| Resource Type | Report |
| Author / Source | Mark Dyson, Lauren Shwisberg, Katerina Stephan (RMI) |
| Publication Date | January 2023 |
| Location | United States (multi-state analysis) |
| Initiative Type | Policy, Technology |
| Project Complexity | Advanced |
| Recommended For | Board, Staff |
View Full Document Requires name and email to access
Estimated reading time: 30+ minutes
Why This Matters for Rural Electric Co-ops
This report provides a framework for ensuring planning processes are trusted, comprehensive, and aligned with cooperative objectives, including affordability, decarbonization, reliability, and environmental justice. With utilities currently planning over $300 billion in new resource investments through 2035, and IRPs poised to influence 85% or more of future customer bills when transmission and distribution planning are integrated, the stakes of getting resource planning right have never been higher.
For rural electric cooperatives, particularly G&T co-ops and large distribution co-ops, this resource shows how planning modernization can reduce the risk of stranded assets, improve member engagement, and better align investments with community priorities. Co-op leaders can use this report's framework to evaluate and strengthen their own planning processes, or to more effectively engage in their G&T's planning cycles.
Key Takeaways
| › | Effective resource planning must achieve three core qualities: Trusted, Comprehensive, and Aligned. |
| › | Planning should integrate generation, transmission, and distribution decisions to fully reflect system costs, DER growth, and emerging technologies. |
| › | IRPs influence up to 85% of future electric bills when transmission and distribution planning are integrated, making planning reform a major lever for affordability. |
| › | All-source considerations, improved DER modeling, and transparent stakeholder engagement improve investment outcomes and reduce regulatory and reputational risk. |
Implementation Considerations
- Cost or Funding Requirements: Modernizing modeling tools, enhancing stakeholder processes, and conducting more granular analysis may require additional staff capacity, consultant support, or upgraded planning software.
- Staffing or Technology Requirements: Advanced modeling capabilities may require improved granularity to properly value storage, DERs, and resilience investments. Smaller co-ops may need regional collaboration or shared modeling resources.
Notable Examples
- Xcel Energy (Upper Midwest): Pivoting away from a proposed gas plant saved a projected $372 million in societal costs and accelerated carbon reduction timelines.
- Duke Energy Indiana: Cut planned combined-cycle gas additions by 50% between its 2019 and 2021 IRPs while significantly expanding solar and hybrid storage, illustrating how iterative planning avoids unnecessary capital commitments.
- Georgia Power: A stakeholder ecosystem of nearly 20 parties per planning cycle drove renewable approvals from 525 MW in 2016 to 2.3 GW of utility-scale renewables plus 500 MW of battery storage in 2022.
View Full Document Requires name and email to access
Estimated reading time: 30+ minutes
Related to
Comments
0 comments
Please sign in to leave a comment.