Skip to main content

Confirm why the AR combinations are rejected

Feedback2026Impact Profiles & Load Shapes


Reported by Safia:

Hi CEDARS Support Team,

We are encountering AvoidedCostCombo validation errors uploading the CET input for SWHC049-09 (Ducted Residential Heat Pump). Impact profiles were generated on July 12, 2026. We uploaded the CET input zip from eTRM into CEDARS and encountered these errors - here'a summary: What passed / failed:

  1. AR and NR failed for all building types

Error seen across all failing rows: Values = (CZ, Electric Impact Profile ID, Sector, PA) are not allowed for AvoidedCostCombo.

Example: Values = ('1', 'DMoExrDXHPRE-dxHP_eq-pkgSEER-17.8-SEER2-8.1-HSPF2RE-dxHP_eq-pkgSEER-14.3-SEER2-7.5-HSPF2*RE-dxHP_eq-pkgSEER-12.5-SEER2-6.4-HSPF2', 'Res', 'PGE') are not allowed for AvoidedCostCombo.

The profile ID is built by eTRM as:

Could you confirm why the AR and NR combinations are rejected and what the correct format should be if this format doesn't look right?

Res building type - planned fix:

Res rows failed because no load shapes were uploaded for the Res aggregated building type. Per our load shape meeting, the agreed approach is to use the highest-weighted residential building type as a proxy. Based on DEER weights (wts_res_bldg.csv), SFm holds ~69% of total residential weight and will be used as the proxy for Res for this measure. We will upload Res load shapes but we think the existing format error will still persist for this one as well.

Update:

AR rows only are failing - across all building types (DMo, MFm, SFm). The failure is due to the 6-segment Electric Impact Profile ID format required for AR (which includes the pre-existing technology ID). CEDARS is rejecting that under the AvoidedCostCombo validation.

  • NR rows for DMo, MFm, and SFm are passing - no errors for these combinations.

  • Res load shapes have since been uploaded successfully, and impact profiles have been generated in CEDARS. Since the Res building type only applies to NR and NC application types (not AR), the issue is not seen in the Res rows.

So, the only remaining open issue is the AR rows failing AvoidedCostCombo validation. Please let us know if any additional detail would be helpful for the investigation.

Select the module in CEDARS
Posted by cedars team ·
Status: No Fix Required2 comments

Log in to comment and vote

Comments2

  • cedars team

    Team•

    Jul 29

    @SafiaSheerin7

    From what we’ve found so far, it looks like the main issue is a limitation in the Cost Effectiveness Tool (CET), not with how the load shapes were uploaded into CEDARS.

    There has been conversation about dual baseline measures, the CET only allows one load shape for a measure during the whole analysis period.

    For advanced replacement measures, the ideal behavior would be to:

    • Use the first baseline load shape during the RUL of the existing equipment.

    • Transition to the second baseline (standard) load shape once the RUL has expired.


    This capability is not currently supported by the CET. I think this is why the Advanced Replacement (AR) combinations are being rejected during Avoided Cost Combo validation.

    The recommendation is to continue to use the first baseline load shape for AR measures, since this matches how the CET currently works.

    Please let me know if you require additional guidance.

  • SafiaSheerin7

    •

    Jul 23

    Downloaded the ‘avoidedcostcombo.csv’ latest version from CEDARS CET Specification list and couldn’t find any active AR row listed. Does that mean no AR MAT rows are allowed for Avoided Costs combo at the moment?