1

Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

IRP PLAN SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................8

1.1 OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................9

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE UTILITY ..................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.1 Service Territory and Member-Owners ...................................................................................................11

1.2.2 Capacity Resources ..................................................................................................................................13

1.2.3 Big Rivers SEPA Cumberland Hydro Capacity Resource .......................................................................16

1.2.4 Resources to Meet Load Growth ..............................................................................................................17

1.2.5 Transmission System ................................................................................................................................17

1.2.6 Big Rivers’ Member Load and Load Growth ...........................................................................................18

1.3 PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................. 24

CHANGES SINCE 2017 IRP ................................................................................................................................ 26

2.1 CHANGES TO LOAD FORECAST ..................................................................................................................... 26

2.2 SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION (SEPA) .................................................................................... 26

2.3 SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT AT BIG RIVERS ................................................. 27

2.4 SAFETY PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................... 27

2.5 TRANSMISSION............................................................................................................................................... 29

2.6 FOCUSED MANAGEMENT AUDIT ................................................................................................................... 30

2.7 CREDIT RATING CHANGES............................................................................................................................ 32

2.8 BIG RIVERS BUSINESS PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 32

2.9 RESOURCE PLAN............................................................................................................................................ 33

2.10 OTHER REGULATORY EVENTS ..................................................................................................................... 34

2.11 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC UPDATE.............................................................................................................. 40

LOAD FORECAST ............................................................................................................................................... 44

3.1 TOTAL SYSTEM LOAD ................................................................................................................................... 44

3.2 MEMBER LOAD .............................................................................................................................................. 49

3.3 CUSTOMER CLASS FORECASTS ..................................................................................................................... 51

2
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

3.3.1 Residential Class ......................................................................................................................................51

3.3.2 General Commercial & Industrial Class .................................................................................................52

3.3.3 Large Commercial & Industrial Class .....................................................................................................54

3.3.4 Direct Serve Class....................................................................................................................................55

3.3.5 Street and Highway Class .........................................................................................................................56

3.3.6 Irrigation Class ........................................................................................................................................57

3.3.7 Rural System Energy Summary ................................................................................................................58

3.3.8 Non-Member Sales ...................................................................................................................................60

3.3.9 Interruptible or Curtailable Load ............................................................................................................61

3.4 WEATHER NORMALIZED VALUES ................................................................................................................ 62

3.5 IMPACT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE EE AND DSM PROGRAMS ................................................................... 66

3.6 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM FORECASTS AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ........................................................... 68

3.6.1 Weather Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................69

3.6.2 Economic Scenarios .................................................................................................................................70

3.7 LOAD FORECAST METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 77

3.8 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 78

DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 80

4.1 DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 80

4.2 MARKET POTENTIAL STUDY – ENERGY EFFICIENCY .................................................................................. 80

4.3 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM POTENTIAL SCENARIOS ................................................... 85

4.4 NON-RESIDENTIAL (C&I) ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM POTENTIAL SCENARIOS ............................... 85

4.5 MARKET POTENTIAL STUDY – DEMAND RESPONSE .................................................................................... 86

4.6 CURRENT DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 86

4.7 DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS EVALUATED.............................................................................................. 87

4.8 CONCLUSIONS FOR DEMAND RESPONSE....................................................................................................... 88

4.9 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................................... 89

3
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

SUPPLY-SIDE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ................................................................................... 92

5.1 GENERATION OPERATIONS UPDATE ............................................................................................................. 92

5.2 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING BIG RIVERS RESOURCES ..................................................... 95

5.3 ECONOMICS OF ADDING SOLAR .................................................................................................................... 97

5.4 RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS OF BIG RIVERS’ OPTIMAL PLAN ............................................................... 97

5.5 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER RENEWABLES AND DISTRIBUTED GENERATION ............................................. 98

5.5.1 Net Metering Statistics ...........................................................................................................................100

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ......................................................................................................................................... 101

5.6.1 Clean Air Regulations – Cross State Air Pollution Rule ........................................................................101

5.6.2 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards ........................................................................................................103

5.6.3 Coal Combustion Residuals ...................................................................................................................104

5.6.4 Clean Water Act, Section 316(b) ............................................................................................................107

5.6.5 Affordable Clean Energy Rule ...............................................................................................................107

5.7 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY .............................................................................................................................. 108

TRANSMISSION PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 110

6.1 MISO TRANSMISSION PLANNING ............................................................................................................... 110

6.2 TRANSMISSION TRANSFER CAPABILITY ..................................................................................................... 111

6.3 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION AND EXPANSION ......................................................................... 111

MISO RESOURCE ADEQUACY PLANNING................................................................................................ 116

7.1 MISO’S RESOURCE ADEQUACY MECHANISM OVERVIEW (MODULE E-1)............................................... 116

7.2 MISO RESOURCE ADEQUACY PLANNING .................................................................................................. 117

7.2.1 Annual Planning Resource Auction (PRA) ............................................................................................118

7.2.2 Module E Capacity Tracking Tool .........................................................................................................118

7.2.3 2020 Loss of Load Expectation Study ....................................................................................................118

7.2.4 LOLE Modeling Input Data and Assumptions .......................................................................................120

4
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

7.2.5 MISO Generation ...................................................................................................................................121

7.2.6 MISO Load Data ....................................................................................................................................122

7.2.7 External System ......................................................................................................................................123

7.2.8 Loss of Load Expectation Analysis and Metric Calculations .................................................................124

7.3 PLANNING YEAR 2020 – 2021 MISO PLANNING RESERVE MARGIN RESULTS......................................... 126

7.4 COMPARISON OF PRM TARGETS ACROSS 10 YEARS ................................................................................. 127

7.5 FUTURE YEARS 2020 THROUGH 2029 PLANNING RESERVE MARGINS...................................................... 128

7.6 BIG RIVERS’ CONSIDERATION OF MISO PLANNING RESERVE MARGINS IN THIS IRP ............................ 131

INTEGRATION ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION .................................................................................... 134

8.1 IN-HOUSE PRODUCTION COST MODEL (PLEXOS)...................................................................................... 134

8.1.1 Modeling Overview ...............................................................................................................................136

8.1.2 Model Generation Resource Options ...................................................................................................139

8.2 MODELING RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 148

8.2.1 Base Case Inputs/Constraints ................................................................................................................148

8.2.2 Base Case Results ..................................................................................................................................155

8.2.3 Scenario Evaluation ...............................................................................................................................163

8.3 SUMMARY SCENARIOS................................................................................................................................. 171

ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................................................................... 176

9.1 BIG RIVERS ROBERT D. GREEN PLANT ...................................................................................................... 176

9.2 BIG RIVERS OPTIMAL PLAN ....................................................................................................................... 177

APPENDIX A LONG TERM LOAD FORECAST REPORT ......................................................................................... 179

APPENDIX B DSM STUDY..................................................................................................................................... 180

APPENDIX C CROSS REFERENCE 807 KAR 5:058............................................................................................... 181

APPENDIX D BIG RIVERS RESPONSES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE 2017 IRP ............................. 182

5
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

APPENDIX E TRANSMISSION SYSTEM MAP ......................................................................................................... 183

APPENDIX F TECHNICAL APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 184

APPENDIX G MODEL RESULTS APPENDIX........................................................................................................... 185

APPENDIX H ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... 186

APPENDIX I FIGURES AND TABLES LISTING ........................................................................................................ 187

6
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

7
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

IRP PLAN SUMMARY

This Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP” or “2020 IRP”) is a road map for meeting Big Rivers Electric

Corporation’s (“Big Rivers” or “the Company”) mission to safely deliver competitive and reliable

wholesale power to its Member–Owners.1 It helps determine how Big Rivers will generate power needed

in the future. Big Rivers utilizes a comprehensive, forward-looking decision support tool for evaluating

resource options to meet company objectives at the lowest cost. The process considers supply and demand

resource options, operating, fuel and purchased power costs, and technology costs associated with various

resource plan outcomes. The electric utility industry is experiencing dynamic change at an accelerated

pace, and because of the uncertainty of the changing energy marketplace, Big Rivers regularly reviews

resource options. In addition to regular planning reviews, a triennial filing of an IRP is required by the

Public Service Commission of Kentucky (“Commission”). This IRP is not to be considered a commitment

to any specific course of action, but rather a plan that considers market conditions, load requirements,

regulation, and legislation as of a certain point in time.

This 2020 IRP is provided to comply with Big Rivers’ obligations under 807 KAR 5:058, to address the

Commission Staff Report’s recommendations on Big Rivers’ previous, 2017 IRP, and to give a

comprehensive overview of Big Rivers’ system and resource plans. It is grouped in logical sections to

provide the reader with the information required by statute. A cross-reference table to the requirements of

807 KAR 5:058 is presented in Appendix C. A glossary of terms and acronyms used throughout this IRP

are listed in Appendix H.

1
Big Rivers’ Mission Statement: “Big Rivers will safely deliver competitive and reliable wholesale power
and cost effective shared services desired by our Member-Owners.”

8
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

1.1 Overview

Big Rivers last filed an IRP with the Commission on September 21, 2017, in Case No. 2017-003842 (“2017

IRP”). The Commission, by order dated October 1, 2019, entered the Commission Staff’s report

summarizing its review of Big Rivers’ 2017 IRP into the record, and by order dated November 4, 2019, the

Commission issued a filing date of September 21, 2020, for Big Rivers’ next IRP, and closed Case No.

2017-00384.

This 2020 IRP was prepared by Big Rivers’ staff, with supporting inputs from Clearspring Energy Advisors,

LLC (“Clearspring”) for load forecasting and Demand Side Management (“DSM”) analysis. The

individuals responsible for preparation of this IRP and who will be available to respond to inquiries are

listed in Table 1.1.

Appendix H to this 2020 IRP provides a complete listing of the acronyms used throughout this document.

2
In the Matter of: The 2017 Integrated Resource Plan of Big Rivers Electric Corporation, Case No. 2017-
00384.

9
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 1.1

2020 IRP Project Team

Company Name Area of Expertise

Robert Berry President and CEO
Mark Eacret V. P. Energy Services
Marlene Parsley Energy Services, Load Forecast
Russell Pogue Demand Side Management
Strategic Planning and Risk
Duane Braunecker
Management
David Blank Modeling
Big Rivers Electric Jason Burden Power Production
Corporation V. P. Environmental
Michael Mizell
Compliance
Chris Bradley Transmission
Nicholas Castlen Finance
Tyson Kamuf Corporate Attorney
Roger Hickman Regulatory Affairs
Greg Mayes Associate Attorney
Senthia Santana Associate Attorney
Joshua P. Hoyt Demand Side Management
Clearspring Energy Douglas Carlson Demand Side Management
Advisors, LLC Matt Sekeres Load Forecast
Steve Fenrick Model Development

This IRP presents Big Rivers’ plan for meeting projected power requirements through 2034. It presents the

basis for the plan and the resulting actions Big Rivers will undertake with respect to meeting future load

requirements through a portfolio of supply-side resources. Supporting documents, figures, and tables are

provided throughout this document and in the appendices, which are an integral part of the 2020 IRP.

The remainder of this chapter contains a description of Big Rivers and its service territory; a summary of

its capacity resources, transmission assets, and projected load growth; and a discussion of planning goals

and objectives.

10
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

1.2 Description of the Utility

1.2.1 Service Territory and Member-Owners

Big Rivers is a generation and transmission cooperative headquartered in Henderson, Kentucky. Big Rivers

owns, operates, and maintains electric generation and transmission facilities, and it purchases, transmits,

and sells electricity at wholesale. It exists for the principal purpose of providing the wholesale electricity

requirements of its three distribution cooperative Member-Owners; Jackson Purchase Energy Corporation

(“JPEC”), Kenergy Corp. (“Kenergy”), and Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation

(“MCRECC”) (collectively, the “Members” or “Member-Owners”). The Members, in turn, provide retail

electric service to more than 118,000 consumer-members located in all or parts of 22 western Kentucky

counties: Ballard, Breckenridge, Caldwell, Carlisle, Crittenden, Daviess, Graves, Grayson, Hancock,

Hardin, Henderson, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, Marshall, McCracken, McLean, Meade, Muhlenberg,

Ohio, Union, and Webster. A map illustrating the Members’ service territory is provided in Figure 1.1.

