This roadmap shows the proposed and confirmed updates to the Claims Specification for 2026. The board is filtered to display items tagged 2026 Claim Spec Update Queue. What the columns mean:<ul><li>Claims Specification Update These tickets are confirmed for the 2026 Claims Specification update. They have been reviewed, agreed to, with the status 2026 Fixed Development.</li><li>Claims Backlog These tickets are not yet confirmed. They are still under review or being considered and may be included in a future update. This includes items with the status To be considered or In review.</li></ul>

Claims Backlog

Claims Specification Update

Next up

In Progress

In Testing

Done

Claim Spec 2026

As a user, I would like clarification on the new IDSM fields from Claim Sepc update 2024 to understand what I should report.Claim.IDSM_DRClaim.IDSM.DERWhat specific type of number are they referring to?Is it related to incentives?Who is the best person to get clarification from?Once we have clarification, we should update the descriptions in Claims Specification.

In Review

2026 Claim Spec Update Queue

2026

Claims IDSM field clarification

Amyreardon

Do we want to refine the following rules for 2025? We made a workaround to accommodate the Statewide data because the State Does not have a Program.ProgramSegment to map to. RULES IT APPLIES TO:<pre><code>Claim.ClaimID matches at least one ContactClaim.ClaimID when Claim.ClaimID does not end with one of ('Audit', 'Placeholder') and Measure.MeasImpactType does not start with 'Cust-NMEC-Pop' and Program.ProgramCategory does not equal 'Energy Savings Assistance' and Program.ProgramSegment is populated and Program.ProgramSegment does not equal 'Codes and Standards'.</code></pre><pre><code>Claim.SiteID is required when Claim.ClaimID does not end with one of ('Audit', 'Placeholder') and Measure.MeasImpactType does not start with 'Cust-NMEC-Pop' and Program.ProgramCategory does not equal 'Energy Savings Assistance' and Program.ProgramSegment is populated and Program.ProgramSegment does not equal 'Codes and Standards'.</code></pre><pre><code>Claim.MeasDetailID is not 'a restricted permutation' when Claim.ClaimType equals 'Deemed' and Program.ProgramSegment is populated and Program.ProgramSegment does not equal 'Equity'.</code></pre>

To Be Considered

2025 Refine Statewide Claims exemption from rules

cedars team

Add claims validation so PAs can catch SEM issues at submission time rather than during Quantum review, saving time and rework. Review checks that the validation replaces:<ul><li>SEM claims must populate SEMPhase</li><li>SEM claims must specify MeasImpactType = Cust-SEM or Cust-SEM-FuelSub</li></ul>Requirements:<ul><li>Applies to all claim types, not just placeholders</li><li>Applies to both zero-savings and nonzero-savings claims</li><li>Claims with SEMPhase populated and non-SEM MeasImpactType fail validation</li><li>Claims with SEM MeasImpactType and missing SEMPhase fail validation</li><li>Validation applies consistently across all claim types and savings values</li><li>Error messaging clearly explains what field needs to be corrected and why</li></ul>Proposed draft rules:<pre><code>Claim.SEM_Phase is populated if Measure.MeasImpactType = Cust-SEM or Cust-SEM-FuelSub </code></pre><pre><code>Measure.MeasImpactType = Cust-SEM or Cust-SEM-FuelSub if Claim.SEM_Phase is populated</code></pre>

Claims validation: SEM Phase and Measure Impact Type

As a program administrator submitting local claims, I want the CET to either process only the valid portions of submitted data or have the option to reset unconfirmed data for the active claims cycle, so that I can troubleshoot and proceed with partial data instead of being blocked by errors in unrelated portions. Currently, if there are data errors or mismatches between ProgramCost and Measure , users are prevented from running the CET, even for valid programs. This ticket proposes allowing the CET to process only valid data portions or, alternatively, adding a reset option to clear unconfirmed data in the active claims cycle. This would support workflows where program cost and claims data are uploaded separately and reduce the need to re-upload clean data when only a portion is invalid.

Allow CET to process valid data or add a reset option to clear unconfirmed data

As an analyst, I want to be able to identify actual installed measures —IN ENGLISH, not expressed in some ID code. The PAs will need to agree upon names, and wondering if perhaps this is something CEDARS could automate in the downloads, e.g. create a new field populated with the name of the measure for each record?

