CET calculations are not working as expected
SDGE Feedback
40 Year EULs
Is this for a specific measure? Right now, applying 40 Year to any given measure is producing errors.
Additional Testing
Used eTRM FuelSub Measures as control data.
Compared Production CE run (2024 ACC) with Staging CE run (2024 ACC) using the same set of fuel substitution measures.
Results indicated a higher level in gas benefits using the Staging environment.
All the rest of the benefits matched up with zero delta.
ACC Observance
The Claims ACC for 2024 has CZ 14 but it’s not available for PGE.
The CET ACC for 2024 doesn’t have CZ 14 for anyone.
Additional Questions
Is MiscBen included in OtherBen?
Is MiscCost included in OtherCost?
Will a new "2024 CET Database Version 24.3" link be added to the "The Cost Effectiveness Tool (CET) database" section of the CET Specification page?
Can you provide the updated formula(s) for TRC and TSB.
- Environment
- Staging cedars-2
- Select user type
Log in to comment and vote
Comments6
Greg Green
Aug 22, 2024
RE: 40 Year EULs
Is this for a specific measure? Right now, applying 40 Year to any given measure is producing errors.
TEST RESULTS:
I re-tested this in DEV with updating measures previously at EUL_Years = 30 to EUL_Years = 40.
The CE run completed successfully.
Thanks,
Greg
cedars team
Aug 22, 2024
Hi Greg,
Can I confirm that this was today in the testing environment? After the go-ahead was given yesterday, this work was taken off testing so we could continue development on other pieces.
- Sonja
Greg Green
Aug 22, 2024
Hi Sonja,
Yes, this was tested and confirmed on 8/15. I just discovered FeatureBase today and set up an account, so wanted to follow up in here with my feedback on any SDGE pieces we reported.
Thanks,
Greg.
cedars team
Aug 18, 2024
SCG feedback
It appears that the BTM methane leakage adder is applied to all gas measures rather than only the fuel substitution gas to electric measures as defined in the ACC documentation.
cedars team
Aug 18, 2024
PGE feedback
I was able to use the CEI Source of Truth file "validation_rules.csv"
Yes, but with issues. I can view, but the rule still seems to be triggering if all savings are <0
I was able to upload and run my CET input file
Yes, but with issues. Yes, but I fail the fuel sub validations that were supposedly deleted. I was able to to upload and run my CET input file with fuel sub and NC-AE measures without positive savings for kWh and/or Therm *
I was able to to upload and run my CET input file with fuel sub and NC-AE measures without positive savings for kWh and/or Therm
Yes, but with issues, I fail the fuel sub validations that were supposedly deleted. Check that 40 year EULs are allowed, MiscBens and MiscCosts are included in the cost effectiveness calculations and dual baseline calculations are working as expected for fuel substitution and new construction-all electric measures.
CET calculations are working as expected from my CET input file
No, The CET_Spec.SQL file still says EUL Years must be between 0-30, and 40 years is not accepted.
MiscBens/MiscCosts are not included in Total System Benefit properly, only in OtherBen/OtherCost
cedars team
Aug 18, 2024
Additional feedback
RE: Check that 40 year EULs are allowed.
Can 40 only be applied to measures that currently have an EUL = 30?
RE: Climate Zones 6 & 8 for SDGE
I performed 2 CE runs in staging using 2024 claims for Q1 & Q2,
1) Using CZ = 6 & 8
2) Using CZ = System
The CE output yielded changes to ElecBen and TotalSystemBenefit for a delta of $14.47.
However, the delta was in favor of System. In other words, if I kept CZ = System, the ElecBen and TotalSystemBenefit were greater. We were expecting the other way around.