11
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 1.1

Big Rivers’ Members Service Area Map

Big Rivers’ wholesale rates applicable to its Members are shown in its current tariff, which is on file with

the Commission. That tariff may be accessed from either the Commission’s website: (

www.psc.ky.gov/tariffs/Electric/Big%20Rivers%20Electric%20Corporation/General%20Tariff.pdf ) or from the

Regulatory Affairs webpage of Big Rivers’ internet site ( http://www.bigrivers.com/regulatory-affairs/ ) .

See Chapter 2 – “Changes since 2017 IRP” for regulatory activity since Big Rivers’ last IRP.

Also on file with the Commission are wholesale power contracts for Big Rivers’ Member-Owners and

Commission – approved wholesale power agreements:

(https://psc.ky.gov/Home/Library?type=Tariffs&folder=Electric%5CBig%20Rivers%20Electric%20Corp

oration%5CContracts)

Additionally, Big Rivers provides transmission and ancillary services under the Midcontinent Independent

System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) tariff ( https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/tariff/ ) and serves load in

the Southwest Power Pool (“SPP”) ( https://spp.etariff.biz:8443/viewer/viewer.aspx ).

12
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

1.2.2 Capacity Resources

Big Rivers owns and operates the Robert A. Reid Plant (130 MW), the Kenneth C. Coleman Plant (443

MW), the Robert D. Green Plant (454 MW), and the D. B. Wilson Plant (417 MW), totaling 1,444 net MW

of generating capacity. Big Rivers’ total power capacity is 1622 MW, when 178 MW of contracted

hydroelectric capacity from the Southeastern Power Administration (“SEPA”) is included. Announced

retirements of the 443 MW Coleman Plant and 65 MW Reid 1, to be completed by the end of 2020, and

proposed additions of three solar power purchase agreements totaling 260 MW (see Sections 1.2.3 and 2.9)

will bring total generation resources to 1,374 MW. In 2017, Big Rivers installed seven solar arrays in the

Member-Owner service areas to provide data on solar energy generators3. The arrays provide retail

members, first responders and students the opportunity to view solar technology up close, learning about

its construction, production, and costs. Located in McCracken, Marshall, Livingston, Henderson, Daviess,

Meade, and Breckinridge Counties, the arrays generate a combined 165,000 kWh each year. See Figures

1.2 and 1.3 for an overview of Big Rivers’ Green, Reid, and Wilson generation facilities.

3
https://solar.bigrivers.com/

13
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 1.2

Generation Facility Overview

The Wilson Station includes:

• Foster Wheeler boiler and

Westinghouse turbine generator,
commercialized in 1986.

14
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 1.3

Generation Facility Overview

15
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

1.2.3 Big Rivers SEPA Cumberland Hydro Capacity Resource

SEPA was created in 1950 by the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the functions assigned to the

Secretary by the Flood Control Act of 1944, and now functions under the Department of Energy (“DOE”).

The objectives of SEPA are to market electric power and energy generated by Federal reservoir projects

while encouraging widespread use of the power at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Preference in the

sale of power is given to public bodies and cooperatives, referred to as preference customers.

There are nine projects in the Cumberland System located in Kentucky and Tennessee. The power produced

at these projects is delivered to 25 preference entities that serve 210 preference customers in 8 states

including Kentucky. Figure 1.4 is a map of the Cumberland system projects.

Figure 1.4

SEPA Cumberland System Map

Big Rivers is one of the earliest preference customers outside of Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) and

began purchasing power from the Cumberland System of projects in 1963. The Big Rivers allocation of

178 MW is one of the largest single allocations of Cumberland System power and is an important carbon-

free part of Big Rivers’ generation portfolio.

16
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

1.2.4 Resources to Meet Load Growth

In addition to the capacity resources above, Big Rivers has contracted to purchase 260 MWs of Solar Power

consisting of 160 MWs from Geronimo Energy from a facility located on the Henderson/Webster County

line and 100 MWs from Community Energy at two different sites; 40 MW located in Meade County and

60 MW located in McCracken County. These solar power purchase contracts are currently awaiting

Commission approval. See In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for

Approval of Solar Power Contracts, P.S.C. Case No. 2020-00183. Chapters 8 and 9 of this IRP also discuss

Big Rivers’ optimal plan to idle the 454 MW Green units and add up to 90 MW of a new 592 MW natural

gas combined cycle unit situated at Big Rivers’ Sebree location.

1.2.5 Transmission System

Big Rivers owns, operates and maintains its 1,297-mile transmission system and provides for the

transmission of power to its Members and third party entities served under the MISO tariff. A

CONFIDENTIAL map of the transmission system is provided in Figure 1.4, and a more detailed map is

provided in CONFIDENTIAL Appendix E. Discussion of Big Rivers’ transmission planning is provided

in Chapter 6.

17
 Figure 1.5

1.2.6 Big Rivers’ Member Load and Load Growth

Unless otherwise noted, references to total system energy and peak demand requirements in the 2020 Load

Forecast are to Big Rivers’ Members’ native system and Big Rivers’ Non-Member load.4 Member native

system is the cumulative requirement of the Members’ customer base load that Big Rivers is obligated to

serve, and is the primary driver of load requirements. Non-Member load is defined as planned long-term

load obligations that create value for Big Rivers’ Members. Refer to Section 3.3.8 and Appendix A Long

Term Load Forecast for more discussion of Non-Member load.

4
See Appendix A, 2020 Load Forecast

18
Big Rivers categorizes Member energy and peak demand into two classes: rural system and direct serve.

The rural system is comprised of all retail residential, commercial, and industrial customers served by Big

Rivers’ Members, except for retail customers served under Big Rivers’ Large Industrial Customer (“LIC”)

tariff or special contracts. Direct-serve customers are served under special contracts or Big Rivers’ LIC

tariff. There were 21 large industrial consumers in 2019, with an additional LIC added with the

Commission’s approval of the Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”) contracts on August 17, 2020, in Case No.

2019-00365. The Direct- Serve class contributed 29% of Big Rivers’ Member kWh Sales in 2019 and is

projected to contribute 44% of Big Rivers’ Member kWh Sales in 2039.

A breakdown of actual energy sales for 2019 and projected sales for 2039 is presented in Figure 1.5.

19
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 1.6

Class Energy kWH Sales Proportions for Member Load

As mentioned above, Big Rivers’ total system energy and peak demand requirements are comprised of its

Member system load and Non-Member load. Total requirements include transmission losses. Member

20
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

system energy and peak demand requirements are projected to reach 4,602 GWH and 852 MW,

respectively, by 2039. Annual Member load coincident peak (“CP”) projections are presented in Table 1.2.

Refer to Section 3.3.8 for details on additional Non-Member sales included in the 2020 Long Term Load

Forecast Report. Chapter 3 and Appendix A provide detailed descriptions of the load forecast.

21
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 1.2

2020 Big Rivers Member CP Load Forecast

22
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 1.3

Big Rivers Total Member System Energy Summary

23
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Member system energy and peak demand requirements are projected to increase at average compound rates

of 1.65% and 1.56%, respectively, per year from 2019 through 2039. Continued increases in employment

and number of households, air conditioning saturation levels, appliance efficiencies, consumer energy

conservation awareness, and decreases in the price of retail electricity are expected to impact growth in

Member energy sales over the near term; however, increased sales to direct-serve customers will have

positive impacts on Member sales over the near term. Member peak requirements are projected to increase

from 627 MW in 2020 to 852 MW (including transmission losses) by the summer of 2039.

1.3 Planning Goals and Objectives

Big Rivers’ primary planning goal in its 2020 IRP is to reliably and efficiently provide for its Members’

electricity needs over the next 15 years through an appropriate mix of resources at the lowest reasonable

cost by minimizing the net present value of the production and capital cost for serving the load. An

overarching goal was to diversify Big Rivers’ historically coal-heavy portfolio while maintaining a “least

cost” approach. No additional solar power was assumed beyond what has already been proposed in Case

No. 2020-00183. Big Rivers has established other planning objectives to guide its 2020 IRP process:

 Maintain a current and reliable load forecast,

 Provide competitively priced power to its Members,

 Maximize reliability while ensuring safety, minimizing costs, risks, and environmental

impacts,

 Identify potential new supply-side resources,

 Maintain adequate planning reserve margins,

 Develop and maintain a more diversified supply portfolio aligned with anticipated Member-

Owner load, and

 Meet North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) guidelines and requirements.

24
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

25
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

CHANGES SINCE 2017 IRP

2.1 Changes to Load Forecast

Big Rivers chose Clearspring of Madison, Wisconsin to prepare the 2020 Long–Term Load Forecast and

Demand–Side Management/Energy Efficiency (“DSM/EE”) Analysis. Clearspring was formed in 2004

and has provided consulting services not only to electric cooperatives, including over one hundred fifty

(150) distribution cooperatives and fifteen (15) generation and transmission (G&T) cooperatives, but also

to investor-owned utilities and municipalities. Clearspring has provided utility-scale energy efficiency

studies for eight (8) G&Ts.

Compared to the previous forecast performed by GDS Associates, Inc., Clearspring’s method of analysis

includes: (a) direct estimates of impacts to use–per–consumer or consumer counts; (b) direct modeling of

electricity price; (c) calculated price elasticity based on the relative impact of the electricity price and the

alternative fuel index; (d) 15–year weather normalization for base case load forecasts; and (e) changes to

weather details such as using temperature values in the econometric model.5

2.2 Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA)

In January of 2020, force majeure conditions due to dam safety issues on SEPA’s Cumberland River

system, which had been in effect since 2007, ceased, raising Big Rivers’ SEPA allocation from 154 MW to

178 MW. On March 26, 2018, in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. ER18-1173, MISO’s

Locational Enhancement to Resource Adequacy created External Resource Zones. As an External

Resource, the price for SEPA Cumberland ZRCs will settle at an External Resource Zone Market Clearing

Price, which may be different than the Market Clearing Price in MISO Zone 6, where Big Rivers generation

and load reside.

5
Methodology are included in Appendix A Long Term Load Forecast Section 7.4.

26
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

2.3 Senior Management and Personnel Development at Big Rivers

Big Rivers’ employees continue to be its greatest asset. Big Rivers remains focused on growing this asset

through leadership development efforts, employee education and training, and a focus on employee

engagement, wellness and performance management.

Big Rivers has had several changes in senior management since 2017. Lindsay N. Durbin, formerly Chief

Financial Officer (CFO), assumed the Vice President Human Resources position in 2018 following the

retirement of Thomas W. (Tom) Davis. Big Rivers hired Paul G. Smith to fill the vacant CFO position in

the same year. In February 2020, Michael T. (Mike) Pullen was promoted to Executive Vice President

Operations, and, in April 2020, Big Rivers hired Michael S. (Mike) Mizell as Vice President Environmental

Compliance to enhance Big Rivers’ focus on changing environmental regulations.

Since 2017, Big Rivers has implemented a Pay–for–Performance Plan into its Performance Management

Process for Non–Bargaining employees, and has continued to utilize Individual Development Plans for

each employee. Big Rivers also engaged the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association to conduct

its bi-annual Employee Engagement Survey and, to provide better employee feedback, used survey

questions with a more detailed 5–point scale to gain greater insights. In 2019, Big Rivers held its first

annual Leadership Forum, bringing together leaders throughout the organization for a day of learning and

fellowship. Big Rivers continues its succession planning process to attract and retain top talent. Big Rivers’

focus on strategic planning remains evident through annual workshops with executives, employees, and

board members to update the corporate strategic plan and ensure a continued focus on meeting our corporate

mission.

2.4 Safety Programs

Big Rivers’ Board, management, and union are committed to a safety–focused culture in which all

employees are personally involved and responsible, for not only their own personal safety, but also the

safety of others. Management places safety above all other Big Rivers core values. Safety is the foundation

27
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

for all decisions and expectations of Big Rivers’ work force, and is a major component of Big Rivers’

incentive program. Senior management, along with other Big Rivers employees, participate in a Monthly

Safety Leadership Team meeting to discuss Big Rivers’ safety performance, review incidents, and discuss

needed changes or improvements in the Company’s safety performance or policies.

