HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210930Supplemental Filing.pdfROCKY MOUNTAIN
FOWER
September 30,2021
ri I C I lV fC .rlo7 wNorth Tempte, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
:r?,SlP 30 pH tr: rr?
'. r:: l.-i .,
. : :, ,'i ,;.:-;;ii.uiEsroru
VU ELECTRONIC FILING
AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
I l33l W Chinden Blvd
Building 8 Suite 20lA
Boise,Idaho, 83714
RE: CASE NO. PAC-Ean.lg - PACIHCORP'S APPLICATION FOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THEaO2I INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAI\I
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
As a supplement to the 2021 lntegrated Resource Plan (IRP), PacifiCorp has prepared the
enclosed analysis detailing sensitivity cases. In addition to the studies developed as part of the
portfolio-development process supporting selection of the preferred portfolio, additional
sensitivity cases were conducted to better understand how certain modeling assumptions
influence the resource mix and timing of future resource additions. These sensitivity cases are
useful in understanding how PacifiCorp's resource plan would be affected by changes to
uncertain planning assumptions and to address how altemative resources and planning paradigms
affect system costs and risk. The information presented in the sensitivity cases does not impact
the preferred portfolio or other top-performing portfolios presented in PacifiCorp's IRP filing.
Per the Company's transmittal letter accompanying the September l, 2021 IRP filing, PacifiCorp
has scheduled a post-IRP filing public-input meeting for October l, 2021 to provide an
opportunity for stakeholder discussion on the organization of the workpapers on the data discs
and results of the sensitivity studies.
The Company also provides the enclosed data discs, replacing those provided with the
September 15, 2021 filing. The data discs contain both confidential and non-confidential
workpapers supporting the analyses included in the 2021 IRP, corrected and augmented as
follows:
The following two files for Appendix K were provided on the confidential (CONF) disc, but are
non-confidential and have been moved to the non-confidential Appendix K folder:o Kl K2 Cap Contribution of Wind and Solar.xlsx. Kl K2 Wind and solar correlation figures 2021 04 22 CONF.xlsm
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
September 30,2021
Page2
By oversight, the following three confidential files for Appendix K were not previously
provided, but have now been provided in the Appendix K folder on the confidential data disc:o 2030 ENS results index 13668 - storage duration CONF.xlsbo 2030 ENS results index 13668 CONF.xlsbo Resource Capacity Contribution 2030 CONF.xlsb
The ST Cost Summary workpapers were found to have formula errors resulting in incorrect
values being reported. All ST Cost Summary workpapers have been replaced with corrected
workpapers. This was the result of a reporting error only and this correction to workpapers does
not change any values reported in the published 2021 IRP or associated analysis.
All formal correspondence and data requests regarding this filing should be addressed as follows:
By E-mail (preferred):datareq uest@pac i fi corp.com
irp@pacificorp.conr
ted.weston@pacifi corp.com
emi ly.we gener@pacifi corp.com
By regular mail:Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Informal inquiries, including requests to receive a copy of the 2021 IRP filing or non-disclosure
agreement, may be directed to Ted Weston, Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager, at (801) 220-
2963.
PacifiCorp appreciates the time and effort Idaho participants have dedicated to helping the
Company develop its 2021 IRP.
Sincerely
"^-D
Vice President, Regulation
Enclosures
Jim Yost, Idaho Governor's Office (without enclosures)
Benjamin Otto, Idaho Conservation League (without enclosures)
Mark Stokes, Idaho Power Company (without enclosures)
Teri Carlock, Idaho Public Utilities Commission staff (without enclosures)
Randall Budge, (Monsanto) (without enclosures)
Nancy Kelly, Western Resource Advocates (without enclosures)
cc
PecmrCoRp - 2021 IRP SrNstrtvtrv - Mopsr-rNc Rrsulrs
Tasrp oF CoNTENTS
ADDITIONAT SENSITIVIW ANATYSIS 1
1P-02 SENStTtVrry CASES (OPTTMTZED COAr RETTREMENTSI
HrGH LOAD GROWTH SENSITTV|TY (S-01),..2
LOW LOAD GROWTH SENSIIVITY (S-02)............
1-rN-20 roAD GROWTH SENSTTTVTTY (S-03)
ALTOWANCE OF NEW PROXY GAS (S-04)
BUSTNESS PLAN SENSTTIVITY (S-05)
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
HIGH PRIVATE GENERATION SENSITIVITY (S-07)
LOW PRTVATE GENERATTON SENSIMTY (S-08)
BAU 1 SENSTTTVITY CASES (END-OF-U FE COAI RETTREMENTSI ...........
HrGH rOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-01) .............
LOW LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVIW (S-02)...............
1-rN-20 toAD GROWTH SENSTTTVTTY (S-03)
ALLOWANCE OF PROXYGAS UNDER BAUl-MM (S-04)............
7
.9
10
.15
.L7
19
20
....19
10
11
L2
13
14
22
23
24
HtGH PRTVATE GENERATION SENSIIVITY (S-07)
row PR|VATE GENERATTON SENSTTTVTTY (S-08),
BAU2 SENSTTIVITY CASES (2019 IRP COAI RETTREMENTS)........... ..........18
HrGH rOAD GROWTH SENSTTTVTTY (S-01)
LOW LOAD GROWTH SENSTTTVTTY (S-02).
