Tickets tagged with “Impact Profiles &amp; Load Shapes”

Backlog

Next up

In Progress

In Testing

Done

Load Shapes & Impact Profiles

As a consultant to the CPUC, DNV is leading the effort to create a library of deemed measure load shapes on CEDARS. This is needed to enable the measure package developers and PAs to upload 2-3 load shapes for each deemed measure permutation in the eTRM for PY2028. These load shapes will be used to determine the quarterly avoided costs for each deemed measure claim as an input to the CET. It will be important to leverage the viewing/calculation capabilities that were developed for the impact profile library. We think there will also be a need to have a second sandbox library that would enable measure package developers to upload load shapes pertinent to a given measure package in preparation for their CET runs. This will need to be ready for use by measure package developers by mid-late spring 2026.&nbsp;This effort is intended to enable the replacement of the legacy DEER load shapes--many of which may no longer accurately represent the hourly distribution of savings--to improve the accuracy of the TSB and TRC of deemed measure.<img data-width="100%" data-align="left" data-featurebase-content-key="64defea38b15fc2614cb036f/static/01994059-b3bf-78ad-b610-1091ca66a817/ss-01994059-b3bf-78ad-b610-1091ca66a817.png" src="https://64defea38b15fc2614cb036f.featurebase-attachments.com/c/static/01994059-b3bf-78ad-b610-1091ca66a817/ss-01994059-b3bf-78ad-b610-1091ca66a817.png?X-Amz-Expires=3600&amp;X-Amz-Date=20260827T000000Z&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Credential=DO801TYC4FCVNNEKURKM%2F20260827%2Ffra1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Signature=ea8c5e0580deadd96243dbf816a384b6144ae5c450f62d61e41da19e213338e3" data-featurebase-content-filename="ss-01994059-b3bf-78ad-b610-1091ca66a817.png">

Completed

Impact Profiles & Load Shapes

2026

Deemed Measure Load Shape Repository

rachel.murray@dnv.com

As a Measure Package Developer, I want CEDARS and eTRM to consistently handle revisions to draft measure packages that affect load shape identifying fields, so that I can update measure package permutations during review without creating duplicate, orphaned, or incorrectly associated load shapes.<h3 style="text-align: start">Description </h3>Measure developers regularly update draft measure packages throughout the ex-ante review process. These updates may change fields that are currently used by CEDARS to identify, match, and reuse load shapes. Example:<ul><li>A measure developer updates one or more load shape-related permutation fields in eTRM (e.g. TechID, Building Type, Building Vintage, HVAC Type, Climate Zone).</li><li>The updated measure package may no longer match the previously uploaded load shape records.</li></ul>The current MVP supports re-uploading load shapes when a measure is re-modeled and assumes replacement based on load shape identifying fields. However, the long-term versioning strategy between eTRM measure package revisions and CEDARS load shape records has not been defined.

Load Shapes – Version control between eTRM & Cedars

cedars team

In the March 5 PCG meeting it came up that we may benefit from adding a new user type in CEDARS for users to upload load shapes but not have access to the other PA data reporting tools.New CEDARS user type: PA_MeasureDeveloperGranted community user privileges plus upload load shapes.<h2>Page permissions</h2>Load shape library: Public accessView load shape graphs: Public accessAdd a new load shape: Any PA userLoad shape upload history: Any PA user (Can only see own PA’s uploads)<h3 style="text-align: start">Permission Matrix</h3><table style="minWidth: 50px"><colgroup><col><col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Feature</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1">Access</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">Load Shape Library</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">Authenticated Users</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">View Load Shape Details &amp; Graphs</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">Authenticated Users</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">Add New Load Shape</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">PA Admin, PA Ordinary, PA Measure Developer</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">View Load Shape Upload History</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">PA Admin, PA Ordinary, PA Measure Developer (Assigned PA only)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">Generate Load Shape Derived Impact Profiles</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">PA Admin, PA Ordinary, PA Measure Developer</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">Add Custom Impact Profiles</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">PA Admin, PA Ordinary</td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">Edit Custom Impact Profiles</td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 6px 13px; border: 1px solid var(--borderColor-default,var(--color-border-default));">PA Admin, PA Ordinary</td></tr></tbody></table>