Big Rivers continues to assist its Member-Owners regarding communication and education within their

respective communities pertaining to electrical safety. Big Rivers hosts an annual Contractor Safety Kick–

Off Meeting to promote the philosophy that everyone who works at Big Rivers’ facilities is expected to

maintain safety awareness and work safely. The ideal result of an involved, committed work force is

ultimately no personal injuries or death.

Following are safety achievements over the past years:

 Fifty-Two Governor’s Safety and Health Awards from the Kentucky Labor Cabinet, each

award based on number of hours worked without experiencing a lost-time injury;

 One year or greater no lost-time incident milestones achieved in 2020:

o Transmission: 10 years,

o Green Station: 11 years,

o Headquarters: 9 years, and

o Wilson Station: 4 years;

 Headquarters employees have worked four years without an Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (“OSHA”) recordable incident;

 Transmission employees have worked five years without an OSHA recordable incident;

 Green Station employees have worked one year without an OSHA recordable incident; and

 Big Rivers won the 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 Kentucky Employers’ Mutual Insurance

(“KEMI”) Destiny award for Big Rivers’ commitment and success in maintaining a safe

28
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

workplace. This award requires that Big Rivers be in KEMI’s Preferred TIER, maintain an

Experience Modification Rate of .8 or below and maintain a loss ratio of 45% or below, which

places Big Rivers in an elite group. With nearly 30,000 KEMI policyholders in Kentucky, Big

Rivers was one of 24 organizations that won the award in 2019.

2.5 Transmission

Big Rivers operates and maintains a network of 1,297 miles of transmission lines and 24 substations. The

Company has completed various upgrades that are expected to improve reliability for its Members. These

upgrades included innovative and automated technology that further enhance Big Rivers’ ability to respond

to outages with Automatic Restoration and Sectionalization (“ARS”) schemes. ARS automatically sheds

any unneeded transmission line sections in an attempt to expedite the sectionalization of a 69 kV circuit

that is experiencing an outage, and quickly reenergizes the rural or industrial delivery point substation.

ARS also automatically transfers a distribution substation that is experiencing an outage from a locked–out

transmission circuit to that substation’s backup transmission circuit. These self–healing concepts are

preprogrammed within the Big Rivers Energy Management System.

In 2019, the SERC Reliability Corporation (“SERC”), responsible for ensuring a reliable and secure electric

grid across 16 southeastern and central states including Kentucky, completed a comprehensive audit of Big

Rivers’ compliance with NERC Planning Standards and Operating Standards. The audit was very

successful with many positive observations noted by the audit teams.

Big Rivers, in partnership with Republic Transmission, LLC, completed MISO’s first competitively bid

transmission project. The new 345 kV transmission line was energized on June 11, 2020, ahead of schedule

and under budget, and extends approximately 31 miles from the Big Rivers Coleman extra high voltage

(“EHV”) substation in Hancock County, Kentucky, to Dubois County, Indiana. Big Rivers owns and

operates the Kentucky portion of the project.

29
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

2.6 Focused Management Audit

In its final Order in the second rate case Big Rivers filed to address the loss of two aluminum smelters in

Big Rivers’ service area,6 the Kentucky Public Service Commission initiated a Focused Management Audit

of Big Rivers’ plan to address the loss of the smelter load, i.e., the Load Concentration Analysis and

Mitigation Plan (“Mitigation Plan”). The resulting Focused Management Audit Report generally confirmed

Big Rivers’ past decisions and future plans as outlined in the Mitigation Plan. Since the filing of its 2017

Integrated Resource Plan in September 2017, Big Rivers has continued to file Focused Management Audit

Progress Reports. As Table 2.1 shows, in October 2020, Big Rivers will file its seventh Progress Report.

Also as shown in Table 2.1, of the original five (5) recommendations, Recommendation No. 3 is ON-

GOING, while Recommendation No. 5, pursuant to the Commission Staff’s October 22, 2019, reply to Big

Rivers’ fourth, fifth, and sixth Progress Reports, is listed as ON-GOING Held in Abeyance.

6
See In the Matter of: Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for a General Adjustment in Rates
Supported by Fully Forecasted Test Period – Case No. 2013-00199, Order (April 25, 2014).

30
 Table 2.1

Big Rivers Electric Corporation Focused Management Audit Progress Report Summary

Progress Report No. Big Rivers Commission Staff’s

Recommendations
and Date Proposed Status Response on Status
Recommendation No. 1 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Progress Report Recommendation No. 2 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Number 1 Recommendation No. 3 ON-GOING ON-GOING
April 1, 2016 Recommendation No. 4 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Recommendation No. 5 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Recommendation No. 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE
Progress Report Recommendation No. 2 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Number 2 Recommendation No. 3 ON-GOING ON-GOING
October 3, 2016 Recommendation No. 4 COMPLETE ON-GOING
Recommendation No. 5 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Recommendation No. 2 COMPLETE ON-GOING
Progress Report
Recommendation No. 3 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Number 3
Recommendation No. 4 COMPLETE COMPLETE
April 3, 2017
Recommendation No. 5 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Recommendation No. 2 COMPLETE COMPLETE
Progress Report
Recommendation No. 3 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Number 4
ON-GOING –
October 4, 2017 Recommendation No. 5 ON-GOING
Held in Abeyance
Progress Report Recommendation No. 3 ON-GOING ON-GOING
Number 5 ON-GOING –
Recommendation No. 5 COMPLETE
October 5, 2018 Held in Abeyance
Progress Report
Number 6 Recommendation No. 3 ON-GOING ON-GOING
October 8, 2019
Progress Report
Number 7 Recommendation No. 3
October 8, 2020
Recommendation No. 1 Big Rivers should consider adding a member with energy expertise to the Board of Directors.
Big Rivers should continue to develop in-house expertise in terms of price forecasting and MISO
Recommendation No. 2 market knowledge to develop more informed price forecasts, but only to the degree that it supports
Big Rivers’ mission and core business.
Big Rivers should commence a study on the sale, retirement or redevelopment of the Coleman
Recommendation No. 3 facility, maintain the optionality around Wilson at this time and revisit strategic options for the
facility in the next two to three years.
Big Rivers should continue to pursue increased sales to existing and new load, including new
Recommendation No. 4
Members
Big Rivers should pursue discussions with Lenders and the Commission to address restrictions
around the sale of Coleman and commence a study on the strategic options for the facility.
Recommendation No. 5

31
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

2.7 Credit Rating Changes

In 2017, Big Rivers did not have an investment grade rating from any of the three credit rating agencies

(Moody’s Investor Services (”Moody’s”), Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”), and S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”)). In

fact, Big Rivers was two levels or “notches” below an investment grade rating by all three agencies. In

July of 2018, with continued improvement in financial metrics and cash flow, Big Rivers was able to obtain

an investment grade rating from Fitch. Also in 2018, both Moody’s and S&P upgraded Big Rivers one

notch, which left the company still short of investment grade. In 2019, Moody’s upgraded the Big Rivers

outlook from “stable” to “positive,” but did not upgrade the rating.

Big Rivers continues to enhance its credit profile and believes a number of recent milestone events will

lead to either Moody’s or S&P, or both, upgrading the company to investment grade. Such milestone events

include the Commission Order in Case No. 2020-00064 which approved the cost recovery of Big Rivers’

regulated assets and implementation of an innovative sharing of net margins in excess of a 1.30 times

interest earned ratio, the call and refinancing of pollution control bonds which will result in a significant

reduction in annual interest expense, and the approval of the Meade County contract with Nucor

Corporation.

2.8 Big Rivers Business Plan Development

During the three years since the 2017 IRP, Big Rivers maintained its financial health by rebalancing its

supply portfolio with demand and executing several long–term non-member agreements. The Electrical

Integration Analysis, Chapter 7 of Big Rivers’ 2017 IRP, presented Big Rivers’ least–cost option to

continue operating the Wilson and Green Units as coal-fired generators, continue the contract with SEPA,

and exit the Station Two Contracts with Henderson Municipal Power & Light (“HMP&L”). Both of the

first two points were achieved. As explained in further detail below, Big Rivers did exit the Station Two

Contracts in 2019, except for the Joint Facilities Agreement. In addition, Big Rivers continued to follow

its business plan, which included selling Big Rivers’ length above cost in short and intermediate terms

32
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

while pursuing long–term sales including participating with local partners in economic development efforts

to increase Member load. Such transactions along with the generation and supply changes discussed below,

better align Big Rivers’ load with supply to safely deliver competitive and reliable wholesale power to our

Member-Owners.

2.9 Resource Plan

The optimal (least cost) plan for the Base Case includes adding the three solar facilities Power Purchase

Agreements (“PPA”) totaling 260 MW of new solar capacity, entering a partnership to own or purchase 90

MW in 2024 of a new 592 MW natural gas combined cycle unit located at Sebree (NGCC – Sebree), and

idling both the Green coal units. Wilson continues to operate as a coal-fired station, the Reid Station

Combustion Turbine (“Reid CT”) remains available as a natural gas peaking unit and Big Rivers remains

in the SEPA contract. It should be emphasized that this resource plan option assumes the creation of a

coalition of partners for the 592 MW natural gas combined cycle (“NGCC”) unit. A unit of at least that

size is required to realize the economies of scale that come with a larger facility, but Big Rivers does not

project a requirement for the entire output of the facility to serve is Member load.

33
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

2.10 Other Regulatory Events

Since the filing of Big Rivers’ 2017 IRP, the Commission has conducted semi-annual and biennial reviews

of the operation of Big Rivers’ Fuel Adjustment Clause (“FAC”) and Environmental Surcharge (“ES”)

tariffs. Those reviews have resulted in no changes to the application of Big Rivers’ FAC7 or its ES.8

Three months prior to filing its 2017 IRP, Big Rivers made a tariff filing with the Commission in which it

requested Commission approval to withdraw tariff sheets for two of its DSM and Energy Efficiency (“EE”)

programs while simultaneously requesting Commission approval to change one other DSM/EE program.

On December 21, 2017, the Commission issued an Order denying in part and accepting in part the changes

proposed by Big Rivers.9 Ordering Paragraph No. 3 of that Order directed Big Rivers to make a tariff filing

no later than June 30, 2018, detailing which other DSM/EE programs should continue.

7
See: In the Matter of: Electronic Examination of the Application of the Fuel Adjustment Clause of Big
Rivers Electric Corporation from May 1, 2017 through October 31, 2017 – Case No. 2018-00023; In the Matter of:
Electronic Examination of the Application of the Fuel Adjustment Clause of Big Rivers Electric Corporation from
November 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018 – Case No. 2018-00221; In the Matter of: Electronic Examination of the
Application of the Fuel Adjustment Clause of Big Rivers Electric Corporation from November 1, 2016 through
October 31, 2018 – Case No. 2019-00007; In the Matter of: An Electronic Examination of the Application of the Fuel
Adjustment Clause of Big Rivers Electric Corporation from November 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019 – Case No.
2019-00231; In the Matter of: An Electronic Examination of the Application of the Fuel Adjustment Clause of Big
Rivers Electric Corporation from May 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019 – Case No. 2020-00009; and In the Matter
of: An Electronic Examination of the Application of the Fuel Adjustment Clause of Big Rivers Electric Corporation
from November 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020 – Case No. 2020-00250. On September 2, 2020, Big Rivers filed its
response to Commission Staff’s Information Request in the Appendix to the Commission’s August 19, 2020, Order
in Case No. 2020-00250.
8
See: In the Matter of: An Examination by the Public Service Commission of the Environmental Surcharge
Mechanism of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for the Six-Month Billing Period ending January 31, 2018, and the
Pass Through Mechanism of its Three Member Distribution Cooperatives – Case No. 2018-00163; In the Matter of:
An Electronic Examination by the Public Service Commission of the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism of Big
Rivers Electric Corporation for the Six-Month Billing Period ending July 31, 2018, and the Pass Through Mechanism
of its Three Member Distribution Cooperatives – Case No. 2018-00338; In the Matter of: An Electronic Examination
by the Public Service Commission of the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for
the Six-Month Billing Period ending January 31, 2019, and the Pass Through Mechanism of its Three Member
Distribution Cooperatives – Case No. 2019-00172; and In the Matter of: Electronic Examination by the Public Service
Commission of the Environmental Surcharge Mechanism of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for the Two-Year Billing
Period ending July 31, 2019, and the Pass Through Mechanism of its Three Member Distribution Cooperatives –
Case No. 2020-00144. On September 1, 2020, Big Rivers requested a decision on the record in Case No. 2020-00144.
9
See: In the Matter of: Tariff Filing of Big Rivers Electric Corporation to Revise Certain Demand-Side
Management Programs – Case No. 2017-00278.