Claims: Measure Name (in English)

Guidehouse has requested the ability to develop geospatial visualisations of claims data to better understand where Program Administrators (PAs) are active and the relative impact of programs across regions. Intended use cases include assessing market support and equity outcomes. These dashboards would be restricted to CPUC internal use only and would not be public-facing. To enable this capability, a new Claims field would be required. <h3 style="text-align: start">New Field (Conceptual)</h3>A new location-related field would be added to Claims submissions, such as:<ul><li>Latitude and Longitude of the customer or project site</li><li>Census Track or Census Block</li></ul>This would represent a new data-collection requirement and require explicit agreement and governance approval. Key Considerations<ul><li>PII and Data Governance</li><li>PA Data Availability. PG&amp;E has indicated they can provide customer-level location data. RENs and CCAs have indicated they do not currently have this information.</li><li>Some programs (e.g., PopNMEC, Home Energy Reports, RCTs) submit aggregated claims and cannot be meaningfully associated with customer-level locations. </li></ul><h2>Alternative Approach (Conceptual)</h2> Instead of requiring each Program Administrator to determine and submit latitude/longitude coordinates and census tracts with their claims, CEDARS could centrally generate this information from submitted project addresses. Under this approach:<ul><li>CEDARS would take claim addresses to derive latitude and longitude.</li><li>This would be handled consistently across all claims.</li><li>It would remove the need for individual PAs to calculate, validate, and reconcile geospatial data.</li><li>It would reduce evaluation oversight required to confirm alignment between addresses and reported coordinates.</li><li>It would create a standardized dataset for Energy Division to use in summaries and analysis.</li></ul>This shifts the responsibility from distributed PA-level reporting.

Claim Spec

Geospatial visualisation of Claims data

NMEC projects are excluded. Are there additional exemptions?

AR claim must have nonzero incremental cost if nonzero savings in the 2nd baseline

SourceDesc was replaced by the eTRM MeasDetailID

2026 CET Update Queue

Remove the SourceDesc field from the CET Measure table, Move MeasDetailID to Measure table

The SourceDesc field is being retired following the addition of the MeasDetailID from eTRM. (SourceDesc is the first field in the MeasDetailID concatenation.)

Measure.SourceDesc: remove field (claims)

Jennifer Scheuerell

No longer require programs to match between the Measure and ProgramCost tablesDIRECTLY REFERENCE ETRM FOR DEEMED MEASURES<ul><li>Pull consumption fields from eTRM these include:<ul><li>UECkWBase1</li><li>UECkWhBase1</li><li>UECThermBase1</li><li>UECkWBase2</li><li>UECkWhBase2</li><li>UECThermBase2</li><li>UECkWMeas</li><li>UECkWhMeas</li><li>UECThermMeas</li></ul></li></ul>

Claims Data Processing Updates

For SEM in particular, to allow linking between multi-year claims for a single participant. Also include a complete SEM Reporting Guidance, which includes the requirement to file a no savings claim in the year there is no activity.

2026 Fixed Development

Add ParticipantID to claim table [2026 Claim Spec Update]

Add any new input fields from the 2026 claims spec update and the new set of CET v25.1 cost effectiveness outputs to the data tab record-level download for Claims so that the data is accessible for CPUC analysis. Fields to include are:<code>Fuel ID</code><code>Unit Tax Credits</code><code>Water Energy Benefits</code><code>Water Energy Benefits Gross</code><code>Water Energy Cost</code><code>Water Energy Cost Gross</code><code>Electric Bill Reduction</code><code>Electric Bill Increase</code><code>Gas Bill Reduction</code><code>Gas Bill Increase</code><code>Electric Benefits Gross SCB</code><code>Electric Benefits Gross SCH</code><code>Electric Benefits SCB</code><code>Electric Benefits SCH</code><code>Electric Supply Cost Gross SCB</code><code>Electric Supply Cost Gross SCH</code><code>Electric Supply Cost SCB</code><code>Electric Supply Cost SCH</code><code>Gas Benefits Gross SCB</code><code>Gas Benefits Gross SCH</code><code>Gas Benefits SCB</code><code>Gas Benefits SCH</code><code>Gas Supply Cost Gross SCB</code><code>Gas Supply Cost Gross SCH</code><code>Gas Supply Cost SCB</code><code>Gas Supply Cost SCH</code><code>RIM Cost No Admin</code><code>SCB Cost</code><code>SCB Cost Gross</code><code>SCB Ratio No Admin</code><code>SCH Cost</code><code>SCH Cost Gross</code><code>SCH Cost No Admin</code><code>SCH Ratio No Admin</code><code>Tax Credits</code><code>Tax Credits Gross</code><code>Water Energy Benefits Gross SCB</code><code>Water Energy Benefits Gross SCH</code><code>Water Energy Benefits SCB</code><code>Water Energy Benefits SCH</code><code>Water Energy Cost Gross SCB</code><code>Water Energy Cost Gross SCH</code><code>Water Energy Cost SCB</code><code>Water Energy Cost SCH</code><code> </code>

