[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6161274,"mediaKeyId","5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd","parentId",5442358,"title","Pacificorp presents 2025 IRP; company selects integrated \"base MN\" portfolio after stakeholder debate","audioSeconds",2798,"startMs",182000,"endMs",2980000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd&start=182&end=2980","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd/thumbnail_182000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6161274/Utah/Pacificorp-presents-2025-IRP-company-selects-integrated-base-MN-portfolio-after-stakeholder-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161274-ecfdc24824668bd611a42d792e5affb4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770459744&Signature=bVQpsgTPQa5XvATAwTX6TSnfdTr1BpSaKH-~WYbiO~8gHgYCPAK8~MyfhiIVxq8O4tAkTpnXBSVUaTsZocXyvElIrvLG7uRZGeOCYLqaRggTcSByUtV0P4EK9EqOEq0WccsoEsx7nry6p0saVpSnQj1WXsA~RBnUV6~k1XnH86PXLWPLMyih6b~Zlg61Kaz-c9fc6mzQkoWPO8vFnkllL97BHAFBRodDaN4n0Nnkl8yCbSxQQggI5oac0eBLaC7huUB~keTnyXhMphFwSwSIRk47hYRMKt6MDlm5KBqMDwPzK-HTqAMpcYjl-unev5gcNicxREBIoFG7CGdX8EeToA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-23T01:28:56.833Z","article","Pacificorp presented the company’s 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and Utah-specific chapters at a technical conference convened for state stakeholders. Pacificorp staff described the final IRP filing (March 31, 2025), said chapters 11–13 in the Utah filing reflect inputs locked as of Jan. 1, 2025, and identified the integrated base (medium-gas, no CO2 price) portfolio as the preferred portfolio.

Why it matters: the IRP sets proxy resource and transmission choices the company will use for near‑ and mid‑term planning and for certain regulatory processes in Utah. Stakeholders pressed Pacificorp about how jurisdictional portfolios (Utah/Idaho/Wyoming/California, Oregon, and Washington) were developed and how those jurisdictional results were combined into the systemwide integrated portfolio.

Pacificorp said the draft IRP was filed Dec. 31, 2024, and the final IRP was filed March 31. Pacificorp presenters explained the company expanded its horizon to 21 years (through 2045) to align with analyses required for Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act and to provide a common multi‑state planning horizon. Adam (Pacificorp IRP presenter) said, “This year for the first time, the IRP looked at 21 years instead of the traditional 20.”

Company explanation of Utah chapters: Pacificorp said chapters 11–13 in the Utah filing were prepared to comply with a commission order requiring a snapshot of inputs and assumptions as of Jan. 1, 2025. Randy Baker (Pacificorp IRP team) said the Utah chapters provide a record of the draft‑period assumptions and that chapters 8–10 of the final filing reflect the company’s view of how to proceed operationally. Baker told stakeholders, “I would say … I consider the March 31 to be more indicative of how we were planning to move forward.”

How the preferred portfolio was selected: Pacificorp described a multistep process. The company ran full‑system jurisdictional portfolios (each one a full‑system optimization constrained to meet specific jurisdictional policy requirements, for example Oregon or Washington emissions/energy rules), then integrated those jurisdictional results into an integrated portfolio and evaluated many variants under multiple price and policy futures and stochastic (historical weather/load) runs. Pacificorp applied a risk adjustment and an \"end effects\" adjustment to account for late‑horizon cost impacts (for example, treatment of expiring production tax credits) before ranking portfolios.

Stakeholder concerns and company response: multiple stakeholders and commission staff asked for more opportunity to review modeling steps, to see intermediate results earlier in the process, and to understand how the final portfolio choice was reached. Logan and others argued that selecting the final preferred portfolio late in the process reduced opportunities for public input. Pacificorp said timing constraints and the volume of scenarios limited how many late‑stage iterations could be exposed for comment and pledged to broaden input in the next IRP cycle.