34
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

On July 6, 2018, Big Rivers made a tariff filing requesting the Commission’s approval to discontinue

immediately seven (7) of its then existing DSM/EE programs, and to phase out the remaining programs

over time.10,11 Big Rivers also sought approval to establish an Energy Use Education DSM/EE program

and a Low-Income Weatherization Support DSM/EE program. The Commission’s December 12, 2018

Order approved the immediate discontinuance of the seven programs so identified; approved the phase out,

by June 30, 2019, of the programs so identified; denied the Energy Use Education program; and approved

the Low-Income Weatherization Support program.

Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph No. 4 of the December 2018 Order, on May 15, 2019, Big Rivers made a

tariff filing with the Commission to implement the Low-Income Weatherization Support program, DSM-

14 Low-Income Weatherization Support.12 The Commission’s November 13, 2019 Order approved DSM-

14 as a pilot program. The Commission also directed Big Rivers to file an annual status report, beginning

on March 31, 2021, with metrics showing the prior calendar year’s result for the program. As of the filing

of this 2020 IRP, the DSM-14 Low-Income Weatherization Support Program – Pilot is the only operational

DSM/EE program listed in Big Rivers’ tariff on file with the Commission.

On March 16, 2018, Big Rivers filed an application with the Commission in which it requested the

Commission issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) for the construction of a

10
See: In the Matter: DSM Filing of Big Rivers Electric Corporation on Behalf of Itself, Jackson Purchase
Energy Corporation, and Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation and Request to Establish a
Regulatory Liability – Case No. 2018-00236.
11
The DSM/EE programs to be discontinued immediately were DSM-01 - High Efficiency Lighting
Replacement, DSM-02 - ENERGY STAR® Clothes Washer Replacement Incentive, DSM-03 - ENERGY STAR®
Refrigerator Replacement Incentive, DSM-06 - Touchstone Energy® New Home, DSM-07 - Residential/Commercial
HVAC & Refrigeration Tune-Up, DSM-09 - Commercial/Industrial General Energy Efficiency, and DSM-13 -
Residential Weatherization A La Carte. The DSM/EE programs to be phased out over time were DSM-04 - Residential
High Efficiency Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning ("HVAC"), DSM-08 - Commercial / Industrial High
Efficiency Lighting Replacement Incentive, DSM-11 - Commercial High Efficiency Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning ("HVAC"), and DSM-12 – High Efficiency Outdoor Lighting.
12
See: In the Matter of: Demand-Side Management Filing of Big Rivers Electric Corporation to Implement
a Low-Income Weatherization Support Program – Case No. 2019-00193.

35
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

345 kV transmission line in Hancock County, Kentucky.13 This transmission line was part of a larger MISO

Transmission Expansion Plan project, which included a new single-circuit 345 kV transmission line

between CenterPoint Energy’s Duff Substation located in Dubois County, Indiana, and Big Rivers’

Coleman Extra High Voltage substation located in Hancock County, Kentucky. Republic Transmission,

LLC constructed the entire project and, through an Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”), Big Rivers would

purchase, own, and operate the Kentucky portion of the project. In its order dated July 12, 2018, the

Commission granted the CPCN and approved the APA. On June 11, 2020, construction of the line was

completed, the Kentucky portion of the line was transferred to Big Rivers, and the line was placed into

service.

On May 1, 2018, Big Rivers filed an application with the Commission in Case No. 2018-00146, asking the

Commission, among other things, to confirm that the Station Two units were no longer capable of normal,

continuous, reliable operation for the economically competitive production of electricity and that as a result,

the Station Two Contracts, except the Joint Facilities Agreement, had terminated. The Commission granted

that request by Order dated August 29, 2018. In that Order, the Commission also granted Big Rivers’

request to allow it to continue to operate Station Two under the terms of the Station Two Contracts, for a

period ending no later than May 31, 2019, to give HMP&L time to make alternate arrangements for its

power supply. By agreement between Big Rivers and HMP&L, Big Rivers operated Station Two until

February 1, 2019, at which time it was retired. On October 23, 2018, the Commission approved a settlement

agreement in the case among Big Rivers, Kentucky Industrial Utility Customers (“KIUC”), and the

Attorney General, under which Big Rivers was authorized to establish a regulatory asset to the defer

recovery of expenses related to termination of the Station Two Contracts, to implement a Station Two

Depreciation Credit to pass through bill credits to its Members reflecting approximately two years’ worth

13
See: In the Matter of: Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to Construct and Acquire a 345 KV Transmission Line in Hancock County, Kentucky –
Case No. 2018-00004.

36
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

of depreciation expense savings resulting from the Station Two Contract termination, and to implement a

Times Interest Earned Ratio (“TIER”) credit mechanism to reduce regulatory assets by utilizing the savings

resulting from the Station Two Contract termination that would otherwise result in a TIER above a 1.45

TIER in any year.

On July 31, 2019, Big Rivers filed an application with the Commission seeking an order enforcing the rates

and service standards contained in the Station Two Contracts. Specifically, Big Rivers asked the

Commission to find that that: 1) Big Rivers correctly performed the calculations contained in the Interim

Accounting Summary, HMP&L is contractually obligated to pay its share of costs as reflected therein, and

Big Rivers correctly determined each party’s ownership of the coal and lime reagent remaining at Station

Two; 2) HMP&L has both a current and an ongoing contractual obligation to share in the costs of

decommissioning Station Two; 3) HMP&L has current and ongoing contractual obligations to share in the

costs of maintaining Station Two waste in Big Rives’ Green Station landfill; and 4) HMP&L is

contractually obligated to allow Big Rivers to continue utilizing city-owned joint use facilities. The

Commission granted HMP&L’s motion to intervene, and a formal hearing is scheduled to begin October

22, 2020.

In March 2019, Nucor Corporation, the largest steel maker in the United States, announced plans to

construct a $1.3 billion plant in Brandenburg, Meade County, Kentucky. Brandenburg is the home for the

main office of a Big Rivers’ Member, Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (Meade

County RECC). Since Big Rivers is the wholesale electric supplier to Meade County RECC, on September

27, 2019, and January 17, 2020, Big Rivers filed applications seeking the Commission’s review of

transmission projects that would enable service to Nucor and would strengthen the transmission system in

37
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

the area.14 On January 23, 2020, and May 1, 2020, the Commission granted Big Rivers CPCNs to construct

the projects outlined in its applications.

On October 18, 2019, Big Rivers and its Member Meade County RECC filed a joint application seeking

the Commission’s approval of agreements to provide electric service to Nucor Corporation, and of a

proposed Large Industrial Customer Expansion (“LICX”) tariff.15 On August 17, 2020, the Commission

issued its final order, approving the agreements and the LICX tariff.

On February 7, 2020, Big Rivers filed its 2020 Environmental Compliance Plan (“ECP”) application with

the Commission.16 Among other things, Big Rivers requested that the Commission approve its 2020 ECP

as filed and issue CPCNs for certain environmental compliance projects. On August 6, 2020, the

Commission issued its final order approving or conditionally approving the projects in Big Rivers’ 2020

ECP and the related CPCNs.

On February 28, 2020, Big Rivers filed an application with the Commission17 requesting that the

Commission allow Big Rivers to establish regulatory assets for the remaining net book value and

decommissioning costs for its Coleman and Reid 1 generating units and to discontinue deferring DSM

savings in a regulatory liability, authorize Big Rivers to recover those and other regulatory assets through

existing rates after the utilization of 80% of its equity headroom and the existing DSM regulatory liability

14
See: In the Matter of: Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to Construct a 161 KV Transmission Line, and a 345 KV Transmission Line in Meade
County, Kentucky – Case No. 2019-00270.
15
See: In the Matter of: Electronic Joint Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation and Meade County
Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation for (1) Approval of Contracts for Electric Service with Nucor Corporation;
and (2) Approval of Tariff – Case No. 2019-00365.
16
See: In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for Approval of its 2020
Environmental Compliance Plan, Authority to Recover Costs through a Revised Environmental Surcharge and Tariff,
the Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Certain Projects, and Appropriate Accounting
and Other Relief – Case No. 2019-00435.

17
See: In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for Approval to Modify
its MRSM Tariff, Cease Deferring Depreciation Expenses, Establish Regulatory Assets, Amortize Regulatory Assets,
and Other Appropriate Relief – Case No. 2020-00064.

38
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

to reduce those regulatory assets, approve Big Rivers’ proposed changes to its Member Rate Stability

Mechanism (“MRSM”) tariff, and permit Big Rivers’ to cease deferring certain depreciation expenses. The

MRSM tariff changes would primarily allow Big Rivers to return funds to its Members depending on the

level of its adjusted net margins versus those margins calculated using a 1.30 TIER. The deferred

depreciation expenses arose from Big Rivers’ two prior general rate cases.18 On June 25, 2020, the

Commission entered a final order, which granted Big Rivers’ requests to establish regulatory assets for the

remaining net book value of Coleman Station and Reid Station Unit 1 at retirement and for the costs to

decommission those units, to cease deferring DSM savings in a regulatory liability account, to utilize the

existing DSM regulatory liability and 80% of equity headroom to reduce certain regulatory assets, and to

recover the amounts deferred in those regulatory assets through amortization. The Commission ordered

modifications of the proposed changes to the TIER Credit in the MRSM tariff. Under the new TIER Credit,

as modified, in years in which Big Rivers earns in excess of a 1.30 TIER, 40% of the excess margins will

be returned to Members over the following year through a Monthly Bill credit, and the remaining 60% of

the excess margins will be deferred in a regulatory liability account to be utilized in a year in which Big

Rivers does not achieve a 1.30 TIER or to further decrease the balance of certain regulatory assets with

Commission approval.

On April 28, 2020, Big Rivers filed with the Commission an electronic application for approval to issue

evidences of indebtedness.19 Specifically, Big Rivers’ application requested the Commission’s approval of

a new $150,000,000 Secured Credit Agreement to replace its expiring, existing $100,000,000 Secured

18
See: In the Matter of: Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for an Adjustment of Rates – Case
No. 2012-00535 (Application filed January 15, 2013); See: In the Matter of: Application of Big Rivers Electric
Corporation for a General Adjustment in Rates Supported by Fully Forecasted Test Period – Case No. 2013-00199
(Application filed June 28, 2013).
19
See: In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Corporation for Approval to Issue Evidences
of Indebtedness, Case No. 2020-00129

39
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Credit Agreement. On May 8, 2020, the Commission issued an Order authorizing Big Rivers to enter into

the 2020 Secured Credit Agreement.

On June 17, 2020, Big Rivers filed with the Commission an electronic application for approval to issue

certain evidences of indebtedness.20 Specifically, Big Rivers’ application requested the Commission’s

approval of evidences of indebtedness in connection with the issuance by the County of Ohio, Kentucky,

of Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2020, in the aggregate principal amount of

$83,300,000. The new bonds would replace similar bonds issued into 2010, which were called and

redeemed in July 2020. On August 13, 2020, the Commission issued a final order granting approval to

issue the requested evidences of indebtedness.

On June 24, 2020, Big Rivers filed with the Commission an electronic application for approval of three

solar power purchase agreements: (1) a twenty-year contract with Henderson Solar, LLC for the purchase

of the entire output of a 160 MW solar generation facility to be built in Henderson County and Webster

County, Kentucky; (2) a twenty-year contract with Meade County Solar, LLC for the purchase of the entire

output of a 40 MW solar generation facility to be built in Meade County, Kentucky; and (3) a twenty-year

contract with McCracken County Solar, LLC for the purchase of the entire output of 60 MW solar

generation facility to be built in McCracken County, Kentucky.21 As of filing of this Integrated Resource

Plan, this proceeding was pending.

