based on whether savings are derived using whole‑facility modeling, measure‑level calculations, or a combination of both. The reported methodology must be consistent with the savings documentation and calculation approach used for the claim. Rules Required for all SEM‑related claims Must be a value from the value list

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.

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."

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