1-rN-20 LOAD GROWTH SENSTTTVTTY (S-03)
ALLOWANCE OF PROXYGAS UNDER BAU2-MM (S-04)............ .............21
BUSTNESS PLAN SENSIIVIW (S-05)
LCOE ENERGY EFFTCTENCY (5-06)
HrGH PRTVATE GENERATTON SENSIIVITY (S-07)
PecnrConp-2021IF.P SeNsrrtvlrv - Mopnlnrc REsur-rs
INugx OF FIGURES
FTGURE S.1- TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPTATE CAPACTTY OF S-01 RETATTVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA.................3
FTGURE S.2 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPTATE CAPACTTY OF S-02 RETATTVE TO CASE P02-MM-CErA.................4
FTGURE S.3 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPTATE CApACrry OF S-03 RETATTVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA.................5
FTGURE S.4 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPLATE CAPACTTY OF S-04 RETATTVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA
FIGURE S.5 - INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S.O5 REIATIVE TO CASE PO2-MM-CETA
FTGURE S.5 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEpLATE CAPACITY OF S-05 RELATTVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA.................8
FTGURE S.7 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPIATE CAPACTTY OF S-07 RETATTVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA.................9
FTGURE S.8 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPLATE CAPACTTY OF S-08 RELATTVE TO CASE P02-MM-CErA...............10
FIGURE S.9 - INCREASE/(DECREASE) ]N NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S.O1 REIATIVE TO CASE BAUl-MM
FTGURE S.10 - INCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPIATE CAPACTTY OF S-02 RELAT|VE TO CASE BAUl-MM
FTGURE S.11- TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPT-ATE CAPACITY OF S-03 REr-ATTVE TO CASE BAUI-MM
FIGURE S.12 - INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPAC]TY OF S-04 RETATIVE TO CASE BAUl.MM
FTGURE S.13 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPT-ATE CAPACTTY OF S-05 REr-AT|VE TO CASE BAUl-MM
FTGURE S.14 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPLATE CAPACTTY OF 5-06 RELAT|VE TO CASE BAUl-MM ...................16
FTGURE S.15 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPLATE CAPACTW OF S-07 RE|-AT|VE TO CASE BAUl-MM ...................17
FTGURE S.16 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPT-ATE CAPACTTY OF S-08 REtAT|VE TO CASE BAUl-MM 18
FTGURE S.17 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPTATE CApACtTy OF S-01 RELAT|VE TO CASE BAU2-MM ...................19
FIGURE S,18 - INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-02 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM
FIGURE S.19 - INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-03 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM
20
27
FIGURE S.20 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPLATE CAPACTTY OF S-04 RELATTVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ...................22
FTGURE S.21- TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPLATE CAPACTTY OF S-os RETATTVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ...................23
FIGURE S.22 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPT-ATE CAPACTTY OF 5-06 RELATTVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ...................24
FTGURE S.23 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) tN NAMEPT.ATE CAPACTTY OF S-07 RE|-ATTVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ...................25
FTGURE S.24 - TNCREASE/(DECREASE) rN NAMEPT-ATE CAPACTTY OF S-08 RELATTVE TO CASE BAU2-MM 26
5
7
11
t2
13
!4
15
11
PecmrConp - 2021IRP SsNsruvnv - Moou-rNc RESULTS
INnpx OF TABLES
TABLE S.1- SUMMARY OF PO2-MM SENSITIVITY CASES................
TABLE S.2 - RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-01 VS. PO2-MM CETA..
TABLE S.3 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-02 VS. P02-MM CETA..
TABLE S.4 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-03 VS. P02-MM CETA..
TABLE S.s - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-04 VS. p02-MM CETA..
TABLE 5.6 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-os VS. P02-MM CETA..
TABLE S.7 _ RISK.ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF 5.06 VS. PO2-MM CETA.
TABLE S.8 - RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-07 VS. PO2-MM CETA.
TABLE S.9 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-08 VS. P02-MM CETA.............
TABLE S.10 - SUM MARY OF ADDITIONAL BAUl SENSITIVITY CASES....
TABLE S.11- RISK.ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-01 VS. BAUl-MM
TABLE S.12 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-02 VS. BAUl-MM.......
TABLE S.13 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-03 VS. BAUl-MM
TABLE S.14 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-04 VS. BAUl-MM............
TABLE S.15 - RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-05 VS. BAUl-MM............
TABLE S.16 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF 5-06 VS. BAUl-MM
TABLE S.17 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-07 VS. BAUl-MM
TABLE S.18 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEF|T)/COST OF S-08 VS. BAUl-MM
TABLE S.19 - SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL BAU2 SENSITIVITY CASES
TABLE S.20 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-01 VS. BAU2-MM
TABLE S.21- R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-02 VS. BAU2-MM
TABLE S.22 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-03 VS. BAU2-MM
TABLE S.23 - RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S{4 VS. BAU2-MM
TABLE S.24 - R|SK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-05 VS. BAU2-MM
TABLE S.25 - RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF 5-06 VS. BAU2.MM
TABLE 5.26 - RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-07 VS. BAU2-MM
TABLE S.27 - RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFTT)/COST OF S-08 VS. BAU2-MM
2
2
3
,.4
5
..6
..8
..8
..9
10
11
L2
t2
13
15
15
L7
L7
18
19
.20
.20
.2L
.22
.24
.25
.25
llr
PacnrConp-2o2l IRP SeNsITrvrry - MoDELtr.IG RESULTS
In addition to the studies developed as part of the 2021lntegrated Resource Plan (IRP) portfolio-
development process supporting selection of the preferred portfolio, additional sensitivity cases
were conducted to better understand how certain modeling assumptions influence the resource mix
and timing of future resource additions. These sensitivity cases are useful in understanding how
PacifiCorp's resource plan would be affected by changes to uncertain planning assumptions and
to address how alternative resources and planning paradigms affect system costs and risk.
As in the initial portfolios presented nthe202l IRP Volume I, Chapter 9 - Modeling and Portfolio
Selection Results, the analysis of sensitivities is grouped according to coal retirement assumptions:o P}2,optimized coal retirements l'3
o BAUI, end-of-life coal retirements l2'3
o BAU2,2019IRP coal retirements l'3
To isolate the impact of a given planning assumption, the present value revenue requirement
(PVRR) of the sensitivity cases is compared to the PVRR of the 2021 IRP preferred portfolio, case
P02-MM-CETA. In addition to conducting sensitivity analysis on the P02-MM (medium gas /
medium COz) portfolio, sensitivity analysis was also conducted on the BAUI-MM and BAU2-
MM portfolios.
Table S.l describes the sensitivity studies conducted under the P-02 case definitions with full
optimization of coal retirement options.
I "P" refers generically to "portfolio"; "BAU" refers to "business as usual", a designation derived from stakeholder
feedback recommending the BAUI and BAU2 series of cases.
2 Optimized proxy portfolio selections exclude new gas proxy resources except for gas-conversion ofspecific existing
coal resources.
3 Aligned with the intent of the BAU2 study requests, the description "2019 IRP" meatrs that existing resources
maintain 2019 retirement assumption except where updated information has changed known planning.
1
PACFICoRP-202I IRP SENSITIVTTY - MoDELn.IG RESULTS
$01 High Load PO2-MM CtsTA 28,019 Hidt N/A
s02 LowLoad PO2.MM CETA 24,781 Low N/A
s03 I in 20 Load Gowth PO2-MM CETA 26,507 I in20 N/A
Base 2033s04MM Price with NewGs PO2.MM CETA 26,|U
PO2-MM CETA 27,|U Base N/As05Bwiness Plan
PO2-MM CETA 26,533 Base N/A$06 LCOE Energr Efficiency Bundles
Higfr Private Crnerat ion PO2-MM CETA 25,737 Base N/A$07
$08 Low Private Generation PO2.MM CETA 26,5%Base N/A
Table S.l -of P02-MM Cases
High Load Growth Sensitivity (S-01)
Table S.2 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-01 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA. Higher
loads result in increased resource requirements which tanslate inlo higher system costs. Figue
S.1 summarizes the portfolio impacts. The higher loads accelerated the Central Oregon
transmission upgade and associated solar with storage resources from 2037 to2027 . Additionally,
lower cost wind and battery resources at Dave Johnston were displaced by 500 MW of advanced
nuclear. Energy efficiency increased by 67 MW through the end of the study period. The higher
loads are also met by advanced nuclear and solar additions, increased thermal output and market
purchases. In combination, this resulted in higher fuel costso higher emission costs, and higher
market purchases. COz emissions over the study period increased by l0 million tons.