2.11 Coronavirus Pandemic Update

The COVID-19 pandemic has exploded since cases were first reported in China in December 2019. As of

mid- September 2020, more than 31 million cases of COVID-19 have been reported globally, including

more than 960,000 deaths. The United States has reported more than 6.8 million cases and 199,000 deaths.

20
See: In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for Approval to Issue
Evidences of Indebtedness, Case No. 2020-00153.
21
See: In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for Approval of Solar
Contracts, Case No. 2020-00183.

40
 Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Big Rivers has been aggressive in its approach to ensuring the health and safety of its employees. The steps

taken to ensure employee wellbeing include but are not limited to:

 Suspending all non-essential travel;

 Requiring all employees whose job will allow, to work from home;

 Limiting access to its facilities to only those who have an essential need to access them;

 For those employees who cannot work remotely, Big Rivers put together work reporting

expectations to guide behavior to avoid the potential spread of COVID 19 virus;

 Mandatory temperature checks of all employees and contractors who are continuing to report to

local facilities as they come on site to determine if they have the potential to spread illness;

 Enhanced cleaning and disinfection of all facilities; and

 Monitoring employee travel outside the Commonwealth.

Big Rivers considers these measures, among others, to be prudent and to have contributed to the continued

health and safety of its greatest strength—the employees.

 Big Rivers requested that its load forecast consultant, Clearspring, review the COVID impact to load by

analyzing the weather-normalized energy usage for the Residential and General Commercial and Industrial

classes for each Member-Owner and then aggregating the data up to the Big Rivers level for the period

January through April 2020. Clearspring’s analysis indicated possible COVID Residential sales impact of

+0.9% in March 2020 and +5.8% in April 2020. Internal pandemic-related analysis shows April through

June Rural load has been marginally lower with a 5.5% demand reduction and 1.3% energy reduction.

General Commercial and Industrial sales, however showed no obvious COVID impact in March 2020, and

an April 2020 decline of -18.2%. Direct-serve load was not analyzed by Clearspring, but internal pandemic-

related analysis showed a 3.8% reduction in Large Industrial demand and 19.8% reduction in energy MWH

April through June, 2020.

41
 Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Big Rivers’ low-income weatherization program was launched in early 2020 in coordination with the

regional Community Action Agencies (“CAA”). The COVID outbreak in Kentucky disrupted work on the

program as weatherization work in rural counties was slow to develop. Currently only one application for

weatherization has been received. Big Rivers will continue to work with the Kentucky Housing Corp. and

local CAA’s to initiate weatherization projects as the COVID restrictions wane.

42
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

\\

43
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

LOAD FORECAST

The 2020 IRP is based on Big Rivers’ 2020 Load Forecast base case prepared by Clearspring, who created

models for each of Big Rivers’ three distribution systems. In addition to the base case, sensitivities

examining weather and economic extremes were also prepared. The long-term load forecast process is

repeated every few years; however, Big Rivers also updates its forecast as needed for planning purposes.

The 2020 Load Forecast was completed in July 2020, and adopted by Big Rivers’ Board of Directors in

August 2020. The most recent historical year included in the 2020 Load Forecast is 2019, and 2019 is the

base forecast year for both that load forecast and this IRP. The forecast horizon covers years 2020 through

2039.

3.1 Total System Load

The total system includes Member load and Non-Member Sales. Member requirements consist of the Rural

system requirements, Direct Serve energy, and transmission losses. The Rural System includes retail

classes: Residential, General Commercial and Industrial (“GCI”), Large Commercial and Industrial

(“LCI”), Irrigation, and Street & Highway. The Direct Serve class contains consumers that are directly

served from the transmission system. Non-Member Sales under contract to Big Rivers includes sales to

Owensboro Municipal Utilities (“OMU”), Kentucky Municipal Energy Agency (“KYMEA”), several

Nebraska Entities in SPP, and Short Term Bilateral Capacity sold into MISO. Class results are discussed

in later sections of this chapter, and in Appendix A Long–Term Load Forecast. Transmission losses were

2.51% in 2019 and are forecasted at 2.50% beginning in February 2020 for the remainder of the forecast.

Table 3.1 below shows each component of the total system energy requirements, and Table 3.2 shows Total

System Non-Coincident Peak (“NCP”) forecast.

Total System Energy Requirements are forecasted at 4,853 GWH in 2020, then increase through 2022 with

the addition of significant Direct Serve load and Non-Member load. Declines are seen between 2027 and

44
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

2029 with the expiration of Non-Member contracts, with slow growth seen from that point through 2039.

Compound Annual Growth Rates for the Total System are 13.51% for 2019-2024, and 1.66% through 2039.

Shaded years indicate historical values.

45
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.1

Big Rivers Total System Energy Summary

46
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Total System Non-Coincident Peak is forecasted at 1,048 MW in 2020, then increases through 2022 to

1,254 MW with the addition of significant Direct Serve load and Non-Member load. Declines are seen

between 2027 and 2029 with the expiration of Non-Member contracts, with slow growth from that point

through 2039. Non-Member sales are Capacity sales with or without associated energy sales (spot energy

sales not included) and are discussed further in Section 3.3.8.

47
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.2

Big Rivers Total System Non Coincident Peak (kW) Forecast22

Total System NCP (kW)

Year Total Annual CP Non-Member Sales Total NCP

2015 698,949 513,000 1,211,949

2016 621,295 450,000 1,071,295
2017 634,184 487,000 1,121,184
2018 668,654 314,200 982,854
2019 624,821 376,200 1,001,021
2020 626,715 421,500 1,048,215
2021 632,122 421,900 1,054,022
2022 832,412 421,500 1,253,912
2023 834,546 305,900 1,140,446
2024 836,327 210,300 1,046,627
2025 838,132 310,700 1,148,832
2026 839,920 311,100 1,151,020
2027 840,180 100,000 940,180
2028 841,438 100,000 941,438
2029 842,528 842,528
2030 843,125 843,125
2031 844,223 844,223
2032 846,330 846,330
2033 847,329 847,329
2034 848,086 848,086
2035 848,929 848,929
2036 849,782 849,782
2037 850,659 850,659
2038 851,459 851,459
2039 852,319 852,319

22
Total Annual CP in Table 3.2 includes Losses.

48
3.2 Member Load

Member Energy Requirements consist of the Rural system requirements, Direct Serve energy, and
transmission losses. Big Rivers’ Member Energy Requirements are forecasted at 3,386 GWH in 2020,
increasing to 4,602 GWH by 2039, with a Compound Average Growth Rate of 6.39% over 2019-2024
fueled by the addition of , and 1.65% over the next 20 years.

Table 3.3
Big Rivers Total Member Energy Summary (MWH)
Big Rivers Total Native System Energy Summary (MWh)
Total System
Total Rural Transmission
Year Direct Serve Energy
Requirements Losses
Requirements
2015 2,325,204 946,873 66,970 3,339,047
2016 2,330,037 915,310 73,420 3,318,766
2017 2,209,837 919,895 77,928 3,207,660
2018 2,366,988 953,822 86,858 3,407,668
2019 2,271,772 957,994 83,431 3,317,632
2020 2,313,997 987,552 84,688 3,386,237
2021 2,342,004 987,552 85,373 3,414,929
2022 2,345,137 2,038,752 112,407 4,496,296
2023 2,357,028 2,038,752 112,712 4,508,492
2024 2,366,988 2,041,632 113,042 4,521,662
2025 2,376,885 2,038,752 113,221 4,528,859
2026 2,386,410 2,038,752 113,466 4,538,628
2027 2,388,504 2,038,752 113,519 4,540,776
2028 2,394,976 2,041,632 113,759 4,550,367
2029 2,400,628 2,038,752 113,830 4,553,210
2030 2,403,821 2,038,752 113,912 4,556,486
2031 2,409,248 2,038,752 114,051 4,562,051
2032 2,419,240 2,038,752 114,307 4,572,299
2033 2,424,117 2,038,752 114,433 4,577,302
2034 2,427,766 2,038,752 114,526 4,581,044
2035 2,431,849 2,038,752 114,631 4,585,232
2036 2,435,950 2,038,752 114,736 4,589,439
2037 2,440,157 2,038,752 114,844 4,593,753
2038 2,444,021 2,038,752 114,943 4,597,716
2039 2,448,197 2,038,752 115,050 4,601,999
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 0.15% -2.27% 11.89% -0.45%
Previous 5 Years -1.22% -0.17% 8.91% -0.70%
Next 5 Years 0.82% 16.34% 6.26% 6.39%
Next 10 Years 0.55% 7.85% 3.16% 3.22%
Next 20 Years 0.37% 3.85% 1.62% 1.65%

49
Big River’s Member Coincident Peak including losses is forecasted at 627 MW in 2020, then increases

significantly in 2022 with the addition of Nucor, and continues to rise to 852 MW by 2039.

Table 3.4

Big Rivers Member Coincident Peak

50
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

3.3 Customer Class Forecasts

This section presents historical and projected number of customers and energy sales by Member retail

classifications.

3.3.1 Residential Class

The Residential sales forecast is comprised of a forecast for Residential use per consumer and a forecast of

the number of Residential retail members. The product of the two disaggregated forecasts equals the

Residential sales forecast.

Number of Consumers is forecasted to increase from 100,314 in 2020 to 101,718 in 2039. Residential

consumers are projected to increase over the next five years at an average annual rate of 0.5% driven mostly

by increased Commercial and Industrial (“C&I”) activity creating a demand for new housing in the service

territory. After the first five years of the forecast the housing growth is expected to slow and decline slightly

in the later years of the forecast.

Use per consumer values are projected to fall slightly through the first five years of the forecast at an average

annual rate of –0.01% (minus 0.01%). The reduction is due to continuing efficiency gains in appliance

stocks as older, less efficient, appliances are replaced with more efficient ones. During the last ten years of

the forecast additional efficiency gains are slower and the effect on use per consumer is balanced by the

continuing decreasing real cost of electricity resulting in flat growth in the final years of the forecast period.

The result is a fairly flat energy sales forecast at around 1,423 GWH annually, with a compound annual

growth rate over the next 20 years of only 0.06%.

51
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.5

Residential Consumers and Energy Sales (MWH)

3.3.2 General Commercial & Industrial Class

The GCI class is defined as the total commercial and industrial loads minus the Direct Serve and LCI loads.

Given the importance of the GCI class, Clearspring used econometric modeling to project both the GCI

consumer counts and the GCI use per consumer for the Big Rivers distribution Members.

52
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

GCI sales are projected to increase at an average rate of 1.11% per year from 2019 through 2039. Growth

in the number of customers, projected at 1.12% per year, and consumption per customer is projected to

increase by 0.01% per year from 2019-2039 due to increases in appliance efficiencies.

Table 3.6

General C & I Class

53
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

3.3.3 Large Commercial & Industrial Class

The Large C&I class consists of the largest commercial and industrial customers at each distribution

Member that do not qualify as Direct Serve consumers. The sales forecasts are based on staff knowledge

and judgement with input from each cooperative. Projected growth rates for LCI consumers declines

through 2039 at 0.07%, use per consumer declines an average of .12%, and sales declines an average of

0.06%. While the consumer count appears to be flat at 31, the historical value is an average of 12 monthly

reports, and is a fractional value of 30.58.

54
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.7

Large C & I Class

3.3.4 Direct Serve Class

The Direct Serve class contains consumers that are directly served from the transmission system. The sales

forecasts are based on manager and staff knowledge and input from each cooperative. Big Rivers’ Direct

Serve class contained twenty-one (21) consumers in 2019. With the Commission’s August 17, 2020,

approval of the Nucor contracts in Case No. 2019-00365, the Direct Serve class will add one additional

consumer with significant load. Projected growth rates for number of consumers increases 0.23% by 2039,

use per consumer increases 3.61% and energy sales increases 3.85%.

55
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.8

Big Rivers Direct Serve Class

3.3.5 Street and Highway Class

Given the small proportion of the Street and Highway class in total sales, the forecast for this class was

calculated manually rather than through econometric modeling. The most recent consumer values were

held constant through the forecast and the prior twelve months of usage was used to derive monthly energy

forecasts for the forecast period.