What the IRP does not do: Pacificorp repeatedly stated the IRP is a planning exercise using proxy resources and assumptions locked at a date, not a procurement directive. The company said actual procurement decisions will use the latest available information and are not constrained by the IRP’s snapshot assumptions. Joe Dallas (Pacificorp) said the company is \"happy to evaluate anything that ... is put in front of us, as an opportunity,\" while cautioning that procurement is a separate process.

Ending: Pacificorp filed an extensive technical record and said it will continue outreach and data responses on the IRP. Stakeholders asked for additional transparency on the final selection step, and the company said it anticipates evolving the process for the 2027 IRP cycle to allow earlier and deeper public input.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are listed in the speakers section below; all direct quotations are attributed only to those speakers.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Technical Conference (25-035-22, PacifiCorp's IRP)","oneSentenceSummary","Pacificorp presented the company’s 2025 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and Utah-specific chapters and selected an integrated base (medium-gas, no CO2 price) portfolio as the company’s preferred plan, saying chapters 11–13 reflect a Jan. 1, 2025 snapshot of inputs.","taxTitle","Utah Public Service Commission, Utah Subcommittees, Commissions and Task Forces, Utah Legislative Branch, Utah","taxId",72399,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6161265,"Pacificorp IRP excludes many speculative large loads from optimization; stakeholders press company on tax credit window and procurement",3163,1847000,5010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd&start=1847&end=5010","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd/thumbnail_1847000.jpg","/articles/6161265/Utah/Pacificorp-IRP-excludes-many-speculative-large-loads-from-optimization-stakeholders-press-company-on-tax-credit-window-and-procurement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161265-5e08f13b0b50dec3236536ae93b54e1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770459744&Signature=JxXGd4diqfNA1-azhNNU-EkZ8-x7hz-8F316lrlf31uvPHFHgv0uZMyOKMwN8ncM9zElrYsLi2gPUhB1dVr9kj-rMwBK0KlzAqRk5jQjleLp8x-02wdDz6fzuq0w3gTmGIaeM5dHNtSgWm5diz2Q79n9Fo9IDb1Q9bhAC5W9diiT3KwqkRFqRrODqmQWrFMRWQfFrgLuXC0bIKy7rC8jzOJ6GQt2Y2aawQgPs0f~41e~jV2PZTD7HwJisR97la9pmgvzbT1JL~e~TDRAQA13k67nHu-3M1kotjRBmYvdgZ~RpD0y-Jbkzg8X2u4lYzQvqSEaSOOZXOnv00DtLsrkXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pacificorp told stakeholders that, for planning clarity and to avoid producing misleading market signals, its 2025 IRP optimization excluded many speculative large meter loads (such as data centers) that Pacificorp expects will be served through special contract or tariff processes.

Why it matters: large loads can materially change transmission and generation requirements. If large loads are modeled as part of system optimization, they can alter long‑lead transmission planning and change which resources are economic systemwide.

Company position: Pacificorp presenters explained the company treated highly uncertain large load proposals as a separate sensitivity rather than including them in the principal integrated optimization. Joe Dallas (Pacificorp) and other presenters said the company’s expectation—based on recent policy in Oregon and other jurisdictions—is that many large customers will need to bring or pay for dedicated resources and associated transmission, and that modeling them as general system resources could mislead market participants.

Stakeholder concerns: Commissioners and stakeholders said removing large loads from the primary IRP run can understate system resource needs (generation and transmission) and produce a deficient view of system benefits and least‑cost transmission alternatives. Stakeholders pointed to the IRP’s “large load” sensitivity, which included a near‑complete set of speculative large loads and showed substantially more transmission projects would be needed; stakeholders described that sensitivity as an extreme scenario and requested intermediate scenarios that reflect a more realistic pace of large load additions.

Tax credits and near‑term procurement: Several regulators and stakeholders asked whether the company is actively evaluating near‑term procurement to capture available federal tax credits (ITC/PTC) before rules or credit availability change. Pacificorp said the IRP is a snapshot and not a procurement directive but stated the company reviews actual project opportunities outside the IRP. Joe Dallas told stakeholders the company is considering opportunities but did not announce a specific procurement plan; stakeholders urged Pacificorp to evaluate near‑term buys because the tax credit window is time‑limited and could yield material customer savings.