Table S.2 -PVRR of S-01 vs. P02-MM CETA
$28,019 $1,676s26,343
2
PecnrCoRp-202l IRP SrNsntvrrv - MoDEL[.{c REsuLTs
Figure S.1 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-01 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
.l
O
o
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-E00
Cumulative Changes
IT
$ .S *$ *$ $, -$ $ $ S *n" *$ *$ *S,$,$ $",$ S S S
rCoal
I Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
rconverted Gas
rGas
a Nuclear
r Sola*Storage
r Energy Efficiency
t Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
r Demand Response
IQF
rBafiery
rWin&rStorage
rNon-Emitting Pcaker
Low Load Growth Sensitivity (S-02)
Table S.3 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-02 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA. The reduced
loads lower system costs significantly over the 20-yet study period. Figure S.2 summarizes
portfolio impacts. In the low load sensitivity, a total of 200 MW of solar and storage was delayed
from 2033 ard,2037 out to 2038. Additionally, replacement resource requirements decreased,
reducing the need for 412 MW of non-emitting peakerresources and 1,000 MW advanced nuclear
resources in 2038, partially offset by the addition of 1,205 MW of solar with storage, wind and
stand-alone battery. Over the Z0-year study period, demand response resources were lower by l7l
MW partially offset by 64 MW of additional energy efficiency. Given reductions in advanced
nuclear, non-emitting peakers and demand-side management resources, the lower loads are met by
incremental solar, wind and energy efficiency in years 2038 through 2040. Thess shanges resulted
in lower fuel costs, lower emission costs, and lower market purchases. COz emissions over the
study period decreased by 25 million tons.
Table S.3 -PVRR of S-02 vs. P02-MM CETA
3
$26,343 s24,781 ($1,562)
PAcTFICoRP-202I IPJ SsNsmrynY - MoDELnrc REsuLTs
Figure S.2 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-02 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
t500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
Eo
6
Cumulative Changes
IIIIT
$ -$ .S,$ S $F -$ -$ .S $ $ -$ S $ "$ $" $ $ *$,$
r Coal
r Hydro
r Solar
rGeothermal
r Convertcd Gas
rGas
aNuclear
t Solar+Storage
tEncrgy Efficiency
lContacts
rHydro Storage
rWind
tDemand Response
.QF
r Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Pealrer
f-in-20 Load Growth Sensitivity (S-03)
Table S.4 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-03 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA. This
sensitivity assumes l-in-20 exteme weather conditions during the summer (July) for each state.
System costs axe higher due to requirements to meet additional peak load. Figure S.3 summarizes
portfolio impacts. 412 MW of non-emitting peaker resources in 2030 replaced the need for 50 MW
of wind and 400 MW of stand-alone battery resources n2029 and 2030, respectively. The Cental
Oregon transmission upgrade and associated solar with storage resources was accelerated from
2037 to2030. An additional 7l MW of energy efliciency was also selected.
Table S.4 -usted PVRR of S-03 vs. P02-MM CETA
s26,343 s26,507 $164
4
PACTFICoRP_202I IR.P SeNsmvrv - Moper.nqc Rrsulrs
Figure S.3 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-03 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
rGeothermal
I Converted Gas
>2!o
6
E
Cumulative Changes
I
$ "$' S $r,$ $F S $ -$ $" $ $' $ $ "$ $'" $+ $" $8,$
rGas
a Nuclear
r Solar+Storage
!Encrgy Efficiency
rConfacts
rHy&o Storage
rWind
rDemand Rcsponse
IQF
rBattery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Allowance of Proxy Gas under P-02 (S-04)
Table S.5 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-04 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA. This
sensitivity allowed proxy gas resource selections over the 2}-year study period. Figure S.4
summarizes portfolio impacts. In 2033, 387 MW of new proxy gas resources were selected
increasing to 1,357 MW in total over the 2O-year study period. These resources displaced 1,020
MW of non-emitting peaker resources in 2033, 2038 and 2040 and 1,000 MW of advanced nuclear
resources in 2038. COz emissions increased 6 million tons over the study period.
Table S.5 -PYRR of S-04 Ys. P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $26,184 ($l5e)
5
PAcFTCoRP - 2021 IPJ SrNsmvrry - MoDELTNG Rssulrs
Figure S.4 - Increase(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-04 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
25oo Cumulative Changes
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-r---rr--rrr-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
B
Eo
6
E rIIII
$i "$' S 1[ $e $" S$ $,.,$ $" $,$ .$ $ S $' '$ .$ S,$
rCoal
r Hydm
t Solar
I Geothermal
r Converted Gas
tGas
z Nuclear
t Sola$Storag€
rEnergy Efficiency
t Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
r Demand Response
rQF
! Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Business Plan Sensitivity (S-05)
Table 5.6 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-05 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA. System
costs increase by $840m. This sensitivity complies with Utah requirements to perform a business
plan sensitivity consistent with the Public Service Commission of Utah's order in Docket No. l5-
035-04, summarized as follows:
o Over the frst three years, resources align with those assumed in PacifiCorp's December
2020 Business Plan.o Beyond the first three years of the study period, unit retirement assumptions are aligned
with the preferred portfolio.. All other resources are optimized.
Error! Reference source not found. summarizes portfolio impacts, driven by the business plan
assumption of Jim Bridger unit I retirement at the end of 2023. [n contrast, the preferred portfolio
assumes Jim Bridger I ceases coal-fired operations and converts to gas-fired operations at year-
end2023.In the business plaq the acquisition and repowering of 43 MW of Foote Creek II-[V
wind is accelerated into the 3-yearbusiness plan window, year 2023. A single l5l MW RFP final
short list wind resource shifts its online date from 2023 to2024. Nso, in the first 3 years,42 MW
of incremental DSM is added in accordance with the business plan. Over the Z0-year study period,
under the business plan solar and storage resource selections increase 300 MW. CO2 emissions
over the study period decreased by 7 million tons.
