Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transmission Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transmission choices shaped by jurisdictional constraints; Gateway West timing questioned
Summary
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.
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.
