Skip to main content

Add new table and fields to track participant type and number of participants

Feedback2026 Claim Spec Update Queue2026

Reporting at the program level is preferred over Claims as it’s less complex.

Unique Pop NMEC could also be reported.
Will be reported as a CSV zipped with the record-level downloads on the data tab

Inline guidance and user guide will need to be updated.

Design mockup - Draft

Table name: Participant

Primary Key

  • Primary key: Participant.PrgID + Participant.PrgYear + Participant.ParticipantType + Participant.SiteID

  • Table validation check e.g. That the primary key is unique regardless of the letter case.

Relationship validation

  • Participant.PrgID must match a ProgramCost.PrgID

  • Participant.SiteID, when populated, must match a Site.SiteID


Fields

  • PrgID
    Data type: Text (up to 255 characters)

    Required: Y
    Description: The unique program identifier; joins to the ProgramCost table.

  • PrgYear

    Data type: Integer

    Required: Y

  • ParticipantType
    Data type: Text

    Required: Y

    Valuelist

  • ParticipantCount
    Data type: Number (Up to 15 decimal places)

    Required: Y

  • SiteID

    Data type: Text

  • EquityTargeted

    Data type: Number (Up to 15 decimal places)

    Required: Y

  • DAC

    Data type: Number (Up to 15 decimal places)

    Required: Y

  • HTR

    Data type: Number (Up to 15 decimal places)

    Required: Y

  • Underserved

    Data type: Number (Up to 15 decimal places)

    Required: Y

  • Comments

    Data type: Text

    Required: N

Select the module in CEDARS
Posted by Jennifer Scheuerell ·
Status: Completed15 comments

Log in to comment and vote

Comments15

  • Roopa Reddy

    Team•

    May 6

    @cedars team @Jake Richardson (PG&E) If future validations create complexity, a standalone upload option would be preferable for the Participant table. Otherwise, it is acceptable to include it as part of the batch upload, given the current simple validation requirements. Thank you.

  • GGolden42

    •

    Mar 18

    Since this is to help with the Metric Mega Query, should we add to this the flag for “Master Metered”

    • Jake Richardson (PG&E)

      Team•

      Mar 25

      I’m picturing providing this info at the program level rather than the claim level. It will be a real pain at the claim level, because some participants have multiple claims (so now do I have to say only 0.20 of a participant on this claim because they installed 5 measures?). Would be better at program level.

      On the flip side, I think master metered makes sense at the claim level, so maybe it makes more sense as a separate ticket.

  • Jennifer Scheuerell

    Team•

    Apr 2

    4/2/26 PCG meeting

    TBD: How do we capture HTR participants? They could be participant types (i.e. extra records in the table) or extra “number” columns?

    Solution

    • New table to report participants

      • Program

      • Participant type

      • Number

  • cedars team

    Team•

    May 7

    The password has been removed from the Participant Table Prototype, hopefully that resolves any access issues.

    I’ve also included a PDF export of the design that shows:
    - Participant table in the Claim Specification
    - ParticipantType value list
    - PA Manage ParticipantType value list
    - Guidance updates

    Something to also note is that we are looking at also adding a PrgYear field to this table.

    Claim Spec 2026 Participant Table.pdf

    6.4 MB• Document

    • Roopa Reddy

      Team•

      May 7

      @cedars team I’m able to access the Participant Table Prototype after the password was removed. Thank you.

      I wanted to share a couple of comments regarding the ParticipantType value-list validation and its governance:

      1. The current validation, “Participant.ParticipantType is in the Program valuelist,” should actually be checking that the value exists in the ParticipantType value-list.

      2. There were some concerns raised during the PCG agenda review at the FutEE biweekly check-in. Specifically, it was mentioned that having the PA manage the ParticipantType value-list might not be the best approach, as there is a risk that the PA could inadvertently create duplicate or incorrect values. Instead, the suggestion was made that the PA should open a featurebase ticket whenever changes are needed. This would introduce proper governance, allow for review during dev demo meeting, and make it possible to obtain Amy’s approval before any updates are finalized and added to the value-list.

      Let’s confirm this on 5/7 PCG call.

  • GGolden42

    •

    May 7

    Are the Sectors for the Participants considered to be the Program Sector? Or, should we add a field for Sector?

    • Roopa Reddy

      Team•

      May 7

      @GGolden42 @cedars team @Amy.reardon@cpuc.ca.gov @Jake Richardson (PG&E)

      From PG&E’s perspective, program‑level records should use the program primary sector, while site‑level records may use the claim DEER sector (Ag, Com, Ind, Res), with ‘Public’ assigned where the program primary sector is public.

      • GGolden42

        •

        May 7

        I can work with that.

  • cedars team

    Team•

    May 12

    Participant Type values

    Hi all, I’ve taken the starting list of Participant Types from the PCG notes and tried to add descriptions that explain the use case. Please send any feedback ASAP, as this is under development and needs to be tested prior to UAT opening for Claim Spec.

    Participant Type

    Description

    Households

    Residential participants, including single-family households and multifamily dwelling units, receiving or benefiting from program measures or services.

    Business

    Commercial, industrial, agricultural, public sector, or other non-residential entities participating in or benefiting from program activities.

    Individual

    A single person participating directly in a program activity, where participation is tied to the individual rather than a household, business, or organization.

    Manufacturer

    Upstream market actor responsible for producing eligible products, equipment, or technologies participating in upstream incentive or market transformation programs.

    Distributor

    Midstream market actor involved in the distribution, wholesaling, or supply chain delivery of eligible products or equipment participating in midstream program activities.

    Students

    Individuals participating in education, training, workforce, behavioral, or outreach programs where the participant is specifically identified as a student.

    Managing Participant Type values

    We are also pivoting the value list from being managed by PAs in Cedars UI to a Featurebase submission process outlined in the flowchart. Development will require around 2 weeks' notice to add new values to production and ensure they follow all governance checks.

    Claim Spec 2026 - Participant Type.pdf

    840.8 KB• Document

    • Tim Olsen

      •

      May 14

      Could we say “Organization” instead (or in addition to) “Business” as this would represent a more general entity as a participant? Non-profits and public agencies would not easily fit into the normal definition of “business.”

      Also, Students and Households are plural. I would recommend “Student” and “Household” to be consistent with the other options.

      • Amy.reardon@cpuc.ca.gov

        Team•

        Jun 15

        Tim, if this has not yet been addressed, let’s bring it up at the PCG this week.

  • GGolden42

    •

    Jun 2

    I just noticed something that we may want to add for the SW Participant Table. Since the Participants are supposed to be based on the actual IOU not allocated, do we want to add an IOU field or will we have to share that info for each to file.

    • Jake Richardson (PG&E)

      Team•

      Jun 5

      I’ve been noodling on this any maybe an IOU field would work after all. It would just require multiple rows in the participant file / maybe duplicate entries for the same program for each IOU. In this case we could do each IOU, and then “Total” for the totals (which wouldn’t be a sum of the IOUs because of the cases where one participant is credited to two IOUs for each fuel).

  • Amy.reardon@cpuc.ca.gov

    Team•

    Jun 15

    Hi all, I’m still not quite sure of the mechanics for Participant Type, so I’d like us to discuss this at the PCG this Wednesday.