6
$26,343 $27,184 $840
Table 5.6-PYRR of S-05 vs. P02-MM CETA
PACFICoRP-202I IRP Ssnsnrvmv - MoDELING Rrsut rs
Figure S.5 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-05 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
Cumulative Changes
Eo
6
c
400
300
2N
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
lll-rlll
,$- r$ S $ "$ S," S p* *$ *$ r$ *$ *$ $ r$ $" S $ S "$rCoal
c Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
I Converted Gas
r Gas
z Nuclear
r Solar+Storage
. Energy Effrciency
rContsacts
rHydro Storage
rWind
r Demand Response
rQF
r Battery
! Wind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
LCOE Energy Efficiency (5-06)
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) energy efficiency sensitivity reflects a change in the bundling
of energy efficiency to align with the bundling process used in the 2019 IRP. There were no other
changes to the preferred portfolio.
The Net Cost of Capacity (NCOC) methodology used in the 2021 IRP differentiates between
measures based on the timing of their load reductions. Specifically, the energy value and capaclty
contribution of each measure was estimated based on its hourly load savings. After subtracting the
energy value from the measure cost, the resulting net cost is divided by the capacity contribution,
to produce the net cost of capacity value for the measure. Measures with more energy savings
during expensive periods will have higher energy value and a lower net cost. Measures with more
energy savings during periods with a risk of loss of load events will have a higher capacity
contribution, and a lower net cost. To allow for additional targeting of specific system needs,
separate Net Cost of Capacity bundles were created for three distinct categories: winter measures,
weather-sensitive summer measures, and everything else, consisting of sullmer and annual
measures that were not weather sensitive. Each measure was bundled with measures in the same
category and with a similar net cost of capacity values. In contast, under the LCOE bundling
methodology, measures are bundled strictly based on their levelized cost of energy, which is
independent of the timing of the reduction in load and energy and capacity benefits to the system.
Note that the modeled cost of measures is not impacted by the bundling strategy, as both the energy
and capacity values are ultimately determined in the modeled results. While the same measure cost
is modeled under both methodologies, the totals within each bundle vary as individual measures
move around.
Table S.7 shows the PVRR impacts of the 5-06 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA, while
Figure 5.6 summarizes portfolio impacts. Under the LCOE approach, total cumulative energy
7
PACFICoRP - 2021 IRP SST.ISnNTY - MoDELING RESULTS
efliciency increased 264\v[ { through the 20-year study period. This represents a 6.2 percerrt
increase in energy effrciency selections and a 29 percent increase in energy from the exrergy
efficiency relative to the preferred portfolio. The LCOE portfolio results in higher energy
efliciency and higher system costs due to the energy efficie,ncy selections being less targeted to
resource needs than the NCOC approach used in the preferred portfolio. COz emissions decreased
over the study period by 8 million tons, consistent with higher energy efficiency.
Table S.7-PVRR of 5-06 vs. P02-MM CETA
Figure 5.6 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of 5-06 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
Cumulative Changes300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
'E'o=6
E -rrrrllllll
,$ -$ S $.o$ $' $' *$,$ -$ $ $ry *$ $ r$ $' $ r$ *$,S
rCoal
. Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
tGas
a Nuclcar
r Sola$Storage
r Energy Efticiency
r Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
.QF
! Ba$ery
rWind+Storagc
rNon-Emitting Peaker
High Private Generation Sensitivity (S-07)
Table S.8 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-07 sensitivity relative to P02. Higher private
generation assumptions decrease net load, which in tum decreases system costs. Figure S.7
summarizes portfolio impacts. 64 MW of additional energy efficiency was selected over the 20-
year period. l7l IvIW less demand response was selected over the 2D-year period. An additional
700 MW of wind is offset by a reduction of 401 MW in solar and storage capacity, 412 MW of
non-ernitting peaker resources, and 1,000 MW of advanced nuclear resources over the ZD-year
study period. The COz ernissions over the study period increased by 3 million tons.
8
$26,343 $26,533 $190
$25,737 ($606)s26,343
Table S.8 -usted PYRR of S-07 vs. P02-MM CETA
PlcnrConp - 2021 IRP SENSTTIVITY - Moosl.n.Ic REs[rs
Figure S.7 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-07 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
B
E.93t
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
Cumulative Changes
TIIIII
$ S, *$,.v $? $F,$ $f ,$ S S $',$ $ .$ S," $$ S S -*"
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
r Gas
zNuclcar
r Solar+Storage
rEnergy Efficiency
r Contracts
tHydro Storage
rWind
r Demand Response
IQF
rBaSory
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Low Private Generation Sensitivity (S-08)
Table S.9 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-08 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA. The lower
private generation assumption results in higher net loads and increased system costs. Figure S.8
summarizes portfolio impacts. 300 MW of standalone battery was replaced with 500 MW of
advanced nuclear capacity in 2030. Additionally, the Central Oregon transmission upgade and
associated solar with storage resources was accelerated from 2037 to 2027. Energy efficiency
increased by 67 MW. COz emissions over the study period decreased by 11 million tons.
Table S.9 -PVRR of S-08 vs. P02-MM CETA
$2s3$26,343 $26,596
9
PAcFICoRP-202I IRP SrNsrnvrrv - Moorrnrc REsuLrs
Figure S.8 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-08 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA
600
s00
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-4fl)
r Gas
i, Nuclear
t Sola*Storage
rEnergy Efficiency
>
Eo=6
Cumulative Changes
IT
-$ .$,$ *.s $e $F S S S $" -$ -$ $ -$ $ $,' '$ $,$ $
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
tGcothermal
r Converted Gas
r Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
tDemand Response
.QF
rBattery
tWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
$0r High Load BAUI.MM 28,416 Hidt N/A
$02 LowLoad BAUI.MM 25,74 Low N/A
27,4n4 I in20 N/As03I in 20 Load Gowth BAUI.MM
BAUI.MM 26,%8 Base 2033$04 MM Price with Nswc.as
Brsiness Plan BAUI.MM 27,753 Base N/A905
$06 LCOE Encrry Efficiency Burdles BAUI-MM 28,030 Base N/A
BAUI.MM ?s,6n Base N/A$07 High Private Crnerat ion
Low P riv ate C.rnerat ion BAUI.MM n,4u Base N/A$08
Each sensitivity was run under the BAUI case definitions with end-of-life coal retirements. Table
S.l0 reports the defrnitions and PVRR for each case.
Table S.10 -of Additiond BAUI Cases
Iligh Load Growth Sensitivity (S-01)
Table S.11 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-01 sensitivity relative to BAUI-MM. Due to the
higher load profile, an additional 168 MW of energy efliciency was selected over the 2O-year study
10
PacrprConp-2021 IRP SsNsnrvrY - MoorLNc RgsuLrs
period. An additional 500 MW advanced nuclear resource was selected in 2030 and replaced 500
MW of utility scale solar and storage. In 2031,206 MW of non-emitting peaker resource replaced
220 MW of solar and storage. Higher loads necessitated the acceleration of the Central Oregon
transmission upgrade and solar and storage resources from2037 to 2030. CO2 emissions over the
study period increased by 16 million.
