20211001Errata to Supplemental Filing.pdf

1407 West North Temple, Suite 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
October 1, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W Chinden Blvd
Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise, Idaho, 83714
RE: CASE NO. PAC-E-21-19 - PACIFICORP’S APPLICATION FOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE 2021 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
As a supplement to the 2021 Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”) filing, PacifiCorp (“Company”)
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 alternative 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.
The Company is providing an errata to the September 30, 2021 filing to revise the sensitivities
analysis, clarifying the outcomes of the Business Plan Sensitivity Cases (S05) relative to Business-
as-Usual 1 and 2 on pages 14 and 22. The revisions do not impact workpapers, analysis or
outcomes.
Informal inquiries may be directed to Ted Weston, Idaho Regulatory Affairs Manager, at (801)
220-2963.
Sincerely,
Joelle R. Steward
Vice President, Regulation
RECEIVED
2021 OCT -1 PM 4:56
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
October 1, 2021
Page 2

Enclosures

cc: 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)

PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADDITIONAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 1
P-02 SENSITIVITY CASES (OPTIMIZED COAL RETIREMENTS) ................................................................................... 1
HIGH LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-01) .................................................................................................................. 2
LOW LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-02) ................................................................................................................... 2
1-IN-20 LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-03) .............................................................................................................. 3
ALLOWANCE OF NEW PROXY GAS (S-04) .................................................................................................................. 4
BUSINESS PLAN SENSITIVITY (S-05) ........................................................................................................................... 5
LCOE ENERGY EFFICIENCY (S-06) ............................................................................................................................... 6
HIGH PRIVATE GENERATION SENSITIVITY (S-07) ....................................................................................................... 7
LOW PRIVATE GENERATION SENSITIVITY (S-08) ........................................................................................................ 9
BAU1 SENSITIVITY CASES (END-OF-LIFE COAL RETIREMENTS) .............................................................................. 10
HIGH LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-01) ................................................................................................................ 10
LOW LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-02) ................................................................................................................. 11
1-IN-20 LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-03) ............................................................................................................ 12
ALLOWANCE OF PROXY GAS UNDER BAU1-MM (S-04) ........................................................................................... 13
BUSINESS PLAN SENSITIVITY (S-05) ......................................................................................................................... 14
LCOE ENERGY EFFICIENCY (S-06) ............................................................................................................................. 15
HIGH PRIVATE GENERATION SENSITIVITY (S-07) ..................................................................................................... 16
LOW PRIVATE GENERATION SENSITIVITY (S-08) ...................................................................................................... 17
BAU2 SENSITIVITY CASES (2019 IRP COAL RETIREMENTS) .................................................................................... 18
HIGH LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-01) ................................................................................................................ 19
LOW LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-02) ................................................................................................................. 19
1-IN-20 LOAD GROWTH SENSITIVITY (S-03) ............................................................................................................ 20
ALLOWANCE OF PROXY GAS UNDER BAU2-MM (S-04) ........................................................................................... 21
BUSINESS PLAN SENSITIVITY (S-05) ......................................................................................................................... 22
LCOE ENERGY EFFICIENCY (S-06) ............................................................................................................................. 23
HIGH PRIVATE GENERATION SENSITIVITY (S-07) ..................................................................................................... 24
LOW PRIVATE GENERATION SENSITIVITY (S-08) ...................................................................................................... 25

ii

INDEX OF FIGURES
FIGURE S.1 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-01 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ................. 3
FIGURE S.2 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-02 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ................. 4
FIGURE S.3 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-03 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ................. 5
FIGURE S.4 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-04 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ................. 6
FIGURE S.5 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-05 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ................. 7
FIGURE S.6 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-06 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ................. 8
FIGURE S.7 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-07 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ................. 9
FIGURE S.8 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-08 RELATIVE TO CASE P02-MM-CETA ............... 10
FIGURE S.9 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-01 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ..................... 11
FIGURE S.10 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-02 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ................... 12
FIGURE S.11 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-03 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ................... 13
FIGURE S.12 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-04 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ................... 14
FIGURE S.13 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-05 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ................... 15
FIGURE S.14 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-06 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ................... 16
FIGURE S.15 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-07 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ................... 17
FIGURE S.16 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-08 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU1-MM ................... 18
FIGURE S.17 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-01 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 19
FIGURE S.18 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-02 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 20
FIGURE S.19 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-03 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 21
FIGURE S.20 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-04 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 22
FIGURE S.21 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-05 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 23
FIGURE S.22 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-06 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 24
FIGURE S.23 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-07 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 25
FIGURE S.24 – INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN NAMEPLATE CAPACITY OF S-08 RELATIVE TO CASE BAU2-MM ................... 26

PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
iii

INDEX OF TABLES
TABLE S.1 – SUMMARY OF P02-MM SENSITIVITY CASES ................................................................................................ 2
TABLE S.2 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-01 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 2
TABLE S.3 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-02 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 3
TABLE S.4 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-03 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 4
TABLE S.5 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-04 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 5
TABLE S.6 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-05 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 6
TABLE S.7 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-06 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 8
TABLE S.8 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-07 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 8
TABLE S.9 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-08 VS. P02-MM CETA ............................................................. 9
TABLE S.10 – SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL BAU1 SENSITIVITY CASES ............................................................................ 10
TABLE S.11 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-01 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 11
TABLE S.12 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-02 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 12
TABLE S.13 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-03 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 12
TABLE S.14 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-04 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 13
TABLE S.15 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-05 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 15
TABLE S.16 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-06 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 16
TABLE S.17 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-07 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 17
TABLE S.18 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-08 VS. BAU1-MM ............................................................... 17
TABLE S.19 – SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL BAU2 SENSITIVITY CASES ............................................................................ 18
TABLE S.20 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-01 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 19
TABLE S.21 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-02 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 20
TABLE S.22 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-03 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 20
TABLE S.23 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-04 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 21
TABLE S.24 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-05 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 22
TABLE S.25 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-06 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 24
TABLE S.26 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-07 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 25
TABLE S.27 – RISK-ADJUSTED PVRR (BENEFIT)/COST OF S-08 VS. BAU2-MM ............................................................... 25

iv

PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
1

Additional Sensitivity Analysis
In addition to the studies developed as part of the 2021 Integrated 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 in the 2021 IRP Volume I, Chapter 9 – Modeling and Portfolio
Selection Results, the analysis of sensitivities is grouped according to coal retirement assumptions:
• P02, optimized coal retirements 1,3
• BAU1, end-of-life coal retirements 1,2,3
• BAU2, 2019 IRP coal retirements 1,3

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 CO2) portfolio, sensitivity analysis was also conducted on the BAU1-MM and BAU2-
MM portfolios.

P-02 Sensitivity Cases (optimized coal retirements)

Table S.1 describes the sensitivity studies conducted under the P-02 case definitions with full
optimization of coal retirement options.

1 “P” refers generically to “portfolio”; “BAU” refers to “business as usual”, a designation derived from stakeholder
feedback recommending the BAU1 and BAU2 series of cases.
2 Optimized proxy portfolio selections exclude new gas proxy resources except for gas-conversion of specific existing
coal resources.
3 Aligned with the intent of the BAU2 study requests, the description “2019 IRP” means that existing resources
maintain 2019 retirement assumption except where updated information has changed known planning.

2

Table S.1 – Summary of P02-MM Sensitivity 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 translate into higher system costs. Figure
S.1 summarizes the portfolio impacts. The higher loads accelerated the Central Oregon
transmission upgrade and associated solar with storage resources from 2037 to 2027. 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 costs, higher emission costs, and higher
market purchases. CO2 emissions over the study period increased by 10 million tons.

Table S.2 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-01 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-01 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $28,019 $1,676

S-01 High Load P02-MM CETA 28,019 High N/A
S-02 Low Load P02-MM CETA 24,781 Low N/A
S-03 1 in 20 Load Growth P02-MM CETA 26,507 1 in 20 N/A
S-04 MM Price with New Gas P02-MM CETA 26,184 Base 2033
S-05 Business Plan P02-MM CETA 27,184 Base N/A
S-06 LCOE Energy Efficiency Bundles P02-MM CETA 26,533 Base N/A
S-07 High Private Generation P02-MM CETA 25,737 Base N/A
S-08 Low Private Generation P02-MM CETA 26,596 Base N/A
First Year
New GasCaseDescriptionParent Case PVRR ($m)Load
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
3

Figure S.1 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-01 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

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-year 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 and 2037 out to 2038. Additionally, replacement resource requirements decreased,
reducing the need for 412 MW of non-emitting peaker resources 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 20-year study period, demand response resources were lower by 171
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. These changes resulted
in lower fuel costs, lower emission costs, and lower market purchases. CO2 emissions over the
study period decreased by 25 million tons.