Load Shape - Add a new user type for PA staff to upload load shapes

Jennifer Scheuerell

Impact Profile generation may enter an invalid state when processing encounters an error. Users may be unable to retry generation, with uploads remaining marked as processing, or incorrectly report that Impact Profiles have already been generated.<ul><li>Generation fails due to missing or invalid required data.</li><li>Upload may remain in a “busy” state indefinitely.</li><li>Users cannot re-run Impact Profile generation after correcting the issue.</li><li>The system may incorrectly report that Impact Profiles already exist when the generation did not complete successfully.</li></ul> Expected Behavior<ul><li>Failed generation attempts should be rolled back cleanly.</li><li>Users should be able to retry generation once the underlying issue is resolved.</li><li>Existing Impact Profiles should be detected only when the generation completes successfully.</li></ul> Investigation<ul><li>Review generation error handling and rollback logic.</li><li>Verify that the processing status is correctly updated after failures.</li><li>Verify that the generated profile checks do not treat failed attempts as successful.</li><li>Review queue handling when multiple uploads and generation requests are processed concurrently.</li><li>For the production uploads already affected, we need to identify them, reset them, allow regeneration, and notify users.</li></ul>

Load Shape – Impact profile generation can become Stuck After Errors

After this is done we can allow users to upload multiple files.

Add PA-specific queues to PAs don't get in each others way in the load shape library

No Fix Required

Allow measure developers to upload more than one load shape 8760 file at a time

I believe this is a known issue but we did not think that any measure packages getting the deemed load shapes would have Any in these fields.Nicholas Fette of Solaris reported an error during CEDARS upload for a measure with BldgType=Any and BldgHVAC=Any in eTRM (SWCR021)

Any BldgType and Any BldgHVAC error in Load Shapes

spencer.lipp@futee.biz

Certain avoided cost combinations are not being generated in CEDARS after load shape uploads, resulting in CET runs failing when measures reference those missing combinations.Henry reported a CET run failure and traced the issue to a missing avoided cost combination:<code>Gro*Ex*cDXGF*NE-Ref_Storage-RefrigFrz-GlassDoor-Cooler*NE-Ref_Storage-RefrigFrz-OpenCase-Cooler</code> The associated load shapes appear to have been uploaded successfully and are present in the system. However, the expected avoided cost combination was not generated and therefore cannot be referenced during CET processing.<h2 style="text-align: start">Expected Behavior</h2>When load shapes are uploaded and processed successfully, and the user generates the impact profile Cedars should generate all valid avoided cost combinations derived from the uploaded load shapes.<h2 style="text-align: start">Actual Behavior</h2>Some avoided cost combinations are missing despite the source load shapes existing in the system. As a result:<ul><li>CET runs that depend on the missing combination fail.</li><li>Users are unable to complete cost-effectiveness analysis for affected measures.</li><li>The issue may impact additional permutation combinations beyond the specific example reported.</li></ul><h2 style="text-align: start"></h2>

Missing Avoided Cost Combination from Generated from Load Shapes

Henry reported a server error occurring after the system successfully completes the eTRM validation step on <code>cedars-2</code>. This issue is preventing Henry from being able to prepare documentation for a training session later in the week.<blockquote>FYI, I tried it a few times and watching it closely it made a server error after successfully validating the eTRM portion.</blockquote>The upload progresses through eTRM validation without issue, but then fails with a server error. Draft Measure Package: <code>Medium or Low-Temperature Display Case With Doors</code><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://cedars-2.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/deemed-load-shapes/upload/6/qc-summary/">https://cedars-2.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/deemed-load-shapes/upload/6/qc-summary/</a> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://cedars-2.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/deemed-load-shapes/upload/5/qc-summary/">https://cedars-2.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/deemed-load-shapes/upload/5/qc-summary/</a> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://cedars-2.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/deemed-load-shapes/upload/4/qc-summary/">https://cedars-2.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/deemed-load-shapes/upload/4/qc-summary/</a>

Load Shapes – Investigate Server Error on Cedars-2 After Successful eTRM Validation

The Load Shapes upload page should better handle scenarios where no valid draft Measure Packages are available by providing clear guidance to the user.<h3 style="text-align: start">Add Load Shapes - <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class="link" href="https://cedars-2.cpuc.ca.gov/impact-profiles/deemed-load-shapes/add/">1/2 Select Measure Package</a></h3><pre><code>There are no valid Draft Measure Packages available for your Program Administrator.