Table S.11-PVRR of S-01 vs. BAUI.-MM
Figure S.9 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-01 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-t00
-lm0
Cumulative Changes
$,$ $i $,$ $" $ S $e,s' $ -S *$ *$ S $" $ $ .$ $
B
o
6
rGas
zNuclear
I Solartstoragc
rEnergy Efficiency
r Con&acts
r Hydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Responsc
rQF
r Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
ru
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
tGcothcrmal
rConverted Gas
Low Load Growth Sensitivity (S-02)
Table S.l2 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-02 sensitivity relative to BAUI-MM. The reduced
loads lower system costs significantly over the 2O-year study period. Figure S.10 strmmarizes
portfolio impacts. 200 MW of solar and storage resources in 2030 was replaced with less expensive
wind without storage. Additionally,203T and 2038 resource additions shifted from 1,000 MW
nuclear resources to 600 MW wind, an additional 163 MW solar and storage and 206 MW of non-
emitting peaker resource. The lower load profile also required 61 MW less e,nergy efficiency. In
total this portfolio selected 201 MW fewer resources than the base case. Given reductions primarily
in nuclear resources, the lower loads are met by wind and non-emitting peaker additions in years
2038 through 2040. This resulted in lower fuel costs, lower emission costs, and lower market
purchases. COz decreased by 24 million tons.
$27,200 $28,416 $1,215
lt
PecmrConp-2O2l IRP SrNsntvrrv - Monsrn tc REsuLrs
Table S.12 -PVRR of S-02 vs. BAUI-MM
Figure S.10 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-02 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
1200
1000
E00
500
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Cumulative Changcs
r Coal
r Hydro
r Solar
rGcothermal
r Convertcd Gas
=!o
6
c EETETIEI
,$ *$ *$ r$ r$ r$ -$ S- -$ $" $ -$ r$ $ $ S,' $ .o$ r$ r$
rGas
rNuclear
t Sola#Storage
rEnergy Efficicncy
tContacb
r Hydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
IQF
r Battery
r Win4rstoragc
rNon-Emiring Pealccr
f-in-20 Load Growth Sensitivity (S-03)
Table S. 13 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-03 sensitivity relative to BAU1 -MM. This sensitivity
assumes l-in-20 extreme weather conditions during the summer (July) for each state. Due to the
fiming of load spikes, there was a need for resources that could be responsive to peaks at any time.
As a rezult, 2030 and 2031 saw a total of 402 MW of non-emitting peaker resources replacing 569
MW of solar and storage resources. In 2033, an additional 150 MW of solar and storage was
selected. Additionally, this led to acceleration of the Central Oregon transmission up$ade and
associated solar and storage resources from 2037 to 2030. 168 MW of additional energy efliciency
was also selected. The higher l-in-20 loads are met by increased coal and gas generation, and
market purchases. This resulted in higher fuel costs, higher emission costs, and higher market
purchases. The COz emissions over the study period increased by 7 million tons.
Table S.13 -of S-03 vs. BAUI-MMPVRR
$27,200 $25,702 ($1,498)
$27,200 s27Ao4 $204
t2
PACFICoRP_202I IPJ SsNsnrvnv - Moorunqc Rrswrs
Figure S.11 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-03 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
800
600
400
200
0
-200
400
{00
-800
Cumulative Changes
rCoal
r Hy&o
r Solar
r Geothermal
rConverted Gas
>
Eo
6
tr -rI
r Gas
zNuclca
r SolaftStorage
r Energy Efficicnry
rConfacts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
.QF
r Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
T
$ .$ .$ $ $F $F $$ $r,$ -*" $ -$ .$ $ "$ $," S $ .$ -$
Allowance of Proxy Gas under BAUI-MM (S-04)
Table S.14 shows the PVRR impacts ofthe S-04 sensitivity relative to BAUI -MM. This sensitivity
allowed proxy gas resource selections over the 2O-year time frame. Error! Reference source not
found. summarizes resource portfolio impacts. This sensitivity adds new proxy gas resources
beginning in 2033. A total of 1,357 MW of new proxy gas was built in this sensitivity displacing
1,020 MW of non-emitting peaker and 1,000 MW of advanced nuclear. The PVRR decreased as a
result of lower cost gas additions. COz emissions in this sensitivity increased by a total of 6 million
tons over the 20 years.
Table S.l4 -usted PVRR of S-04 vs. BAUI-MM
$27,200 $26,968 ($232)
13
PecnrConp - 2021 IPJ SsNsmvnv - MoDELTNc REsuLTs
Figure S.12 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-04 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
Cumulative Changes
Eo
B,
t
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2ofi)
-2500
IEEI
$ "6$' S $ $e $' S $'.$ $" $ -$ S $l $t $" $ $ *$ -*"
rCoal
r Hydro
n Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
rGas
z Nuclear
! Solafl-Storage
I Encrgy Efficiency
r Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Responsc
rQF
! Battery
I Wind+Storage
I Non-Emitting Peaker
Business Plan Sensitivity (S-05)
Table S.l5 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-05 sensitivity relative to BAUI-MM. System costs
increase by $553m. This sensitivity complies with Utah requirements to perform a business plan
sensitivity consistent with the Public Service Commission of Utah's order in Docket No. l5-035-
04, summari zed as follows :
Over the first three years, resources align with those assumed in PacifiCorp's December
2020 Business Plan.
Beyond the frst three years of the study period, unit retirement assumptions are aligned
with the preferred portfolio.
All other resources are optimized.
Figure S.l3 summarizes portfolio impacts, driven by the business plan assumption of Jim Bridger
unit 1 retirement at the end of 2023.\n contrast, the preferred portfolio assumes Jim Bridger I
ceases coal-fired operations and converts to gas-fired operations at year-end 2023.lnthe business
plan, the acquisition and repowering of 43 MW of Foote Creek II-IV wind is accelerated into the
3-year business plan window, year 2023. A single 151 MW RFP final short list wind resource
shifts its online date from 2023 to 2024. Also, in the fust 3 years, 42 MW of incremental DSM is
added in accordance with the business plan. Over the Z0-year study period, under the business plan
solar and storage resource selections increase 300 MW and DSM additions increase to 74 MW.