Table S.3 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-02 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-02 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $24,781 ($1,562)

-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

4

Figure S.2 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-02 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

1-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 1-in-20 extreme weather conditions during the summer (July) for each state.
System costs are 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 in 2029 and 2030, respectively. The Central
Oregon transmission upgrade and associated solar with storage resources was accelerated from
2037 to 2030. An additional 71 MW of energy efficiency was also selected.

Table S.4 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-03 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-03 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $26,507 $164

-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
5

Figure S.3 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-03 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

Allowance of Proxy Natural 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 20-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 20-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. CO2 emissions increased 6 million tons over the study period.

Table S.5 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-04 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-04 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $26,184 ($159)

-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

6

Figure S.4 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-04 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

Business Plan Sensitivity (S-05)
Table S.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. 15-
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 the preferred portfolio.
• All other resources are optimized.

Figure S.5 summarizes portfolio impacts, driven by the business plan assumption of Jim Bridger
unit 1 retirement at the end of 2023. In contrast, the preferred portfolio assumes Jim Bridger 1
ceases coal-fired operations and converts to gas-fired operations at year-end 2023. In the 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 first 3 years, 42 MW of incremental DSM is
added in accordance with the business plan. Over the 20-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.

Table S.6 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-05 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-05 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $27,184 $840
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
7

Figure S.5 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-05 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

LCOE Energy Efficiency (S-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 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 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 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 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 S-06 sensitivity relative to P02-MM CETA, while
Figure S.6 summarizes portfolio impacts. Under the LCOE approach, total cumulative energy
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

8

efficiency increased 264 MW through the 20-year study period. This represents a 6.2 percent
increase in energy efficiency selections and a 29 percent increase in energy from the energy
efficiency relative to the preferred portfolio. The LCOE portfolio results in higher energy
efficiency 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. CO2 emissions decreased
over the study period by 8 million tons, consistent with higher energy efficiency.

Table S.7 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-06 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-06 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $26,533 $190

Figure S.6 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-06 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

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 turn decreases system costs. Figure S.7
summarizes portfolio impacts. 64 MW of additional energy efficiency was selected over the 20-
year period. 171 MW less demand response was selected over the 20-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-emitting peaker resources, and 1,000 MW of advanced nuclear resources over the 20-year
study period. The CO2 emissions over the study period increased by 3 million tons.

Table S.8 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-07 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-07 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $25,737 ($606)
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
9

Figure S.7 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-07 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

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 upgrade and
associated solar with storage resources was accelerated from 2037 to 2027. Energy efficiency
increased by 67 MW. CO2 emissions over the study period decreased by 11 million tons.

Table S.9 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-08 vs. P02-MM CETA
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
P02-MM CETA S-08 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to P02-MM CETA
$26,343 $26,596 $253

-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

10

Figure S.8 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-08 Relative to
Case P02-MM CETA

BAU1 Sensitivity Cases (end-of-life coal retirements)
Each sensitivity was run under the BAU1 case definitions with end-of-life coal retirements. Table
S.10 reports the definitions and PVRR for each case.

Table S.10 – Summary of Additional BAU1 Sensitivity Cases

High Load Growth Sensitivity (S-01)
Table S.11 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-01 sensitivity relative to BAU1-MM. Due to the
higher load profile, an additional 168 MW of energy efficiency was selected over the 20-year study
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
S-01 High Load BAU1-MM 28,416 High N/A
S-02 Low Load BAU1-MM 25,702 Low N/A
S-03 1 in 20 Load Growth BAU1-MM 27,404 1 in 20 N/A
S-04 MM Price with New Gas BAU1-MM 26,968 Base 2033
S-05 Business Plan BAU1-MM 27,753 Base N/A
S-06 LCOE Energy Efficiency Bundles BAU1-MM 28,030 Base N/A
S-07 High Private Generation BAU1-MM 26,690 Base N/A
S-08 Low Private Generation BAU1-MM 27,424 Base N/A
First Year
New GasCaseDescriptionParent Case PVRR ($m)Load
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
11

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 from 2037 to 2030. CO2 emissions over the
study period increased by 16 million.

Table S.11 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-01 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-01 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $28,416 $1,215

Figure S.9 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-01 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

Low Load Growth Sensitivity (S-02)
Table S.12 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-02 sensitivity relative to BAU1-MM. The reduced
loads lower system costs significantly over the 20-year study period. Figure S.10 summarizes
portfolio impacts. 200 MW of solar and storage resources in 2030 was replaced with less expensive
wind without storage. Additionally, 2037 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 energy 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. CO2 decreased by 24 million tons.