Ending: Pacificorp committed to provide additional information via data requests and acknowledged it will continue to evaluate large load proposals and near‑term procurement opportunities outside the IRP snapshot. Stakeholders requested intermediate large‑load sensitivities and more transparency on expected market purchases and contracted resources.","Pacificorp said the core 2025 IRP optimization excluded many speculative large meter loads, treating them instead through separate tariff or special‑contract processes; stakeholders warned that omission can materially change transmission and generation outcomes.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6161270,"Transmission choices shaped by jurisdictional constraints; Gateway West timing questioned",505,3849000,4354000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd&start=3849&end=4354","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd/thumbnail_3849000.jpg","/articles/6161270/Utah/Transmission-choices-shaped-by-jurisdictional-constraints-Gateway-West-timing-questioned","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161270-9a216740f139be9730093e58f658a447/orig.mp4?Expires=1770459744&Signature=Ya7eZkl6KsiBa5kkRT9YJ~rBGpPRl8L9K6X02gpIWD35lFDob-8LThwsPWi4dMm6opFLMKSU4h2HnMPWCfSrqbgDC9VVyn3YrcNUPxj0vgm3GisIzSilmlQwQFH~vnPYgBRpiaGw-oabgBCznPPD2WIRgFhl8AjeXgHRKFtG~38oZFvl~T8X-ME9Tcy~-VZ805jenXeAZwV~1hBRmwbCbDrkwfaAeswn4l90v1yHNb83d2TDx2wB6gCISo-GAOizKIERmvoqLrh6BqWsjwJ1E9vnK00v2DwwnJvb4oYy5akw7KvNjTBpmaoaA7ZVrp6lLJv5ElsWUgQESrTnKk-2BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pacificorp’s technical presentation drew sustained stakeholder questioning about transmission planning and how the company decided where to locate new resources across its east and west footprints.

Why it matters: transmission siting determines which resources can reach which load centers, affects planning costs and lead times, and shapes whether renewable development occurs on the East or West side of the system.

What Pacificorp presented: the IRP identified roughly 4,250 megawatts (MW) of new transfer capability and 5,404 MW of new interconnection capacity needed across the Pacificorp service area. Pacificorp said most selected transmission and interconnection needs were associated with meeting jurisdictional requirements in Oregon and Washington.

Stakeholder questions: Commissioners and stakeholders repeatedly asked why the company’s integrated portfolio directs large new renewables and major transmission works to the West rather than relying on earlier east‑west projects such as Gateway West. Pacificorp explained that modeling constrained west‑side policy compliance (Oregon/Washington requirements) to be met by west‑side resources in the jurisdictional runs; when those jurisdictional results were integrated, the company then allowed the model to select transmission endogenously. Randy Baker (Pacificorp IRP team) said timing inputs (for example, Gateway West earliest availability in the modeling was 2037) and the jurisdictional constraints drove selections. Stakeholders asked why Gateway West could not be moved earlier to reduce the need for other western transmission builds; Pacificorp said transmission planning and project availability are determined via transmission studies and project development timelines.

Interconnection vs. transfer: Pacificorp clarified the difference between interconnection upgrades (to allow local resources to interconnect) and transfer capability (to move energy between regions). The company said many identified projects combine interconnection with transfer capability on a one‑for‑one basis, but some Central Oregon projects are exceptions.

What was unresolved: stakeholders asked for more detail on how transmission costs and allocations will be evaluated in subsequent regulatory filings. Pacificorp said transmission optimization after integration seeks system efficiency, but the company has not yet filed a cost‑allocation proposal for selected transmission and that allocation work is separate from the IRP modeling.