56
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.9

Street & Highway Class

3.3.6 Irrigation Class

Given the small proportion of the Irrigation class in total sales, the forecast for this class was calculated

manually rather than through econometric modeling. The most recent consumer values were held constant

through the forecast and the prior twelve months of usage was used to derive monthly energy forecasts for

the forecast period.

57
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.10

Irrigation Class

3.3.7 Rural System Energy Summary

The total Rural energy requirements are calculated by taking the sales forecasts for each class detailed in

the previous sections of this report, other than the Direct Serve class, and adding distribution losses and

58
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

own use. Distribution losses are estimated using a three-year historical average. This average is computed

after any Direct Serve loads are removed since these loads are no distribution loss loads.

Total Rural Energy requirements grow over the next 5 years at a compound annual growth rate of 0.82%

and over the next 20 at 0.37%.

Table 3.11

Rural Class Energy Summary

59
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

3.3.8 Non-Member Sales

In addition to the Member system loads described in the previous sections, Big Rivers engages in the sale

of any resources not needed for Member load where those transactions derive value for Big Rivers’

Members. These capacity and energy transactions are made bilaterally or through participation in the

regional transmission organization day–ahead and real–time markets. Optimization of these transactions

involves evaluating the costs to deliver Big Rivers’ generation versus buying on the market, and when the

costs of purchasing capacity or energy are more economical than the comparable generation and

transmission costs, those purchases are made to secure the most value for Big Rivers’ Member–Owners.

The table below shows anticipated net Non-Member sales. The projections in the table below include sales

or purchases for the following entities, and only include projections for the period of the current contracts:

 OMU,23

 KYMEA,24

 Nebraska Entities,25 and

 Short Term Bilateral Capacity.26

23
OMU load is net of their allocation of Southeastern Power Administration Cumberland system hydropower
and a future purchase of renewable power.
24
KYMEA is a block sale of power and the volume will vary based on economic conditions.
25
Nebraska entities’ load is net of their allocation of Western Area Power Administration hydropower,
renewables purchases, and a small amount of purchased power from their former supplier.
26
Short Term bilateral capacity with no associated energy.

60
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.12

Non-Member Sales27 as of 2020

Non-Member Sales Under Contract

as of 2020
Calendar Year MW MWH
2015 513 -
2016 450 -
2017 487 -
2018 314 75,404
2019 376 578,276
2020 422 1,466,620
2021 422 1,750,832
2022 322 1,784,986
2023 306 1,713,663
2024 310 1,722,453
2025 311 1,726,630
2026 311 1,732,865
2027 100 613,200
2028 100 613,200
2029 0 255,500

3.3.9 Interruptible or Curtailable Load

Big Rivers provides wholesale electric service to its three Member–Owners: JPEC, Kenergy, and

MCRECC. The current tariff under which Big Rivers provides service is on file with the Commission.28

Big Rivers does not currently operate any direct control programs and does not provide electric service to

any retail or wholesale customers under an interruptible or curtailable contract or tariff.

Although no Member-consumers are currently taking this service, Big Rivers offers a Voluntary

Curtailment Rider, which provides a means for potentially reducing system peak demand during peak

27
Non-Member Capacity sales with or without associated energy sales – spot energy sales not included.
That tariff is also accessible from Big Rivers’ corporate internet site at
28

http://www.bigrivers.com/regulatory-affairs/.

61
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

periods. On March 10, 2000, Big Rivers, in conjunction with JPEC, Kenergy, and MCRECC, filed the

Voluntary Curtailment Rider with the Commission. The Commission approved the Voluntary Curtailment

Rider as filed in its Order dated April 6, 2000, in Case No. 2000-00116.29 Since the rider is voluntary, it is

not considered as a means for reducing load in this IRP. As presented in Table 3.13, there have been four

voluntary curtailments, one in 2008 and three in 2009, affecting two customers, and reducing load by an

estimated 1 to 25 MW.

Table 3.13

2000-2019 Voluntary Industrial Curtailment Results

Load
Number of Reduction
Year Curtailments (MW)
2000-2007 0 n/a
2008 1 20
2009 3 1 to 25
2010-2019 0 n/a

3.4 Weather Normalized Values

Weather-sensitive electricity loads comprise a large portion of electricity end-uses. Weather conditions

vary and will cause electricity sales and peak demands to increase during more extreme periods or decrease

during milder periods. This section, provides estimates of energy and peak demands for Big Rivers during

the last ten years with the assumption that temperatures had been at their 15-year normal amounts in each

year. See Appendix A Load Forecast Section 8.1 for a discussion of the use of a variety of normalization

periods and for tracking previous forecasts to actual.

29
In the Matter of: Joint Tariff Filing of Big Rivers Electric Corporation, Jackson Purchase Energy
Corporation, Kenergy Corp., and Meade County rural Electric Cooperative Corporation, Case No. 2000-00116.

62
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

The weather normalized values are calculated using the econometric models that identified weather as a

driver of electricity sales. These are the Residential use per consumer and the GCI use per consumer

models. Additionally, the load factor model (used to project peak demands) also includes temperature

variables. The weather impacts of the deviation from the actual weather to the weather normalized weather

are estimated using these models. The weather impacts are then added to (or subtracted from) to the actual

load in that year to determine the weather normalized energy or peak demand.

Since 2010, Big Rivers’ All time Summer peak of 662.1 MW occurred on August 4, 2010, winter peak of

750.5 MW occurred on January 6, 2014, and the highest annual energy requirement was 4,214 GWH in

2010.

The following table provides the last ten years of historical data for the Big Rivers Total system. The

normalized peak values displayed are a maximum of each monthly normalized value for the given season

and therefore frequently occur in a different month than the actual value.

63
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.14

Big Rivers Member System Weather Normalized

The historical weather normalized values in this section were completed using fifteen–year average values

as the definition for normal weather. This is consistent with the normal weather definition used throughout

the forecast. If the time span used to define normal weather is shortened to a ten–year average, the normal

Cooling Degree Day (“CDD”) values would be slightly higher and the normal Heating Degree Days

(“HDD”) values would be slightly lower. Conversely, if a twenty–year average is used, the normal CDD

values would be slightly lower and the HDD values slightly higher. Altering the time span used to define

normal weather to either ten (10) or twenty (20) years would cause one season to go up slightly and the

other season to fall slightly. This creates a balancing effect resulting in very little overall annual impact in

normalized sales figures by changing the normalization period. The following figures show CDD and HDD

values for the last fifteen (15) years as well as the ten–, fifteen–, and twenty–year averages.

64
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 3.1

Cooling Degree Day Normal Values

Figure 3.2

Heating Degree Day Normal Values

65
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

3.5 Impact of Existing and Future EE and DSM Programs

Clearspring was selected by Big Rivers to complete a Demand-Side Management (“DSM”) potential study

in 2020 that quantified the impact of additional DSM spending on future energy and peak requirements.

For the base case forecast it is assumed that any impacts of prior DSM programs are captured indirectly

through the historical energy and peak data used as an input to the modeling process. The base case forecast

assumes no additional DSM spending in the future and additional future DSM impacts are set to zero.

Two alternate load forecast scenarios have been developed that are derived from the Big Rivers DSM

potential study that outline the projected impacts of $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 DSM spending scenarios.

The DSM study provides the impact at each appliance end–use. The DSM impacts were then scaled up to

capture additional decreases in distribution and transmission losses. The tables below outline the

anticipated annual impact of these two spending scenarios on total energy and coincident peak

requirements, though neither scenario is included in the base case.

66
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.15

DSM Spending Scenarios (kW)

67
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.16

DSM Spending Scenarios (MWh)

3.6 Alternative System Forecasts and Uncertainty Analysis

While the projections summarized in previous sections are considered the most probable outcome, it is

important to remember that energy loads can be influenced by factors that are inherently difficult to predict,

such as weather and the economy. Forecasting attempts to model reality and identify the primary drivers of

growth and change. However, due to the unpredictable nature of these drivers, the base case forecast is

68
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

unlikely to be fully accurate. Therefore, it is important to develop flexible plans for meeting future energy

needs based on a range of forecast outcomes.

The study includes scenario analyses that show how the forecasts change under assumed variations in future

weather and economic growth paths. The alternate growth scenarios that are included in Appendix A Long

Term Load Forecast Section 5:

1. Extreme weather with normal economic growth,

2. Mild weather with normal economic growth,

3. High economic growth with normal weather, and

4. Low economic growth with normal weather.

3.6.1 Weather Scenarios

Weather is one of the critical components to explain year–to–year variation in load. Because of this,

extreme and mild weather scenarios were developed for the forecast period. The Residential use per

consumer and GCI use per consumer monthly energy models use cooling degree days and heating degree

days. For the creation of the mild and extreme energy scenarios these two variables were altered to a

fifteen–year historical annual maximum and minimum value. These annual extremes were then

redistributed across each month based on an average monthly distribution of cooling degree days and

heating degree days.

The Rural peak load factor model also contains cooling degree days and heating degree days for the month.

Additionally, the load factor model captures peak day weather conditions. The extreme and mild weather

scenarios alter the load factor model to use monthly weather conditions consistent with the energy models

and change the peak day conditions to the most extreme or mild conditions found in the last fifteen (15)

years of history for each given month. The peak values displayed are a maximum of each monthly scenario

value for the given season and, therefore, can occur in a different month than the base case forecast. The

69
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

following table provides the last five (5) years of historical data and the next twenty (20) years of forecasted

data for the mild, base, and extreme weather scenarios. Direct Serve load is assumed to not be influenced

by weather and is held constant to the base case forecast for the weather ranges. The extreme and mild

ranges with the Direct Serve class included are shown below.

Table 3.17

Weather Scenarios (MWh)

3.6.2 Economic Scenarios

Another critical component of a long-term load forecast is the underlying economic variables within the

service territory. Two scenarios have been developed: low economic growth and high economic growth.

To create the economic scenarios, economic variables within each econometrically modeled class are

altered by an additional plus or minus 1.0% in 2020. As the forecast is projected further into the future

these variable values deviate by an additional 1.0% each additional year relative to the base case forecast

70
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

(variable values in 2039 are +/- 20% of the base case forecast values). The altered variables include

electricity price, gross regional product (“GRP”), employment, and total retail sales.

The forecast for Residential consumers, LCI, Irrigation, and Street and Highway are not modeled

econometrically and are therefore directly modified by 1.0% per year relative to the base case forecast to

create the high– and low–economic ranges. The Direct Serve class is not modeled using econometric

modeling. The forecast for the Direct Serve class is increased by an additional 1.0% per year relative to

the base case in the high scenario. In the low scenario the Direct Serve class is decreased by 1.0% per year

relative to the base case. The high and low ranges with the Direct Serve class included are shown below.

71
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 3.18

Total System Economic Scenarios

The following figures display the 2019 annual load shape and descending load curve for the Big Rivers

Member system.

72
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 3.3

2019 Load Shape

Figure 3.4

Big Rivers Member Load Curve 2019

The following graphs compare historical actual values, the 2017 forecast and the current 2020 forecast.

73
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 3.5

Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast – Total Consumers

Figure 3.6

Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast – Member Sales

74
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 3.7

Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast – Member Summer Peak

Figure 3.8

Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast – Member Winter Peak

75
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 3.9

Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast – Rural Summer Coincident Peak

Figure 3.10

Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast – Rural Winter Coincident Peak

76
3.7 Load Forecast Methodology

The load forecast process began with Clearspring soliciting feedback from representatives of each Member

system as well as Big Rivers. The forecasting team issued an information request to each Member system

requesting monthly energy data by rate class, historical or anticipated changes in load on the system, large

consumer energy and peak demand data, and retail price forecasts. Big Rivers provided historical demand

data used as the basis to forecast load factors and peak demands.

In addition to this data, Clearspring collected a variety of additional data to develop the load forecast. This

included county–level historical socioeconomic data from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., historical

alternative fuel price data and energy efficiency indexes from the Energy Information Administration

(“EIA”),30 monthly and daily weather data from the Midwest Regional Climate Center (“MRCC”)31 and

High Plains Regional Climate Center (“HPRCC”),32 and appliance and end-use saturations for each

Member’s system based off historical end–use surveys conducted by Big Rivers. The most recent such

survey was conducted in 2019. See Appendix A Section 7 for more details on the forecasting tools and

methods used in developing Big Rivers’ 2020 Load Forecast. Below are the key economic and

demographic assumptions:

 Households are projected to increase at an average annual growth rate of 0.1% through the forecast

period.

