Skip to main content

SCT Base Calculating Higher than SCT High (Job 107225 Production)

Bug Reports

SCT should be a ration similar to the TRC. It appears as though it is only pulling in the numerator for the equation, not the denominator. Additionally, the SCT base number is higher than the SCT high.

Select the module in CEDARS
Select user type
Posted by SSprague ·
Status: No Fix Required8 comments

Log in to comment and vote

Comments8

  • cedars team

    Team•

    Sep 18, 2025

    Hey @SSprague and @danryd

    In regards to the SCT base number being higher than the SCT high. I’ve looked into how the SCT values are calculated, and here’s what I think is happening:

    SCBRatio = (ElecBen_SB + GasBen_SB + WaterEnergyBen_SB + OtherBen) / (SCBCost)

    SCHRatio = (ElecBen_SH + GasBen_SH + WaterEnergyBen_SH + OtherBen) / (SCHCost)

    • SCT Base and SCT High use different denominators

    • Because SCT High could use a larger denominator (SCHCost), its ratio can come out smaller than SCT Base, even when the benefits are of similar size.

    • In Job 107225, I also noticed some records where the SCT High benefits are more negative than the Base benefits. When those negative values are included in the totals, they pull the overall SCT High down further.


    My hypothesis: The formulas are working as intended, but the combination of a larger cost denominator and negative High benefits is making the overall SCT High number slightly lower than SCT Base in the dashboard.

    If this is not what you expected to see, please let us know, and we can investigate further to confirm whether the results are valid or if any adjustments are needed in the calculation.


    Thanks,
    Sonja

    • adanryd1

      •

      Sep 18, 2025

      After testing this, I think it is working as intended. After 2030, the gas acc uses the TRC avoided cost of carbon for both base and high SCT tests, since it is higher than the SCC cost of carbon. Meanwhile the fuel substitution measures have higher societal costs for added electric load using the SChigh rather than SCbase, which is causing a larger cost on the denominator which in turn drives down SChigh relative to SCbase. SCG commented on the 2024 ACC resolution that using the TRC cost of carbon for SCT calculations didnt seem right but it was maintained in the model. This is a consequence of the electric ACC using different SCT values for base and high while the gas model does not, after 2030.

      • cedars team

        Team•

        Sep 23, 2025

        @danryd thanks for taking the time to look into the reported values. We’ll go ahead and close this ticket. If you run into any other issues or have questions, please feel free to submit a new ticket.

        Regards,
        Sonja

  • cedars team

    Team•

    Sep 18, 2025

    @danryd I’ve renamed this ticket so we can better track the specific issue you’re seeing in production. We already have a ticket in progress for incorrect SCT values in Budget Filing dashboards on cedars-2 here:

    https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/incorrect-sct-in-staging

  • cedars team

    Team•

    Sep 17, 2025

    Hey @SSprague we have some work in progress to fix the values in the Statewide dashboards. I’ll update you when it’s ready to test.

    • adanryd1

      •

      Sep 17, 2025

      Thank you. We are seeing 2 issues.

      One is on the statewide (and local) program dashboard. The raw data seems right but the dashboard does not appear to be calculating SCT correctly. Your comment appears to be addressing this issue.

      This second issue shown in the screenshot is separate, where SCT Base is calculating higher than SCT high. When I pulled the raw data and calculate SCT the numbers are different, so I am not sure what is going on here.

      • adanryd1

        •

        Sep 17, 2025

        The run in question is Job 107225 in production

        • cedars team

          Team•

          Sep 17, 2025

          Thanks for clarifying that there is a second issue in production. I’ll investigate that Job for you today.