Report "No savings" claim for zero saver SEM projects

Capturing the CPR number is not straightforward from PG&E’s perspective, it is preferable to include an ED Review flag instead to support ex post evaluation if needed.

We could add a button to skip submission for Claims in the status cards.

This is applicable to very small CCA/RENs. There was one (CPSF) that never signed an implementer and is going to return the money they were funded. We can provide guidance to ensure smaller CCA/RENs know what to do and CEDARS can provide a template they can use when they need to report zero savings/costs.

We will reach out to the SEM team to help get together an example zero saver SEM project.

@cedars team Hi Sonja, attached is a draft mock-up of the no-savings-year claims for SEM multi-year project claims that we reviewed at the August 7th PCG meeting. Thank you.

Notes from the last EE meeting:

1. Are there concerns about zero-savings SEM claims failing CEDARS validations?

   • Site and ContactClaim requirements

   • Potentially Claim.CMPA_ApplicationID & Claim.CMPA_MeasureCode: If we remove the warning, and the values are not present in the value list.

2. Can CEDARS exempt site and contact information for "no savings year" claims?
   Yes, we will need to add validation logic to exempt, and align on what field we would be looking to identify the "No Savings Year Claim". Claim.WhySavingsZeroed and Claim.WhyCostsZeroed should be populated with reasons such as "No Savings Year Claim."

3. How should program costs be reported for SEM programs with zero savings?
   The proposed approach is to set costs to zero for a year with no savings. Having no program costs for SEM sounds like an edge case, as the program may still incur admin costs in a year with no savings. Mockup posted below.

Linking Multi-Year SEM Projects (Program inception ->CMPA-> OTTER -> CEDARS)

1. Should multi-year project claims be linked by a persistent ID (e.g., Claim.MCPA_ApplicationID)?
   Yes

2. Should they also be linked by a ParentClaimID?
   Discussion on whether we should populate ParentClaimID in with the ClaimID of the first Claim within CEDARS.

Next steps

SEM team to confirm whether they need any additional fields for 2026 (CPR No.) and if they can leverage SEM_Phase values in their system to track projects.

@cedars team, I wanted to touch base regarding the draft requirements I posted on Basecamp, as we have not yet received any follow-up comments.

While we’re still in the midst of internal conversations, I’d like to share PG&E’s perspective:

1. The outcome of this spec is intended to be in place for 2026 claims.

2. PG&E does not need to copy the prior year's measure input for zero savers, as each year has its own independent project created in our tracking system, regardless of the savings.

3. Regarding the Parent ClaimID field, typically used for true-up claims as in NMEC, it isn't meaningful for SEM. We need clarity from the CPUC/evaluators on their requirements. Are they asking for a persistent ID that ties the claim to a participant and links multi-year claims? If so, we might need to consider including a Participant ID field.
   Note: For our internal purposes, PG&E sees the need for the unique identifier at the annual level (project/year), cycle level (for CMPA), and per participant level.

4. The CMPA.Application_ID is unique for each program cycle, but if chosen for ED review, reporting in subsequent cycles is not required per SEM guidance memo. Since this ID varies between cycles for PG&E, this field cannot be used as a persistent ID.

5. Populating Claim.WhySavingsZeroed field with the value “No Savings Year Claim” may not be necessary since a zero-saver is like any other SEM savings claim except with zero savings.

6. PG&E does not require site and contact data rules to be exempted since a zero-saver is created like any other SEM project with the associated site and contact information.

I am looking forward to any feedback on these points. Thank you!

9/5 A recap of the draft requirements gathered so far and seeking some clarity from the CPUC/evaluation team on a few points.

Firstly, we need to confirm if the evaluation team is asking for a persistent ID that ties the claim to a participant and links multi-year claims. Additionally, we need to ensure we are meeting the following requirements:

1. A savings claim is reported for every year of a multi-year SEM project, regardless of the savings.

2. The no savings claim is reported in a similar manner to any SEM savings claim, with associated site and contact information, except with zero savings.

3. A persistent ID is available to connect the multi-year claims, and for that we may need to introduce a new field SEM_ParticipantID.

It is important to note that the Parent ClaimID cannot be used for this purpose since it is meant for true-up claims, as in the case of NMEC, which does not apply to SEM.

Similarly, the CMPA_ ApplicationID cannot be used since this ID may vary between cycles (this is true for PG&E).

4. Possibly add ED_Review_Flag to support ex-post evaluation as an alternative to providing the CPR number, which may not be straightforward to capture this information.
   
   Action Items

1. CPUC/SEM evaluation team to clarify the outstanding question listed above and confirm the remaining requirements (by 9/15).

2. PAs to provide feedback on the above draft requirements (by 9/15).

3. Group discussion on this topic at the October PCG (10/2).

Best,

Roopa

A new ticket for adding a SEM_ParticipantID field has been created.