-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

12

Table S.12 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-02 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-02 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $25,702 ($1,498)

Figure S.10 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-02 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

1-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 1-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, 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 upgrade and
associated solar and storage resources from 2037 to 2030. 168 MW of additional energy efficiency
was also selected. The higher 1-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 CO2 emissions over the study period increased by 7 million tons.

Table S.13 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-03 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-03 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $27,404 $204

-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
13

Figure S.11 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-03 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

Allowance of Proxy Gas under BAU1-MM (S-04)
Table S.14 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-04 sensitivity relative to BAU1-MM. This sensitivity
allowed proxy gas resource selections over the 20-year time frame. Figure S.12 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. CO2 emissions in this sensitivity increased by a total of 6 million tons over the
20 years.

Table S.14 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-04 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-04 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $26,968 ($232)

-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

14

Figure S.12 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-04 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

Business Plan Sensitivity (S-05)
Table S.15 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-05 sensitivity relative to BAU1-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. 15-035-
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 the preferred portfolio.
• All other resources are optimized.

Figure S.13 summarizes portfolio impacts, driven by the business plan assumption of Jim Bridger
unit 1 retirement at the end of 2023. In contrast, the base case assumes Jim Bridger 1 continues
coal-fired operation through year-end 2037. In the 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 first 3 years, 42 MW of incremental DSM is added in accordance with the business
plan. Over the 20-year study period, under the business plan solar and storage resource selections
increase 300 MW and DSM additions increase to 74 MW. CO2 emissions over the study period
decreased by 11 million tons.

-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
15

Table S.15 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-05 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-05 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $27,753 $553

Figure S.13 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-05 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

LCOE Energy Efficiency (S-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 remained 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 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 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 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 same measure cost
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

16

is modeled under both methodologies, the totals within each bundle vary as individual measures
move around.

Table S.16 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-06 sensitivity relative to BAU1-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 5.4% increase in energy efficiency selections, and the energy
efficiency generation compare indicates that the LCOE portfolio reports 10 percent more energy
from energy efficiency than the BAU1-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 efficiency 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. CO2 emissions over
the study period increased by 1.1 million tons.

Table S.16 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-06 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-06 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $28,030 $830

Figure S.14 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-06 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

High Private Generation Sensitivity (S-07)
Table S.17 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-07 sensitivity relative to BAU1-MM. The higher
private generation assumptions decrease net load, which in turn decreases system costs. Figure
S.15 summarizes portfolio impacts. In this scenario, 61 MW less energy efficiency was selected
over the 20-year period. Additionally, a total of 500 MW fewer solar and storage resources were
built in 2030, 2031 and 2033. In 2037, 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
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
17

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. CO2 emissions
over the study period increased by 5 million tons.

Table S.17 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-07 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-07 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $26,690 ($510)

Figure S.15 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-07 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

Low Private Generation Sensitivity (S-08)
Table S.18 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-08 sensitivity relative to BAU1-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 efficiency was selected over 20-
years. Lower private generation resulted in higher net loads, increasing system costs. CO2
emissions over the study period decreased by 1 million tons.

Table S.18 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-08 vs. BAU1-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU1-MM S-08 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU1-MM
$27,200 $27,424 $224

-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

18

Figure S.16 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-08 Relative to
Case BAU1-MM

BAU2 Sensitivity Cases (2019 IRP coal retirements)
Each sensitivity was run under the BAU2 case definitions with coal retirements approximating
those from the 2019 IRP preferred portfolio. Table S.19 reports the definitions and PVRR of each
case.

Table S.19 – Summary of Additional BAU2 Sensitivity Cases

-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
S-01 High Load BAU2-MM 28,393 High N/A
S-02 Low Load BAU2-MM 25,495 Low N/A
S-03 1 in 20 Load Growth BAU2-MM 27,394 1 in 20 N/A
S-04 MM Price With New Gas BAU2-MM 26,970 Base 2030
S-05 Business Plan BAU2-MM 27,778 Base N/A
S-06 LCOE Energy Efficiency Bundles BAU2-MM 27,268 Base N/A
S-07 High Private Generation BAU2-MM 26,507 Base N/A
S-08 Low Private Generation BAU2-MM 27,598 Base N/A
First Year
New GasCaseDescriptionParent Case PVRR ($m)Load
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
19

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
higher load profile, an additional 111 MW of energy efficiency was selected over the 20 years.
The need for higher energy 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 transmission 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 CO2 emissions over the study period increased by 10 million.