This may occur because:
- The available draft Measure Packages contain data that could not be processed during the eTRM sync.
- The Measure Packages have a start year earlier than 2027.

What to do next:
- Confirm that the required Measure Package exists in eTRM.
- Check that the Measure Package start year is 2027 or later.
- If the issue persists, contact the eTRM team or CEDARS support.</code></pre>

Add guidance on Load shape upload page when no measure packages are available

Per request to align with the energy plus post processing script

Planned

Remove NormUnit from load shape 8760 upload specification

As a Measure Developer or Program Administrator, I want clear documentation explaining how to use the Load Shape Library tool, so that I can correctly prepare, upload, load shapes.

Load Shape User Guide

Allow measure packages to share load shapes

Lake Casco

Some eTRM records may reference a <code>draft_measure_package_id</code> that does not have a corresponding draft Measure Package record. When this occurs:<ul><li>Skip the affected Measure Package and continue syncing valid Measure Packages.</li><li>Show the skipped Measure Package on the eTRM Sync History page being released as part of <span data-type="mention" class="dark:bg-border bg-[#E9ECF1] px-1 py-0.5 text-sm shadow-none rounded-lg" data-id="6a397d5d9462df3d993d7e4d-post" data-label="Improve eTRM Sync Resilience for Invalid Measure Package Data">@Improve eTRM Sync Resilience for Invalid Measure Package Data .</li><li>Include the reason it was skipped, for example: <code>draft_measure_package_id</code> referenced in <code>impact_profiles_latestpermutation</code> was not found in <code>impact_profiles_draftmeasurepackage</code>.</li></ul>

eTRM Sync – Skip Measure Packages with Missing Draft References

As a Measure Developer uploading deemed load shape 8760s, I want to see which Impact Profiles were generated, updated, or reused so that I can understand what impact profiles were generated or failed, and identify any existing impact profiles that were replaced.Following a load shape upload and Impact Profile generation, Measure Developers currently have limited visibility into what processing occurred.Users cannot easily determine:<ul><li>Which Impact Profiles were newly generated</li><li>Which Impact Profiles failed to generate</li><li>If possible why they failed to generate</li><li>Which IOU AC territories and climate zones were impacted</li><li>Whether existing Impact Profiles were replaced by the upload</li></ul>This lack of transparency makes it difficult for users to validate processing outcomes, troubleshoot issues, and understand the downstream impacts of their uploads.The summary should support partial success scenarios where some Impact Profiles generate successfully while others fail.Processing failures should only roll back the affected Impact Profiles and should preserve any unrelated or previously existing data. Related to bug ticket:<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc" class="link" href="https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/load-shape-impact-profile-generation-can-become-stuck-after-errors">https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/load-shape-impact-profile-generation-can-become-stuck-after-errors</a>Related to ticket around better visibility and traceability between eTRM and CEDARS:<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc" class="link" href="https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/load-shapes-improve-traceability-and-visibility-of-load-shape-techid">https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/load-shapes-improve-traceability-and-visibility-of-load-shape-techid</a><h1 style="text-align: start"> Proposed Improvement</h1>Introduce an Impact Profile generation summary, using the existing Claims QC Summary pattern as the UX model, to provide users with clear visibility into processing outcomes.The summary should display:<ul><li>Impact Profiles successfully generated</li><li>Existing Impact Profiles updated</li><li>Existing Impact Profiles reused with no changes</li><li>Impact Profiles that failed to generate</li><li>Associated IOU service territories</li><li>Associated climate zones</li></ul>

