Skip to main content

New validation for Dual Baseline measures

Feature Request20262026 Claim Spec Update QueueClaim SpecFixed Development

Problem that this solves:
In the Energy Division’s review of quarterly claims, they often see dual baseline measures where the second baseline costs are missing.

What we’d like it to do:

  • Enforce that an AR claim must have a nonzero incremental cost if there are nonzero savings in the 2nd baseline.

  • If a dual baseline measure has a saving populated, then 2nd baseline costs must be populated.

Fields:
Measure.UnitkW2ndBaseline
Measure.UnitkWh2ndBaseline
Measure.UnitTherm2ndBaseline
Measure.UnitkWhIOUWater2ndBaseline
Measure.UnitMeaCost2ndBaseline

Validation:
If 2nd second baseline energy savings are populated, then 2nd baseline costs must be > 0

Select the module in CEDARS
Posted by cedars team ·
Status: Completed4 comments

Log in to comment and vote

Comments4

  • cedars team

    Team•

    Mar 18

    •

    Merged request

    •

    2 votes

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

    NMEC projects are excluded. Are there additional exemptions?

  • Jake Richardson (PG&E)

    Team•

    Mar 18

    Validation should be (if 2nd second baseline energy savings are populated then 2nd baseline costs must be > 0). You cannot rely on MAT like AR to trigger this, as we can do to-code AR that has no second baseline savings or costs.

  • Amy Reardon

    •

    Mar 5

    In Energy Division’s review of quarterly claims, we often see dual baseline measures where the second baseline costs are missing. We would like a validation on all dual baseline measures that says “If [dual baseline measure] then 2nd baseline costs must be populated.” We can discuss edge cases with the PAs when we fine tune the requirements. Thanks!