Siemens study: balanced 'reference' portfolio best fits Logan’s cost–renewables tradeoffs; city may need ~40 MW more to meet 2030 goal

Siemens PTI presented an integrated resource plan (IRP) to the Logan City Council and two advisory boards on Feb. 15, outlining four candidate generation portfolios and the projected cost, capacity and emissions tradeoffs over a 20‑year planning horizon.

The consulting team said the IRP is meant as a roadmap, not a fixed procurement plan, and recommended a ‘‘reference’’ portfolio as the most balanced option between affordability, sustainability and reliability. ‘‘It’s a road map, but it’s also a living document,’’ a Siemens presenter said, urging periodic updates as market conditions and technology costs change.

Why it matters: Logan officials face both an internal target to increase renewable generation (presenters modeled a 50% renewable target by 2030 in the baseline scenario) and practical limits on how much renewable energy can be counted as Logan’s own when power is sold into—and bought from—regional markets. Presenters told the council the reference portfolio adds about 205 megawatts of supply (roughly 100 MW solar, 45 MW wind and 60 MW storage in the reference case) through the study horizon; a more aggressive candidate portfolio would add about 245 MW and incur higher fixed capital costs.

Key findings and tradeoffs: Siemens said the most capital‑intensive portfolio delivers the highest renewable content but comes with the largest fixed‑cost burden; the study’s net‑present‑value (NPV) comparisons showed differences across portfolios that presenters described as material but not orders of magnitude. Presenters and staff discussed multiple cost figures on the slides and in the discussion, including an example figure of roughly $300 million cited in the meeting as a 20‑year cost basis for the generation portfolio, and a stated cross‑portfolio difference of about $47 million over 20 years (which the presenters and council described as roughly $2–2.5 million per year).

Scope limits: Siemens emphasized the IRP focused on supply‑side optimization and did not include institutional transmission costs or city distribution/transformer upgrades. City staff warned transmission and interconnection charges, and the local costs to receive and dispatch power, will affect the total delivered cost beyond the IRP’s supply‑side NPV.

Emissions and accounting effects: The IRP scorecard weighed affordability most heavily (50% in the example weighting discussed), with sustainability and reliability receiving smaller shares. Presenters cautioned that contractual "must‑run" units and market accounting practices reduce the study’s ability to show large direct emissions declines inside Logan: when the city sells renewable energy into the market and later buys replacement power, those exported megawatts may not count as Logan’s own emissions reductions.

Transmission, queue and developer dynamics: Staff and councilors discussed examples of projects that stalled or were resold to higher‑paying buyers in other states. The presentation and participants cited transmission interconnection queue delays and capacity constraints administered by the regional transmission provider (Rocky Mountain Power) as a major barrier to bringing new renewable projects online for Logan.

What council members asked: Elected officials sought clarity on the assumptions and the annual budget implications. One council member asked, ‘‘So at minimum, we need another 40 megawatts?’’ in reference to the difference between counting market purchases as renewable content versus adding on‑system capacity; presenters agreed that about 40 MW of additional local capacity would be needed to hit the 50% target if market purchases are not counted as renewable content.

Next steps: Presenters and staff said the IRP should be used to inform project evaluation, refine advisory‑board targets and weigh procurement options (direct ownership vs. power purchase agreements). The consultant reiterated that the IRP should be updated periodically as technology, market prices and transmission conditions change.

Attribution: Direct quotes and attributions in this article come from speakers identified during the presentation and Q&A (Siemens PTI presenters, Mark Montgomery and members of the Logan City Council and advisory boards). The council and advisory boards did not take formal votes in this session; the meeting concluded with thanks to the presenters and a plan to use the IRP as a planning tool going forward.

Ending: Council staff said they will use the IRP results to evaluate upcoming proposals and to advise future rate or procurement discussions; the IRP will be revisited as assumptions change.