Data - Claims Record-level download to include 2026 input and outputs

The SEM team wants to change the logic surrounding when SEM projects receive the Application_ID. Currently, when projects are released (wither because review was waived, or because review was completed for selected projects) they receive the ID, but we want to have the system provide an ID up-front. Sometimes SEM projects get stuck in a review cycle that prohibits CEDARS from accepting them without an App_ID. So, we need App IDs, and we no longer need the requirement where projects selected for review must wait until afterwards to have an ID assigned. I hope this makes sense; if not, please reach out, as we probably need this for 2025.

CMPA for SEM: Must change the workflow for when the system issues Application_IDs for SEM Projects

Amy Reardon

2025 Claim Spec Update

New validation for Dual Baseline measures

<ul><li>Add new FuelID field to the Measure table</li><li>References CEDARS value list or DEER (If it’s ready)</li><li>Retire old Fuel Sub table Value list options:<table style="minWidth: 217px"><colgroup><col style="width: 192px"><col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="192" style="width: 74px; height: 11px; background-; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">AllElec-New</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="width: 534px; height: 11px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">All-electric new construction without gas service where the standard practice baseline is natural gas-burning equipment</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="192" style="width: 74px; height: 11px; background-; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">EE-Elec-Only</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="width: 534px; height: 11px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">Energy efficiency measure that saves electricity only and does not burn natural gas</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="192" style="width: 74px; height: 11px; background-; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">EE-Gas</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="width: 534px; height: 11px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">Energy efficiency measure that burns natural gas</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="192" style="width: 74px; height: 11px; background-; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">Exempt</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="width: 534px; height: 11px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">Energy efficiency measure that saves natural gas but does not burn natural gas</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="192" style="width: 74px; height: 11px; background-; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">FuelSub-ToElec</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="width: 534px; height: 11px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">Fuel substitution measure that replaces natural gas-burning equipment with electric-only equipment</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="192" style="width: 74px; height: 11px; background-; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">FuelSub-ToGas</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="width: 534px; height: 11px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">Fuel substitution measure that replaces electric-only equipment with natural gas-burning equipment</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" colwidth="192" style="width: 74px; height: 11px; background-; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">None</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="width: 534px; height: 11px; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; border-; padding: 4px;">A non-saving measure that uses neither electricity nor natural gas</td></tr></tbody></table></li></ul>

Add new field FuelID and value list

Discussed in the 1//9/2025 PCG meeting

Add flag for claims that use custom impact profiles/avoided costs

Help Center

Improved

Fixed

Specification

Claims

Monthly Reports

Budget Filing

Security

Documents

Data & Reports

Programs

cpuccedars

On Hold

2025 Annual Development Plan

Planned

PCG Top Priority 

In Testing Queue

Completed

No Fix Required

Rejected

Fixed Development

Budget Filings

Impact Profiles & Load Shapes

Data Tab

Accessibility

Design Upgrade

2026 Avoided Cost & SCT CET Release

2025 ADP Options

2025 Development Plan

2024 Development Plan

Top 12

The development tasks agreed to by the CPUC data reporting project coordination group. All tickets tagged 2026

Backlog

PCG Top Priority

Next Up

Development Plan 2026 

Using our feedback portal, you can:<ul><li>Share feedback to help us improve CEDARS and CET</li><li>Request new features</li><li>Submit bug reports</li><li>Ask questions not covered in the user guide or Help center articles</li></ul>

Give us feedback

Hey {name|there}! 👋

Cedars

Claim Spec 2026