COz emissions over the study period decreased by 11 million tons.
a
a
a
t4
PecrprConp-2021 IRP SENsrrrvrrY - Moorlnqc RESULTS
$27,200 $27,753 sss3
Table S.15 - Risk-PYRR of S-05 vs. BAUI-MM
Figure S.13 - Increase(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-05 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
600
400
200
0
-200
400
-600
-E00
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
Eo
6
tr
Cumulative Changes
$ S' *$,$ S $F S $ S g. $ $ S $ -$ $,',$ $,$ $"
r Gas
zNuclear
r SolaftStorage
r Energy Efficiency
r Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
rQF
r Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
LCOE Energy Efficiency (5-06)
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) energy efficiency sensitivity reflects a change in the bundling
of energy efficiency to align with the bundling process used in the 2019 IRP. The balance of the
portfolio rernained largely the same.
The Net Cost of Capacity (NCOC) methodology used in the 2021 IRP differentiates between
measures based on the timing of their load reductions. Specifically, the energy value and capacrty
contribution of each measure was estimated based on its hourly load savings. After subtracting the
energy value from the measure cost, the resulting net cost is divided by the capacity contribution,
to produce the net cost of capacity value for the measure. Measures with more energy savings
during expensive periods will have higher energy value and a lower net cost. Measures with more
energy savings during periods with a risk of loss of load events will have a higher capacity
contribution, and a lower net cost. To allow for additional targeting of specific system needs,
separate Net Cost of Capacity bundles were created for three distinct categories: winter measures,
weather-sensitive summer measures, and everything else, consisting of sufilmer and annual
measures that were not weather sensitive. Each measure was bundled with measures in the same
category and with a similar net cost of capacity values. In contrast, under the LCOE bundling
methodology, measures are bundled strictly based on their levelized cost of mergy, which is
independent of the timing of the reduction in load and energy and capacity benefits to the system.
Note that the modeled cost of measures is not impacted by the bundling strategy, as both the energy
and capacity values are ultimately determined in the modeled results. While the same measure cost
15
PlcnrConp - 2021 IRP Sexslrrvnv - MoDELTNG Resur-rs
is modeled under both methodologies, the totals within each bundle vary as individual measures
move around.
Table 5.16 shows the PVRR impacts ofthe 5-06 sensitivity relative to BAUI-MM. This sensitivity
results in a total cumulative increase of 217 MW of selected energy efficiency through the 20-year
study period. This represents a 5.4Yo increase in energy efficiency selections, and the energy
efficiency generation compare indicates that the LCOE portfolio reports l0 percent more energy
from energy efficiency than the BAUI-MM case. This highlights the fact that the NCOC bundles
are more targeted towards the specific resource needs of PacifiCorp customers. The LCOE
portfolio results in higher energy effrciency and higher system costs due to the energy efficiency
selections being less targeted to resource needs than the NCOC approach used in the preferred
portfolio. 28 MW of solar and storage was not selected in this study in 2037. COz emissions over
the study period increased by 1.1 million tons.
Table 5.16 -PVRR of 5-06 vs. BAUI-MM
Figure S.14 - Increase(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of 5-06 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
Cumulative Changes
=
o
G
tr
250
200
150
100
'l --IIuTTIIIIIIII I
,$ S,, *$ **Y $? $,' S **" ,$ ,$ *$ S' *$ ,$ -$ $,' $f *** ,$ ,$
-50
r Coal
r Hydro
a Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
r Gas
z, Nuclear
r Sola$Storage
r Energy Efficiency
r Contracts
r Hydro Storage
rWind
I Demand Rcsponse
rQF
r Batt€ry
tWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
High Private Generation Sensitivity (S-07)
Table S.l7 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-07 sensitivity relative to BAUI-MM. The higher
private generation assumptions decrease net load, which in turn decreases system costs. Figure
S.l5 summarizes portfolio impacts. In this scenario, 6l Iv[W less energy efficiency was selected
over the 2}-year period. Additionally, a total of 500 MW fewer solar and storage resources were
built in 2030,2031 and 2033.1n2037,206 MW of non-emitting peaker are offset by 236 MW of
solar and storage resource reductions. At coal retirements in 2038 the model replaced 1,000 MW
$28,030 $830s27,200
l6
PAcFICoRP-202I IRP SrNsrrrvrry - MonsrD{c REsuLrs
of advanced nuclear resources with 600 MW wind and 400 MW non-emitting peaker resources.
The higher private generation resulted in lower net loads, decreasing system costs. COz ernissions
over the study period increased by 5 million tons.
Table S.17 -usted PVRR of S-07 vs. BAUI-MM
Figure S.15 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-07 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
looo Cumulative Changes
500
0B
Eo
6 -rrtllil
-500
-l 500
1000
,$ "$ *{? $} ,-9 S,' ,$' S ,$ -*" $ S' $F $} $F $," $} $ ,$ *$
r Coal
r Hydro
* Solar
rGeothermal
r Converted Gas
rGas
a Nuclear
r SolaftStoragc
rEnergy Efficiency
r Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
.Demand Response
rQF
r Battery
r Wind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Low Private Generation Sensitivity (S-08)
Table S.l8 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-08 sensitivity relative to BAUI-MM. Due to the
reduction in private generation and the need for higher generation and energy 500 MW of solar
and storage was replaced with 500 MW of advanced nuclear in 2030. Additionally, the Central
Oregon transmission upgrade and associated solar and storage resource was accelerated from 2037
to 2027 . The model also selected 412 MW of non-emitting peaker resource in 2031 in place of 420
MW of solar and storage resources. 168 MW of additional energy effrciency was selected over 20-
years. Lower private generation resulted in higher net loads, increasing system costs. COz
emissions over the study period decreased by I million tons.
$27,200 $26,690 ($sto1
$27,200 $27,424 s224
Table S.lE -usted PVRR of S-08 vs. BAUI-MM
t7
PacrrConp-202l IRP Srwsnrvrrv - MoDELnrc REsuLTs
Figure 5.16 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-08 Relative to
Case BAUI-MM
1500
1000
500
0
-s00
-1000
-1500
Cumulative Changes
-lI
>
!o
=o
E w
-$ S' S $ Si $F *$ -*r S $ *&',$ *S $ -$ $F S $" *$ g"
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
r Gas
z Nuclear
r Sola$Storage
rEnerg5r Efficiency
rContacts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
rQF
r Battery
r Wind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Each sensitivity was run under the BAU2 case definitions with coal retirements approximating
those from the2Dl9IRP preferred portfolio. Table S.19 reports the definitions and PVRR of each
case.