Improve visibility of Impact Profile generation outcomes for Load Shape uploads

Currently load shapes are overwritten when re-uploaded.The generated impact profiles should be replaced.<h2>Background</h2>Measure Developers may need to update previously submitted load shapes due to:<ul><li>Corrections to uploaded data</li><li>Changes to eTRM permutations or assumptions</li><li>Re-running simulations with updated modeling inputs</li><li>QC findings identified after initial upload</li></ul>Currently, CEDARS allows users to re-upload load shape files, which replaces the underlying load shape data. However, any previously generated Impact Profiles remain locked and cannot be recalculated. This can result in inconsistencies between the latest load shape data and the Impact Profiles and avoided cost combinations being used downstream.In addition, users currently receive an error when attempting to regenerate Impact Profiles that have already been generated:<blockquote>“Impact profiles have already been generated for the load shapes in this upload. Existing impact profiles cannot be recalculated.”</blockquote>This limitation prevents Measure Developers from correcting or updating previously submitted data.<h2>Proposed Enhancement</h2>Allow users to replace previously uploaded load shapes and regenerate associated Impact Profiles and avoided cost combinations so that CEDARS reflects the latest approved data.The enhancement should:<ul><li>Permit replacement of existing load shapes for a draft measure package.</li><li>Allow existing Impact Profiles to be removed and regenerated from the updated load shapes.</li><li>Provide transparency and safeguards to prevent unintended overwrites.</li></ul>

Allow users to replace previously uploaded load shapes, impact profiles, and avoided costs

It takes hours sometimes and we don’t want users to have to keep coming back to cedars to check if the job has completed.

Add email notification when load shape derived impact profile generation completes

CEDARS synchronizes draft Measure Package data from eTRM to support Load Shapes uploads. We have encountered Measure Packages containing data that does not meet the assumptions required for processing within CEDARS. Examples include unexpected data formats, and invalid baseline data used for load shape calculations. Because CEDARS does not control the quality or completeness of data maintained in eTRM, additional handling is needed to ensure that a single problematic Measure Package does not prevent the synchronization of all other valid Measure Packages.<h2 style="text-align: start">Problem</h2>Currently, when invalid or unexpected data is encountered during synchronization, the entire sync process can fail. This creates several issues:<ul><li>Valid Measure Packages may not be synchronized into CEDARS.</li><li>Users have limited visibility into which Measure Packages caused the failure.</li><li>Troubleshooting requires investigation by development teams rather than providing actionable information to users and measure developers.</li></ul><h2 style="text-align: start"> Proposed Solution</h2>Enhance the synchronization process to be more resilient when invalid Measure Package data is encountered. When a Measure Package cannot be processed:<ul><li>The sync should continue processing all remaining Measure Packages.</li><li>The problematic Measure Package should be excluded from synchronization.</li><li>The user should be informed which Measure Packages were excluded.</li><li>A clear reason for the exclusion should be provided where possible.</li><li>The system should support a broad range of validation failures and unexpected data conditions, rather than only handling known examples.</li></ul>

Improve eTRM Sync Resilience for Invalid Measure Package Data

Reported by: Sepi (split out from <a target="" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://cpuccedars.featurebase.app/p/swwh014-09-workaround-when-base-and-measure-case-use-the">SWWH014-09</a>)Technical confirmation needed. Follow-up discussion should be posted in this ticket, not email, so it's visible to all stakeholders.

Confirm impact profile generation logic for identical load shapes with differing UECs

Request to remove load shapes related to SWSV014-06-Draft  Lifecycle Refrigerant Management, Residential

Request to Remove Existing Impact Profiles - SWHC046 Packaged Heat Pump Air Conditioner Commercial, Fuel Substitution

This would eliminate the need to pre-calculate impact profiles for every possible combination of load shapes in advance. This would also allow dual baseline measures to use the correct impact profile for the early retirement phase and the above standard phase of their measure, instead of having to use one impact profile for both baselines as the CET works currently.