Ending: Stakeholders asked the company to explain Gateway West timing and to provide more detail on which transmission projects are strictly local upgrades versus system transfer projects. Pacificorp agreed to follow up in data requests and future stakeholder sessions.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are listed in the speakers section below; all direct quotations are attributed only to those speakers.","Stakeholders pressed Pacificorp on why the IRP shows large west‑side transmission builds and resource siting instead of earlier east‑west transfer upgrades such as Gateway West; Pacificorp said jurisdictional policy constraints (Oregon/Washington compliance) and modeling constraints drove selected transmission and timing.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6161260,"Utah action items in Pacificorp IRP include Natrium commercial agreement, community renewables RFP, efficiency commitments",165,10129000,10294000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd&start=10129&end=10294","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5442358-93c0f1c0cff632e596a7b2fb28ddbefd/thumbnail_10129000.jpg","/articles/6161260/Utah/Utah-action-items-in-Pacificorp-IRP-include-Natrium-commercial-agreement-community-renewables-RFP-efficiency-commitments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6161260-5fd21f7bc2de142708f61c1066d57e42/orig.mp4?Expires=1770459744&Signature=lIdtSiIsuIxqBP9-e7WTFvvE4~sSAQuhQMRA9MVSooUnemfq4~PwVDiIEnJB6VyyQyjfamL72xHiW7zdLg0prtqIEAML3QYxnZIPDVDHhKnk5tn1gkJgQ3YRWhMlo67lYHnSBUETUWHfDg6eFdne9oYYHdtJIbLzbdAoTPI~vf9kh54eaUW7eJ-fVBUArzP6IGEydA7k09Q6GMlFij4L948UjsG0A3ccByOesILjVehNA-zKl3vy-6rQu5a-C5YmVpOYKfIfAMDZ~xus72epK0RuAwPUkahBX1ny2uMNh105iH0YFikZjcgEz0bOpAQLZMNgeKoZgmc6vQSCx~BBSA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Pacificorp summarized Utah‑specific items it intends to pursue outside the IRP’s modeling results.

What Pacificorp said: the company said it expects by the end of 2025 to finalize a commercial agreement for the Natrium demonstration project consistent with Utah Code § 54‑17‑501. Pacificorp listed energy efficiency acquisitions (see IRP appendix D) and said it will continue to implement the Community Renewable Energy Program consistent with the Community Renewable Energy Act. Pacificorp reported it filed a Part 2 application for the community program in docket 2503506 and that an RFP for that program recently closed (bids due date mentioned in the meeting).

Why it matters: these are concrete near‑term actions that could have direct procurement, ownership and customer bill impacts in Utah. Stakeholders asked whether the company may acquire resources through the Community Renewable Energy Program RFP and whether other Utah procurement (for example, east‑side RFPs or purchases) will be pursued to capture tax credit value.

Regulatory and statutory references: Pacificorp identified the Utah statute 54‑17‑501 as governing the Natrium procurement process in Utah and noted the Community Renewable Energy Act procedures and the company’s docket filing (No. 2503506) for program approval and implementation.

Stakeholder requests and next steps: stakeholders asked the company to provide clarifications by data request about (a) whether the company may own resources procured through the community RFP, (b) whether schedule 37/38 avoided‑cost calculations will rely on the Utah chapters or the systemwide chapters 1–10 when conflicts exist, and (c) whether the company will pursue near‑term procurement to capture federal tax credits. Pacificorp said procurement actions would be considered when opportunities arise and that the IRP update will incorporate any changes that occur in the interim.

Ending: Pacificorp said these Utah action items will proceed through the normal regulatory and program approval processes and listed appendices and dockets where stakeholders can find additional technical details.","Pacificorp highlighted Utah‑specific action items in the IRP: (1) intention to finalize a commercial agreement for the Natrium demonstration project in a manner consistent with Utah statute 54‑17‑501; (2) continued work on a Community Renewable Energy Program (application filed in docket 2503506); and (3) acquisition","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Pacificorp presents 2025 IRP; company selects integrated "base MN" portfolio after stakeholder debate

Pacificorp IRP excludes many speculative large loads from optimization; stakeholders press company on tax credit window and procurement

Transmission choices shaped by jurisdictional constraints; Gateway West timing questioned

Utah action items in Pacificorp IRP include Natrium commercial agreement, community renewables RFP, efficiency commitments