 Real residential electricity prices are projected to

through the forecast period.

30
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
31
https://mrcc.illinois.edu/
32
https://hprcc.unl.edu/

77
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Air conditioning saturation levels are projected to continue increasing slowly through the forecast

period.

 Electrical heating saturation levels are projected to remain flat through the forecast period.

 Major appliance efficiencies are projected to continue increasing through the forecast period, but

at a decreasing rate as maximum efficiencies are approached.

 Employment is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.6% through the forecast period.

 Real GRP is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.2% through the forecast period.

 Real total retail sales is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.8% through the forecast

period.

 I

 Cooling degree days, heating degree days, and peak day weather conditions are based on a prior

fifteen–year average.3.8

3.8 Research and Development

Big Rivers conducts residential surveys periodically to monitor changes in household major appliances,

appliance saturation, and various end–uses. These surveys are expected to continue in future years. Results

from the surveys are used to develop key inputs for the load forecasting models.

Big Rivers will continue to utilize end–use data and information obtained from its Appliance Saturation

Surveys, along with data available from the United States Department of Energy’s Energy Information

Administration and any other sources that may become available in the future.

Big Rivers assists its three Members in evaluating the potential impacts of new energy efficiency and

demand response programs. The Company continues to monitor potential load management and other

demand response type programs.

Big Rivers uses the Plexos modeling tool and continues to improve its use of these enhanced resources.

78
79
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT

4.1 Demand-Side Management

The 2020 Demand-Side Management Potential Study (the “DSM Study” or the “2020 DSM Study”)

presents results from the evaluation of opportunities for energy efficiency programs in the Big Rivers

Members’ service territories. Estimates of technical potential, economic potential, and achievable potential

are provided for the ten–year period spanning 2021-2030 for the residential and non–residential

(commercial/industrial or C&I) sectors. Results from two program potential scenarios are also presented

to estimate the portion of the achievable potential that could be realized given specific DSM funding levels.

All results were developed using customized residential and non–residential sector–level potential

assessment Excel models and Company–specific cost effectiveness criteria including the most recent Big

Rivers avoided energy and capacity cost projections for electricity. The results of this study provide

detailed information on energy efficiency measures that are cost–effective and have potential kWh and kW

savings. The data referenced in this report represent the best available at the time this analysis was

developed. Appendix B of this IRP provides the entire 2020 DSM Study.

4.2 Market Potential Study – Energy Efficiency

This study examines the potential to reduce electric consumption and peak demand through the

implementation of DSM technologies and practices in residential and non-residential facilities. The study

assessed energy efficiency potential and demand response throughout the Big Rivers Members’ service

territories over ten years, from 2021 through 2030. The study had five primary objectives:

 Develop databases of energy efficiency and demand response measures in the residential and non–

residential sectors to reflect current industry knowledge of energy efficiency and demand response

80
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

measures, account for known codes and standards, and align with the market and demographics of

Big Rivers’ Members’ customers;

 Evaluate the electric DSM technical potential savings in Big Rivers’ Members’ territories;

 Calculate the Total Resource Cost (“TRC”) test and Utility Cost Test (“UCT”) benefit–cost ratios

for potential electric energy efficiency measures, and determine the electric energy efficiency

economic potential savings (using the TRC test) for Big Rivers’ Members;

 Evaluate the potential for achievable savings through DSM programs over a ten–year horizon

(2021-2030);

 Estimate the potential savings over that ten–year period from the delivery of a portfolio of energy

efficiency programs based on a specific funding level – the portfolio of energy efficiency programs

has been analyzed based on two funding scenarios: a $1.0 million incentive budget and a $2.0

million incentive budget.

Figure 4.1 provides the technical, economic, achievable and program potential (two funding scenarios) for

residential and non-residential sectors in the Big Rivers service territory. The economic potential is

approximately 17% of forecasted sales by 2030. The program potential at the $1 million incentive scenario

is approximately 4% of forecasted sales by 2030. Chapters 3 and 4 of the 2020 DSM Study in Appendix B

provide sector level details including program potential details.

81
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 4.1

Electric Efficiency Potential Savings Summary (% of Retail Sales)

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide the 10–year energy and demand potential.

Table 4.1

Energy Efficiency Potential (Cumulative Annual) Energy Savings (MWh)

Non-Res
Potential Residential (C&I)
Technical 290,322 241,646
Economic 217,845 169,463
Achievable 112,308 139,937
Program ($2m) 76,067 122,467
Program ($1m) 39,555 63,683

82
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 4.2

Energy Efficiency Potential (Cumulative Annual) Demand Savings (MW)

Non-Res
Potential Residential (C&I)
Technical 81 72
Economic 45 47
Achievable 17 36
Program ($2m) 12 28
Program ($1m) 6 15

Table 4.3 shows the TRC benefit–cost ratio based on the net present value of benefits and costs of the

program scenarios. The cost–effectiveness ratios indicate that the program potential scenarios are cost–

effective overall. The program evaluation was based on savings identified in the achievable analysis from

key end–use categories rather than specific measure programs.

Table 4.3

Program Potential Cost-Effectiveness (TRC Test)

TRC
Test
Potential Ratio
Program - $2 million 2.5
Program - $1 million 2.7

It is important to note that the potential savings, benefits, and costs presented in this section are a subset of

the achievable potential. The objective of the calculation of program potential is to estimate what could be

achieved given specific funding levels. This summary is not intended to represent specific future program

designs, and is not based on actual or approved budgets in future years. Big Rivers will continue to evaluate

current programs for cost–effectiveness and innovative technologies entering the market.

83
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

The analysis considered program potential at two different funding scenarios: a $2.0 million incentive

scenario and a $1.0 million incentive scenario. In each scenario, the residential sector ended up with 45%

of the incentive budget, and the non–residential sector received 55% of the incentive budget. The results

for the 1–year, 5–year, and 10–year program potential for each funding scenario were presented previously

in Figure 4.1. The $2.0 million funding scenario program potential is 1.0% of forecast sales over the 1–

year timeframe, and rises to 9.0% across the 10–year timeframe. The $1.0 million funding scenario program

potential is 0.4% of forecast sales over the 1–year timeframe, and rises to 4.0% across the 10–year

timeframe.

Table 4.4 provides the 10–year estimates of cumulative annual program potential for energy and summer

peak demand. The $2.0 million program potential is 100,000 MWhs by 2025, and the $1.0 million program

potential is approximately half that amount at just over 52,000 MWhs. Summer peak demand program

potential is 20.3 MWs and 10.5 MWs, respectively, for the $2.0 million and $1.0 million program potential

scenarios.

Table 4.4

Program Potential Summary

Annual Energy (MWh) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Program $2 Million 20,049 40,097 60,146 80,194 100,243 120,292 140,340 160,389 179,461 198,534
Program $1 Million 10,425 20,851 31,276 41,701 52,126 62,552 72,977 83,402 93,320 103,238
Demand (MW) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Program $2 Million 4.1 8.1 12.2 16.2 20.3 24.3 28.4 32.5 36.4 40.3
Program $1 Million 2.1 4.2 6.3 8.4 10.5 12.7 14.8 16.9 18.9 21.0

Big Rivers and its Members will continue to seek and evaluate new technologies and opportunities to benefit

the Members’ retail consumers and reduce the cost of energy. As the benefits of some programs wane, the

costs of other technologies and efficiency gains will result in the need to shift focus to more effective

programs and sectors.

84
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

4.3 Residential Energy Efficiency Program Potential Scenarios

The program potential assessment involved estimating potential savings across specific end–use categories.

Table 4.5 provides a summary of the program potential for the $1 million incentive scenario for the

residential segment. The water heating program opportunities provides the most potential energy savings

over the next ten (10) years, followed by Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (“ HVAC”).

Table 4.5

$1 Million Scenario – Residential Savings by End-Use

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 928 1,857 2,785 3,714 4,642 5,571 6,499 7,428 8,356 9,285
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 2,224 4,448 6,672 8,896 11,120 13,344 15,568 17,792 20,017 22,241
Appliance 752 1,503 2,255 3,007 3,758 4,510 5,262 6,013 6,258 6,502
Lighting 48 96 144 192 239 287 335 383 431 479
Other 105 210 315 420 525 629 734 839 944 1,049
Total 4,057 8,114 12,171 16,228 20,285 24,342 28,399 32,456 36,005 39,555

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.2
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Appliance 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8
Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Total 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.6 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.3 5.9 6.5
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

4.4 Non-Residential (C&I) Energy Efficiency Program Potential Scenarios

Table 4.6 provides a summary of the program potential for the $1 million incentive scenario for the non–

residential segment. The appliance program opportunities provide the most potential energy savings over

the next ten (10) years, followed by lighting and the ‘other’ category.

85
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 4.6

$1 Million Scenario – Non-Residential Savings by End-Use

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 844 1,688 2,532 3,376 4,219 5,063 5,907 6,751 7,595 8,439
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 146 291 437 583 728 874 1,019 1,165 1,311 1,456
Lighting 954 1,908 2,862 3,816 4,771 5,725 6,679 7,633 8,587 9,541
Appliance 3,518 7,036 10,553 14,071 17,589 21,107 24,625 28,142 31,660 35,178
Other 907 1,814 2,721 3,627 4,534 5,441 6,348 7,255 8,162 9,068
Total 6,368 12,737 19,105 25,473 31,841 38,210 44,578 50,946 57,315 63,683

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.6 5.2 5.8
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Lighting 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Appliance 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Other 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.5
Total 1.5 2.9 4.4 5.8 7.3 8.7 10.2 11.6 13.1 14.5
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

4.5 Market Potential Study – Demand Response

The 2020 DSM Study discusses the overall objectives and results of the market potential study. The DSM

Study focused on energy efficiency programs, but also included an evaluation of possible demand response

programs in Big Rivers’ service territory. This chapter of the 2020 IRP provides a brief overview of the

results of the demand response analysis. Section 5 of the 2020 DSM Study (Appendix B of this IRP)

provides a more complete discussion of the demand response analysis. The full study can be found in

Appendix B, 2020 DSM Study.

4.6 Current Demand Response Programs

Big Rivers does not currently operate any direct load control programs and does not provide electric service

to any retail or wholesale customers under an interruptible or curtailable contract or tariff. Big Rivers offers

a Voluntary Curtailment Rider, which provides a means for potentially reducing system peak demand

during peak periods. In the last fourteen years, there have been four curtailments affecting two commercial

86
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

customers. The maximum estimated load reduction due to the two voluntary curtailment customers is 20-

25 MWs. There have been no curtailments since 2010. See subsection 3.3.9 for more information.

4.7 Demand Response Programs Evaluated

A list of potential Demand Response (“DR”) programs representing the most common and most likely to

be cost–effective were evaluated in this screening analysis. Big Rivers focused the analysis on the most

common types of programs that a utility might use in starting a demand response initiative. A total of

twelve program categories were evaluated, with a mix of both residential and commercial incentive–based

and price–based programs. Consistent with the energy efficiency evaluation, DR programs are primarily

evaluated based on the TRC test, but UCT and Participant Cost Test (“PCT”) were also calculated. Table

4.7 provides the results of the evaluations.

87
 Table 4.7

Demand Response Programs Evaluation Results

Direct
Program Sector Type Control TRC UCT PCT
Air Conditioner Cycling (25%) Residential Load Management Yes 0.5 0.2 2.2
Air Conditioner Cycling (50%) Residential Load Management Yes 1.0 0.5 2.2
Water Heater Cycling (25%) Residential Load Management Yes 0.1 0.0 2.2
Water Heater Cycling (50%) Residential Load Management Yes 0.2 0.1 2.2
Residential PTR33 Residential Load Management No 8.1 1.0 5.8
DLC (Customer Ownership)34 Non- Residential Load Management Yes 0.8 18.7 0.3
DLC (Utility Ownership) Non- Residential Load Management Yes 0.8 0.7 1.3
Residential TOU35 Residential Dynamic Pricing No 2.9 4.8 4.0
Residential CPP36 Residential Dynamic Pricing No 7.3 12.2 13.3
Non-Residential TOU Non- Residential Dynamic Pricing No 3.4 20.5 17.6
Non-Residential CPP Non- Residential Dynamic Pricing No 1.3 6.8 6.5
Plug-In EV TOU All Dynamic Pricing No 0.6 1.2 5.9

4.8 Conclusions for Demand Response

Market prices for capacity in MISO have been low for the past decade, therefore, the value of demand

response programs is presently low, even lower than in Big Rivers’ 2017 DSM Potential Study.