In Review

Allow users to reference load shapes in their CET input data instead of impact profiles

It would be useful to add two separate functions to the load shape library for current/future users, particularly if the functionality of the load shape process allows for load shapes to be used between measure package (as is planned).First, it would be good to be able to export the library table itself as a csv or excel file. We have thousands of load shapes now, and searching/filtering in the current table can be challenging. Being able to export to excel and review there would be helpful.Second, being able to export the actual hourly data for a specific load shape in the library. This would be important for users who want to adopt load shapes between measure packages, or use them for other purposes, such as billing impact or other hourly analysis.

Provide Export Functions of Load Shapes Library

As a measure developer, I want to download the validation report in a portable format (CSV, Excel, text, or PDF), so that I can document issues, share errors with stakeholders, and track corrections across multiple upload attempts. Acceptance Criteria:<ul><li>A download button is available on the validation results page</li><li>Supported formats include at least one of: CSV, Excel (.xlsx)</li><li>The downloaded file includes all validation errors shown on screen</li><li>The filename reflects the upload session </li><li>The download is available immediately after validation completes and does not require re-running the validation</li></ul>

Load Shape - Downloadable validation report

As a Measure Developer, I want CEDARS to recognise baseline technology information separately from measure technology information so that I can upload baseline load shapes using their correct Tech Group and Tech Type values.<h2 style="text-align: start">Background</h2> CEDARS currently only synchronise the measure case Tech Group and Tech Type from eTRM permutations. As a result, both measure and baseline load shapes are expected to use the measure case values during upload. For example:<ul><li>Measure: <code>SWWH031-07</code></li><li>Measure Tech Type: <code>HP_COP</code></li><li>Baseline Tech Type: <code>Stor_UEF</code></li></ul> Although the Tech ID correctly identifies the baseline technology, uploads currently fail unless the baseline load shape is generated using <code>HP_COP</code>. This behaviour has caused user confusion and ongoing troubleshooting effort.

To Be Considered

Support Baseline Tech Group and Tech Type in Load Shape Uploads

Jake (PGE) noted that “When generating, the graph gets wonky (turns super long). Reloading - or changing the drop down - fixes it but maybe something that can be done later to make it look like that from the start (or force reload at the end). This should be low priority.”

Design Upgrade

Quarterly Avoided Cost graph is wonky while generating

As a Measure Developer, I want to see proportion UEC values when selecting a Measure Package so that I can confirm I am uploading load shapes against the correct eTRM version.<h3 style="text-align: start">Description</h3>Multiple versions of the same Measure Package can appear in CEDARS following draft commits or discards in eTRM. The current Measure Package Values table does not display UEC proportion values, making it difficult to determine which version should be used.Selecting the wrong version may result in Impact Profiles and Avoided Cost Combinations being generated using outdated savings assumptions.

Display UEC proportion values when selecting draft measure package

Currently the development team can change user types to measure developers. This ticket would allow users to self-register. As a user involved in measure development, I want to register for a PA Measure Developer account and have my access request approved, so that I can upload load shapes and generate impact profiles

PA Measure Developer registration flow

As part of the first step of replacing an impact profile user would also like to be able to change the Source Impact Type for the replacement profile.<img data-width="100%" data-align="left" alt="" data-featurebase-content-key="64defea38b15fc2614cb036f/post/69d475ce835057275847489b/019d65eb-97e5-78cd-9d01-e647012eaf49/b64u-MSBSZXBsYWNlIEltcGFjdCBQcm9maWxlIGVtcHR5LmpwZw.jpeg" data-featurebase-content-filename="1 Replace Impact Profile empty.jpg" src="https://64defea38b15fc2614cb036f.featurebase-attachments.com/c/post/69d475ce835057275847489b/019d65eb-97e5-78cd-9d01-e647012eaf49/b64u-MSBSZXBsYWNlIEltcGFjdCBQcm9maWxlIGVtcHR5LmpwZw.jpeg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&amp;X-Amz-Date=20260827T000000Z&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Credential=DO801TYC4FCVNNEKURKM%2F20260827%2Ffra1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Signature=e364d6e9cbe810743ba2e7399f22859e8d67836f5543f2d255f4191baea8ac7d">