Table S.19 -of Additional BAU2 Cases
$01 High Load BAU2.MM 28,393 Hieh N/A
$02 LowLoad BAU2,MM 25,495 Low N/A
BAU2-MM 27,391 I in20 N/A903I in 20 Load Gorrth
$04 MM Price With NewGas BAU2.MM 26,n0 Base 2030
s0s Brsiness Plan BAU2-MM n,778 Base N/A
LCOE Energy Efficiency Bundles BAU2-MM 27,268 Base N/A$06
Base N/A907High Private C.rneration BAU2-MM 26,507
$08 LowPrivate Generation BAU2.MM n,598 Base N/A
18
P.acnrConp-2o2l IRP SrNsnlvrrv - MoDELn{c REsuLTs
High Load Growth Sensitivity (S-01)
Table S.20 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-01 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. Due to the
higho load profile, an additional 111 MW of energy efficiency was selected over the 20 years.
The need for higher exrergy resources led to the selection of 500 MW of advanced nuclear resource
in 2030 instead of 200 MW of wind and 300 MW of standalone battery. The higher loads
necessitated the acceleration of the Central Oregon tansmission upgrade and solar and storage
resources from 2037 to 2030. The higher loads are met by nuclear, solar and storage, increased
thermal output, and market purchases. This resulted in higher fuel costs, higher emission costs,
and higher market purchases. The COz emissions over the study period increased by l0 million.
Table S.20 -PVRR of S-01vs. BAU2-MM
Figure S.l7 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-01 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
{00
-800
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
rGeothermal
r Converted Gas
B
tto
6
Cumulative Changes
$,$,$,$,$ $F -$ S,$,$ *$,$ *$ $ -$ $" $ -$ , ,$
r Cas
zNuclear
r Solar+Storage
! Encrgy Efficicncy
r Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
tDemand Response
rQF
r Batter}
!Wind+Storage
rNon-Emiting Peaker
Low Load Growth Sensitivity (S-02)
Table S.2l shows the PVRR impacts of the S-02 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. In the low load
sensitivity, the lower energy need meant tlnt4l2 MW ofnon-emitting peakerwas replaced by 200
MW of wind and 179 MW solar and storage in 2030. 100 MW less solar and storage was built in
both 2033 and 2037 . Additionally, 2038 resource additions shifted from 1,000 MW of advanced
nuclear resources to 480 MW wind, an additional 190 MW solar and storage and 325 MW
standalone battery. The lower load profile also resulted in 183 MW fewer Demand Response
selections which were partly offset by 88 MW more of energy efficiency. Given reductions in
nuclear, non-emitting peaker resources and demand-side management, the lower loads are met by
incremental solar and storage, wind, and energy efflciency in years 2038 through 2040. This
$27,054 $28,393 $1,339
t9
$25,495 ($1,559)$27,054
P^a.cnrConp-2021 IPJ SrNsmvrry _ MoDELTNG RESULTS
resulted in lower fuel costs, lower ernission costs, and lower market purchases. COz decreased by
30 million tons
Table S.21- Risk-PVRR of S-02 vs. BAU2-MM
Figure S.18 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-02 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-r000
-1500
Cumulative Changes
$ -$ $ -$ $e g" $ $ *$ $" *$ B *$ $ *$ $F $ $,$ -$
>
Eo
6
E ilIIIIM
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
I Convertcd Gas
r Gas
z Nuclear
r Solar+Storage
r Encrgy Efficiency
r Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
rQF
rBattcry
rWind+Storago
tNon-Emitting Peaker
f-in-20 Load Growth Sensitivity (S-03)
Table S.22 shows the PVRR impacts ofthe S-03 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. This sensitivity
assumes l-in-20 extreme weather conditions during the summer (July) for each state. Due to the
timing of load spikes, there was a need for resources that could be responsive to peaks at any time.
As a result, in 2030, 618 Iv[W of non-emitting peaker resources replaced 200 MW ofwind and425
MW standalone battery. Additionally, this led to acceleration of the Cental Oregon transmission
upgrade and associated solar and storage resources from 2037 to 2030. 111 MW of additional
energy efficiency was also selected. The l-in-20 loads are met by higher system costs. COz
emissions increased by 4 million tons.
Table 5.22-PYRR of S-03 vs. BAU2-MM
$27,394 $340$27,054
20
PecrrCoRp-202l IRP Srusnrvrrv - MoDELTNc Rnsulrs
Figure S.19 - Increase(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-03 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
400
-600
-800
BaEo
E
Ei
Cumulative Changes
$ .S *$ *$ $e SF $ $s $e S S,S *$ $ "$ $" $$ $,$ S
tCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
rGeothermal
r Converted Gas
tGas
z Nuclear
r SolaftStorage
rEnergy Effrciency
t Crntracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
rQF
r Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Allowance of Proxy Gas under BAU2-MM (S-04)
Table S.23 shows the PVRR impacts ofthe S-04 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. This sensitivity
allowed proxy gas resource selections over the 2D-year time frame. Error! Reference source not
found. summarizes resource portfolio impacts. This sensitivity added new proxy gas resources
beginning in 2030. A total of 1,821 MW of new proxy gas was built in this sensitivity. These
resources displaced 1,020 MW of non-emitting peaker resources and 1,000 MW of advanced
nuclear. The PVRR decreased as a result of lower cost gas additions. CO2 ernissions in this
sensitivity increased by a total of 6 million tons over the 20 years.
Table S.23 -PVRR of S-04 vs. BAU2-MM
$27,054 $26,970 ($8+)
2t
PACIFICoRP _ 2021 IRP SsNsruvrry - MopurNc Rrsulrs
Figure S.20 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-04 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
Cumulative Changes
=!o
6
c
IITIIIIIIIIffIII
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1s00
-2000
$i S' S $r $e $,' S *$ S *n" *$ S' $ $y $F $' $,S S,s"
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
r Convertcd Gas
rGas
z Nuclear
! Solar+Storage
r Energy Efficiency
! Contracts
r Hydro Storage
rWind
I Demand Response
IQF
r Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Business Plan Sensitivity (S-05)
Table S.24 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-05 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. System costs
increase by $724m. This sensitivity complies with Utah requirements to perform a business plan
sensitivity consistent with the Public Service Commission of Utah's order in Docket No. l5-035-
04, summarized as follows:
Over the first three years, resources align with those assumed in PacifiCorp's December
2020 Business Plan.
Beyond the first three years of the study period, unit retirement assumptions are aligned
with BAU2 base case assumptions.
All other resources are optimized.
