Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Integrated Resource Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

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

5442358 · July 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

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.

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.