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.
- Select the module in CEDARS
Log in to comment and vote
Comments4
cedars team
Oct 22
This feature is ready for testing on cedars-2
Information about testing is in the attached slides.
Replace Load Shape UAT Kickoff.pdf
1.6 MB• Document
cedars team
Sep 10
We have come across an edge case for Load Shape Uploads Year Impact Profile Represents Field and want to share our approach for any feedback or concerns.
The issue: An impact profile can span multiple climate zones, and in theory a user could upload a load shape file where different climate zones carry different "year represented" values under the same impact profile ID. However, our system only stores a single year-represented value per impact profile — so if this happens, we need a clear, enforced way to resolve the conflict rather than assume it won't occur.
Our approach: We'll enforce validation at the point of impact profile creation rather than at file upload.
Note: "Source Year" (Load Shape) and "Year Impact Profile Represents" (Impact Profile Library) refer to the same underlying field.
cedars team
Jul 23
Attaching slides that were shown on the July 22nd Load Shape meeting and including the link to the prototype for a draft mockup. Please add comments and feedback directly in the prototype or on this ticket.
Load Shape Meeting 22 July.pdf
1.5 MB• Document
Prototype:
https://www.figma.com/proto/4c6CYpY4GLXzORhsTMOPgT/Load-Shapes-Library?node-id=5039-5108&viewport=130%2C522%2C0.25&t=BQPggXUDwhwqXKHz-1&scaling=min-zoom&content-scaling=fixed&page-id=5039%3A1029
Please the data used is placeholder. Click anywhere on the screen to go to the next screen or use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate.
nfette
Jul 30
The prototype looks good. I like the information in load shape results (“76 existing load shapes replaced”). I like the warning “existing impact profiles found” above the “Regenerate Impact Profiles” button. We discussed that a question is how measure developers will detect whether another measure uses the same impact profile name; you pointed out that currently load shapes are measure-specific, so this question is something to think about later.