Replace Impact Profile - Change Source Impact Type

Climate Zone colors are currently getting repeated. These colors should be different so that users can easily compare and distinguish the data from each other.<img data-width="100%" data-align="left" alt="" data-featurebase-content-key="64defea38b15fc2614cb036f/post/69cd937525082f8c436a64dd/019d4b04-6b38-73b4-952f-d04147c627a9/b64u-U2NyZWVuc2hvdCAyMDI2LTA0LTAxIGF0IDIuNDcuNDPigK9QTS5wbmc.png" data-featurebase-content-filename="Screenshot 2026-04-01 at 2.47.43 PM.png" src="https://64defea38b15fc2614cb036f.featurebase-attachments.com/c/post/69cd937525082f8c436a64dd/019d4b04-6b38-73b4-952f-d04147c627a9/b64u-U2NyZWVuc2hvdCAyMDI2LTA0LTAxIGF0IDIuNDcuNDPigK9QTS5wbmc.png?X-Amz-Expires=3600&amp;X-Amz-Date=20260827T000000Z&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Credential=DO801TYC4FCVNNEKURKM%2F20260827%2Ffra1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Signature=e9eea7bcca6626c95de767e5dd5685044699e7dd8ba3607d0c00ac683439b359">

Accessibility

Update Impact Profiles Quarterly Avoided Cost chart colors

DEER Impact Profiles have repeated hours (example: DEER HVAC Chillers repeats 1708 rather than following the hour_of_year format 1-8760. Presumably this was for daylight savings time but I had though we agreed with DNV that the profiles should follow the 1-8760 format like the ACC does.

Impact Profile Library - DEER Impact Profiles have repeated hours

jake.richardson@pge.com

As a Measure Developer, I want a supported way to use the same modeled load shape data across Existing and New vintages, so that CET can successfully run impact profiles where the modeled energy results are intentionally the same across vintages.Sophiya reported an issue with SWWH014-09 Heat Pump Water Heater, Residential. The CET run failed because an Impact Profile ID was not available for the New vintage for some measures.Following further clarification, the issue is not that the base and measure case use the same load shape.For SWWH014-09:<ul><li>Normal Replacement (NR / Existing) and New Construction (NC / New) have the same modeled savings and load shapes.</li><li>eTRM permutations include both Existing (<code>Ex</code>) and New (<code>New</code>) vintages, resulting in expected Load Shape / Impact Profile IDs for both.</li><li>The underlying modeling was only run for the NR / Existing building configuration. The NR energy results were then also used for the NC permutations in eTRM because the water heating measure was not expected to be affected by differences between the building vintages.</li><li>As a result, the generated 8760 files only contain Load Shape IDs associated with the Existing (<code>Ex</code>) vintage.</li><li>The corresponding New (<code>New</code>) vintage Load Shape IDs are therefore not included in the uploaded load shape files.</li><li>CET fails when processing the NC permutations because the expected New vintage Impact Profiles cannot be generated from the uploaded data.</li></ul>Note we have a ticket in the backlog to @Allow measure packages to share load shapes

In Testing Queue

SWWH014-09: Workaround for NR and NC permutations sharing the same load shape

Help Center

Improved

Fixed

Specification

Claims

Monthly Reports

Budget Filing

Security

Documents

Data & Reports

Programs

Impact Profiles

Load Shapes

cpuccedars

On Hold

PCG Top Priority 

2026 Fixed Development

Rejected

2027

2028

Fixed Development

Top 12

2026 Claim Spec Update Queue

Claim Spec

2026 CET Update Queue

Budget Filings

Data Tab

Download

Dashboard

Reports & Documents

2027 CET Update Queue

2027 Claim Spec Update Queue

2028 Claim Spec Update Queue

Otter

Accounts & Admin

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

PCG Top Priority

Development Plan 2026 

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>

2028 Claim Specification Update

2027 Claim Specification Update

Claims Backlog

2026 Claims Specification Update

Claim Spec 2026

Show’s development tickets with due dates by month.

Monthly Roadmap

Fix to be Verified

UAT Feedback

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>