Figure S.21 summarizes portfolio impacts, driven by the business plan assumption of Jim Bridger
unit I retirement at the end of 2023.ln contrast, the preferred portfolio assumes Jim Bridger I
ceases coal-fired operations and converts to gas-fired operations at year-end 2023.lnthe business
plan, the acquisition and repowering of 43 MW of Foote Creek II-IV wind is accelerated into the
3-year business plan window, year 2023. A single 151 MW RFP frnal short list wind resource
shifts its online date from 2023 to 2024. Also, in the first 3 years, 42 MW of incremental demand-
side management is added in accordance with the business plan. Over the 20-year study period,
under the business plan 10 VtW of solar and storage was replaced with hybrid solar and storage
plus wind resource n2040. Also, over the 2O-year window, demand-side management additions
increase to 6l MW. COz emissions over the study period decreased by 2 million tons.
a
a
a
Table S.24 -PYRR of S-05 vs. BAU2-MM
22
PecnrConp-2021 IRP Seusruvrrv - MoDELnrc RESULTS
$27,054 s27,778 $724
Figure S.21 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-05 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
Cumulative Changes80
50
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-E0
100
t20
>
Eo
6
a:
lllillltlllrruil
,$',*' *$,$,$ "$ S S S $ $ -$ .$,$ S $" $ S S -S
r Coal
r Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
r Gas
z, Nucloar
I SolarrStorage
rEnergy Efficiency
I Co[tacts
rHydro Storage
rWind
tDemand Response
IQF
r Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
LCOE Energy Efficiency (5-06)
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) energy efficiency sensitivity reflects a change in the bundling
of energy efliciency to align with the bundling process used in the 2019 IRP. The balance of the
portfolio remained largely the same.
The Net Cost of Capacity (NCOC) methodology used in the 202I IRP differentiates between
measures based on the timing of their load reductions. Specifically, the energy value and capacity
contribution of each measure was estimated based on its hourly load savings. After subtracting the
energy value from the measure cost, the resulting net cost is divided by the capacity contribution,
to produce the net cost of capacity value for the measure. Measures with more energy savings
during expensive periods will have higher energy value and a lower net cost. Measures with more
energy svings during periods with a risk of loss of load events will have a higher capacrty
contribution, and a lower net cost. To allow for additional targeting of specific system needs,
separate Net Cost of Capacity bundles were created for three distinct categories: winter measures,
weather-sensitive summer measures, and everything else, consisting of summer and annual
measures that were not weather sensitive. Each measure was bundled with measures in the same
category and with a similar net cost of capacity values. In contrast, under the LCOE bundling
methodology, measures are bundled strictly based on their levelized cost of energy, which is
independent of the timing of the reduction in load and energy and capacity benefits to the system.
Note that the modeled cost of measures is not impacted by the bundling strategy, as both the energy
and capacity values are ultimately determined in the modeled results. While the sarne measure cost
is modeled under both methodologies, the totals within each bundle vary as individual measures
move around.
23
PacmrCoRp - 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY - MoDELING RESULTS
Table S.25 shows the PVRR impacts of the 5-06 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. In 2040, l0
MW of solar and storage is replaced by 10 MW of the hybrid solar and storage plus wind resource.
This sensitivity results in a total cumulative increase of 166 MW of selected energy efficiency
through the 2O-year study period. This represents a 4.lo/o increase in energy efficiency selections,
and the energy efliciency generation compare indicates that the LCOE portfolio reports 29o/omore
energy from energy efficiency than the BAU2-MM case. This highlights the fact that the NCOC
bundles are more targeted towards our specific resotrce needs. The LCOE portfolio results in
higher energy elliciency and higher system costs due to the energy efficiency selections being less
targeted to resource needs than the NCOC approach used in the preferred portfolio. The COz
emissions over the study period decreased by 9 million tons.
Table S.25 -PYRR of 5-06 vs. BAU2-MM
Figure 5.22 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of 5-06 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
2oo Cumulative Changes
150
E ,oo -rrrlllllllllll!o
3 50
0
-50
S- ,$ S $ $9 $,' *$ $," ,$ $" $ ,$ *$ ,$ -$ S,' S $" -$ -s"
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
rGeothermal
rConverted Gas
r Gas
z Nuclear
r Sola$Storag€
! En€rgy Efficicncy
!Contracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDcmand Response
rQF
!Battery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
High Private Generation Sensitivity (S-07)
Table 5.26 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-07 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. The higher
private generation assumptions decrease net load, which in turn decreases system costs. Figure
S.23 summarizes portfolio impacts. Overall resource selections were lower. However, in this
scenario, 88 MW of additional energy efficiency was selected over the 2D-year period. tn 2030,
412 MW of peaker resource was replaced by 200 MW of wind, 140 MW solar and storage and 50
MW of standalone battery. In total, 400 MW fewer solar and storage resources were built lrl.2031,
2033,2037 ard 2040. In 2038, 1,000 MW of advanced nuclear resources were replaced with 500
MW wind, 160 MW of solar and storage and 325 MW of standalone storage. The higher private
$27,054 $27,268 s2t4
24
$27,054 $26,507 ($s+21
P.e,crRCoRp-2021 IRP SrNsrlvrry _ MoDELn.IG RESULTS
generation resulted in lower net loads, decreasing system costs. COz emissions in this sensitivity
decreased by a total of 4 million tons over the 20 years.
Table 5.26-usted PVRR of S-07 vs. BAU2-MM
Figure S.23 - Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-07 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
Cumulative Changes
>
!o
d
EI
IIIIIIITrrrIIIll
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
$ B .$ $^o$ $,' $l*.$ -$ *$ *$,$ S $ '$ S," $ $" $ $
rCoal
. Hydro
r Solar
r Geothermal
r Converted Gas
rGas
z Nuclear
r Sola*Storage
r Energy Efficiency
r Cotrtracts
rHydro Storage
rWind
rDemand Response
IQF
r Bafiery
rWind+Storage
rNon-Emitting Peaker
Low Private Generation Sensitivity (S-08)
Table S.27 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-08 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. Figure S.24
summarizes portfolio impacts. An additional 500 MW of advanced nuclear resource was selected
in 2030. Additionally, the Central Oregon transmission upgrade and associated solar and storage
resource was accelerated from 2037 to2027. ll I MW of additional energy effrciency was selected
over 20 years. The lower private generation assumption result in higher net loads, increasing
system costs. COz emissions decreased by 13 million tons.
Table 5.27 -usted PYRR of S-08 vs. BAU2-MM
s27,054 $27,598 $s44
25
PACTICORP_202I IRP SrNsrrrvrv - Moorlnrc REsuLrs
Figure S.24 - Increase/@ecrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-08 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM
Cumulative Changes
>
!o
6
600
s00
400
300
200
100
0
-r00
rrr
$ B,$ $y $t $F S $ .$ $" $ -$.,$ $r $F $" S $,$ *S
rCoal
r Hydro
r Solar
rGeothcrmal
rConverted Gas
r Gas
z Nuclear
r Sola$Storagc
r Energy Efficiency
r Contacts
r Hydro Storage
rWind
tDemand Response
rQF
! Brttery
.Wind+Storage
rNon-Emifting Peaker
26