Table S.20 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-01 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-01 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
$27,054 $28,393 $1,339

Figure S.17 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-01 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

Low Load Growth Sensitivity (S-02)
Table S.21 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-02 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. In the low load
sensitivity, the lower energy need meant that 412 MW of non-emitting peaker was 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 efficiency in years 2038 through 2040. This
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

20

resulted in lower fuel costs, lower emission costs, and lower market purchases. CO2 decreased by
30 million tons

Table S.21 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-02 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-02 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
$27,054 $25,495 ($1,559)

Figure S.18 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-02 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

1-in-20 Load Growth Sensitivity (S-03)
Table S.22 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-03 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. This sensitivity
assumes 1-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 MW of non-emitting peaker resources replaced 200 MW of wind and 425
MW standalone battery. Additionally, this led to acceleration of the Central Oregon transmission
upgrade and associated solar and storage resources from 2037 to 2030. 111 MW of additional
energy efficiency was also selected. The 1-in-20 loads are met by higher system costs. CO2
emissions increased by 4 million tons.

Table S.22 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-03 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-03 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
$27,054 $27,394 $340

-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
21

Figure S.19 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-03 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

Allowance of Proxy Gas under BAU2-MM (S-04)
Table S.23 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-04 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. This sensitivity
allowed proxy gas resource selections over the 20-year time frame. Figure S.20 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 emissions in this sensitivity increased by a total of 6
million tons over the 20 years.

Table S.23 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-04 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-04 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
$27,054 $26,970 ($84)

-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

22

Figure S.20 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-04 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

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. 15-035-
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 higher business plan energy efficiency
assumptions and 2021 IRP updates over the 20-year study period. In the 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 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 MW of solar and storage was replaced with hybrid solar and storage plus
wind resource in 2040. Also, over the 20-year window, demand-side management additions
increase to 61 MW. CO2 emissions over the study period decreased by 2 million tons.

Table S.24 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-05 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-05 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
23

$27,054 $27,778 $724

Figure S.21 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-05 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

LCOE Energy Efficiency (S-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 remained 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 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 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 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 same measure cost
is modeled under both methodologies, the totals within each bundle vary as individual measures
move around.

-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

24

Table S.25 shows the PVRR impacts of the S-06 sensitivity relative to BAU2-MM. In 2040, 10
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 20-year study period. This represents a 4.1% increase in energy efficiency selections,
and the energy efficiency generation compare indicates that the LCOE portfolio reports 29% more
energy from energy efficiency than the BAU2-MM case. This highlights the fact that the NCOC
bundles are more targeted towards our specific resource needs. The LCOE portfolio results in
higher energy efficiency 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 CO2
emissions over the study period decreased by 9 million tons.

Table S.25 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-06 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-06 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
$27,054 $27,268 $214

Figure S.22 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-06 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

High Private Generation Sensitivity (S-07)
Table S.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 20-year period. In 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 in 2031,
2033, 2037 and 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
-50
0
50
100
150
200
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas
PACIFICORP – 2021 IRP SENSITIVITY – MODELING RESULTS
25

generation resulted in lower net loads, decreasing system costs. CO2 emissions in this sensitivity
decreased by a total of 4 million tons over the 20 years.

Table S.26 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-07 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-07 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
$27,054 $26,507 ($547)

Figure S.23 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-07 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

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 to 2027. 111 MW of additional energy efficiency was selected
over 20 years. The lower private generation assumption result in higher net loads, increasing
system costs. CO2 emissions decreased by 13 million tons.

Table S.27 – Risk-Adjusted PVRR (Benefit)/Cost of S-08 vs. BAU2-MM
Medium Gas - Medium CO2 ($ Million)
BAU2-MM S-08 (Benefit) / Cost
Relative to BAU2-MM
$27,054 $27,598 $544

-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas

26

Figure S.24 – Increase/(Decrease) in Nameplate Capacity of S-08 Relative to
Case BAU2-MM

-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
In
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

M
W
Cumulative Changes
Coal Gas Contracts QF
Hydro Nuclear Hydro Storage Battery
Solar Solar+Storage Wind Wind+Storage
Geothermal Energy Efficiency Demand Response Non-Emitting Peaker
Converted Gas