Furthermore, there are no benefits associated with avoided transmission facilities (an assumption consistent

with the 2017 DSM Potential Study). Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the DR programs analyzed

do not pass the TRC test. The following programs did pass the TRC test.

33
PTR = Peak Time Rebates
34
DLC = Direct Load Control.
35
TOU = Time of Use.
36
CPP = Critical Peak Pricing.
88
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Air Conditioner Cycling (50%): The very small margin by which this passes the TRC test (1.0)

would not make it a strong candidate as it would be subject to changing drivers which could make

it easily fail the test later. The fact that it fails the UCT test also means it would not be recommended

for implementation.

 Residential PTR: The mass-market, low–cost structure is the reason this passes the TRC test. With

no direct control, it does rely on consumer behavior to achieve savings, although there are existing

programs around the country that have demonstrated success.

 Time-of-Use and Critical Peak Pricing: These dynamic pricing designs pass the TRC for both

the residential and non-residential segments. As a program that relies on consumer behavior (in the

form of responses to pricing changes) it does rely on properly designed price signals to achieve the

desired effects.

4.9 Recommendation

At this time, based on the 2020 DSM Study’s conclusions, Big Rivers has no plans to pursue additional

energy efficiency or formal demand response programs. Energy efficiency programs will continue to be

evaluated to determine if future programs can be designed to be effective at a retail level and effective for

both residential and non-residential retail members. Typical DR programs analyzed in this screening are

not cost–effective at this time and those that are cost–effective are either complicated to implement or are

only marginally cost effective. Big Rivers will therefore focus its efforts on continuing to evaluate higher

value energy efficiency programs, which do also provide peak demand reductions although overall energy

reductions are the target objective. When and if capacity tightens in the region, the value of capacity should

increase, approaching the avoided cost of a peaking unit. At that time, demand response programs could

become cost effective. Big Rivers should, therefore, also continue to monitor the cost-effectiveness of DR.

Based on Clearspring recommendations in this study, Big Rivers will:

89
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Work with Member-Owners to evaluate energy efficiency measures in both the residential and non-

residential sectors;

 Maintain residential and non-residential education for the Member-Owners staff and provide onsite

efficiency evaluations for commercial and industrial members;

 Continue to monitor opportunities for demand response, looking for reductions in costs or increases

in the value of avoided peaking generation; and

 Monitor the opportunity of new technologies that may provide peak demand reduction benefits at

a lower cost than current programs evaluated.

90
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

91
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

SUPPLY-SIDE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL

5.1 Generation Operations Update

Big Rivers places an emphasis on generation efficiency, and Big Rivers continues to make strides in

generation efficiency improvements and asset value. As wholesale power market prices have dropped over

the past few years, Big Rivers has been able to significantly lower the historical minimum generation limits

on its generators in order to minimize losses in the MISO power market during off-peak hours, thereby

keeping the units running and available for the peak hours in the market. Although operating at lower

minimum generation levels negatively impacts heat rate during those hours, it further maximizes the value

to Big Rivers’ Members by also reducing the number of starts and shutdowns. For the Big Rivers base load

units, the heat rate has improved 137 BTU/kWh or 1.2% in the 11-year period from 2009 to 2019. Refer

to Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1.

Figure 5.1

System Net Heat Rate

92
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 5.1

System Net Heat Rate

System Net Heat Rate

Year BTU/kWH
2009 11,167
2010 11,025
2009
2011 11,001 to
2012 10,795 2019
2013 10,747 Improvement
2014 10,745
2015 10,733 137 BTU/kWh
2016 10,861
1.2 %
2017 10,883
2018 10,965
2019 11,030

Specific generation improvement activities within the last ten (10) years include:

 High Performance Human Machine Interfaces: Big Rivers installed High Performance Human

Machine Interfaces at Wilson Station in 2019. This gives the Control Room Operators (“CROs”)

greater awareness, which leads to faster response times and better decisions when issues occur.

 Operations Training Simulators: Big Rivers utilizes Operations Training Simulators for training

its Wilson and Green CROs. The Simulators provide a realistic reproduction of the generating unit

operation in which unit start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunction responses can be taught and

practiced by the CRO in a controlled environment without affecting actual unit performance. Well-

trained CROs have a significant impact on improving the generation efficiency of the units they

are operating.

93
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Controllable Losses: Controllable losses are operating variables (i.e., condenser back pressure,

excess oxygen, boiler exit gas temperature, etc.) that the CRO can influence (control) and that have

an impact on generation efficiency. Monitors are available on a real–time basis for the CROs and

management to visually monitor controllable losses.

 Maintenance: Maintenance activities remain focused on improving generation efficiency. During

forced outages examples of these maintenance activities include washing air heaters, cleaning

condenser tubes, replacing leaking valves and traps, and repairing air/gas leaks.

 Instrument Tuning: Excellent control instrument tuning is vital for improving generation

efficiency when the generation units are dispatched at different loads. Big Rivers’ instrument

department, along with outside contractors (Asea Brown Boveri Distributed Control System

tuners), have continued to optimize the operational controls of the generation units to minimize any

upsets while generation output is cycling.

 Coal Pulverizer Tuning: Good combustion is important in maintaining good boiler efficiency,

and a properly tuned coal pulverizer (mill) is vital to good combustion. Big Rivers routinely checks

coal fineness on the pulverizers and the amount of loss on ignition (LOI) in the boiler ash. Mill

inspections are performed every 3,000 hours of operation. Also, Big Rivers periodically hires

contractors to test pulverizer performance and balance coal flow through pulverizer coal pipes.

Big Rivers’ generation performance continues to be very good. Table 5.2 presents the five year averages

(2015-2019) of key performance indicators of the Big Rivers generating units.

94
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 5.2

Key Performance Indicators per IEEE37 Standards

Gross Gross Equivalent

Net Net Heat Capacity Output Equivalent Forced
Generation Rate Factor Factor Availability Outage
Unit (MWHrs) (BTU/kWH) (%) (%) Factor (%) Rate (%)
Green 1 1,332,314 11,046 68.1 81.3 88.0 6.9
Green 2 1,293,751 11,270 67.9 80.5 94.2 3.4
Wilson 1 2,782,505 10,683 76.4 90.2 84.6 8.5
SYSTEM 5,408,855 10,913 72.0 85.4 88.9 6.3

Big Rivers continues to utilize the GKS® benchmarking service provided by Navigant Consulting to

compare unit performance against its peers. Where possible, experienced employees at idled/retired units

were re–deployed to enhance Big Rivers’ effectiveness at the remaining generating stations. Wilson Station

was awarded Runner-Up in the Medium Plant Category for the Operation Excellence Award in 2015 (five–

year period from 2010 – 2014). The awards are based on a detailed analysis of cost, performance and safety

data from Navigant’s industry–leading GKS® database, which contains data for more than seventy percent

(70%) of U.S. electric utility generation coal fleet – representing more than 216,000 MWs of generation

and more than 640 coal–fired units. The analysis of cost and performance includes a weighted comparison

of non–fuel operation and maintenance costs and availability/reliability measures during the five–year

evaluation period. Award winners must also demonstrate safety performance in the top half of their

respective comparison groups.

5.2 Operating Characteristics of Existing Big Rivers Resources

See Table 5.3, below for the operating characteristics of existing Big Rivers resources.

37
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

95
 Typical
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Location Fuel Expected

(Kentucky Commercial Net Dependable Storage Retirement
Plant Unit County) Status Operation Date Type of Facility Capability Fuel Type Capability Date
Summer Winter Primary Secondary
R.D. Green 1 Webster Existing December-1979 Steam Turbine 231 231 Coal Oil 60 days 2041
R.D. Green 2 Webster Existing January-1981 Steam Turbine 223 223 Coal Oil 60 days 2041
Table 5.3

Combustion
R.A. Reid 2 Webster Existing March-1978 65 65 Gas 2031*
Turbine

D.B. Wilson 1 Ohio Existing November-1986 Steam Turbine 417 417 Coal Oil 60 days 2045
* The expected Retirement Date of R.A. Reid Unit 2 (Reid CT) will depend greatly on the number of operating hours experienced over the next several years,
with relatively low operating houurs and continued maintenance it should provide reasonably available capacity for a number of years into the future.
Operating Characteristics of Existing Big Rivers Resources

96
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

5.3 Economics of Adding Solar

The transition from baseload coal resources to solar and other renewables is evident across the country. As

recently as May 2020, the EIA touted that U. S. renewable energy consumption surpassed coal for the first

time in over 130 years.38 Utility scale solar growth is evident in that report. Additionally, prices for

renewables remain favorable as described by Silvio Marcacci’s article, “Renewable Energy Prices Hit

Record Lows: How can Utilities Benefit from Unstoppable Solar And Wind”39 on Forbes’ website in

January of 2020. This article describes the growth of solar despite federal tax incentives phasing out. Mr.

Marcacci describes renewable energy as unstoppable, based on economics, and he states that smart utility

policy design will include the economic opportunity that renewables bring. This article describes the cost

of renewables falling to date. As evidenced by Big Rivers’ recent application for Commission approval of

three (3) solar power purchase agreements, Big Rivers concluded that these three agreements provide the

lowest–cost resource option, and they also provide the benefits of a diversified generation/power source

portfolio.

5.4 Reliability Considerations of Big Rivers’ Optimal Plan

Big Rivers’ Optimal Plan will not pursue complete abandonment of our valuable existing generation. With

a mission to safely and reliably deliver low–cost power to our Member-Owners, Big Rivers considers

reliability and other risks along with low cost. According to the testimony of MISO Chief Executive Officer

John R. Bear before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy on October

30, 2019, MISO has indicated that maintaining grid reliability beyond the 40% renewable penetration level

38
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895.
39
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/01/21/renewable-energy-prices-hit-record-lows-
how-can-utilities-benefit-from-unstoppable-solar-and-wind/#62d4d9db2c84.

97
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

becomes significantly more complex. Above that level, advanced technologies would be required to

balance the MISO system to reduce renewable curtailments and regional transmission reliability issues and

keep the system stable. Mr. Bear identified the path forward to continued reliability, which includes

changes in market processes and protocols to adapt to the diverse regional energy and environmental

policies. Some states in the MISO footprint have adopted aggressive de–carbonization policies which have

prompted utilities within their borders to retire and replace numerous coal and gas resources with

intermittent renewables, while other states continue to rely heavily on their legacy fossil resources. Mr.

Bear noted declining reserve margins across MISO, divergent state energy policies, and trends that are

reshaping the future of the electric industry as drivers of significant change that MISO would need to

monitor to ensure reliability of the generation resource mix within the Bulk Electric System. Big Rivers

believes that because of all of this change, there remains value in retaining our most efficient baseload

resource and in identifying resources that will complement intermittent renewable resources in the future.

5.5 Consideration of Other Renewables and Distributed Generation

Wind power plants require careful planning. According to the EIA,40 good places for wind turbines are

where the annual average wind speed is at least 5.8 meters per second for utility-scale turbines. Wind power

in Kentucky has so far exhibited limited potential for development within the state, with the EIA’s own

study showing average wind speeds between 5 and 5.5 meters per second. The current MISO

Interconnection queue41 contains only one wind project near Kentucky as depicted in Figure 5.2 below,

40
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php
41
https://api.misoenergy.org/PublicGiQueueMap/index.html

98
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

demonstrating that others have determined that Kentucky wind power plants are not yet widely viewed as

economical.

Figure 5.2

MISO Generator Interconnection Queue – Current Wind Projects

Wind speeds vary with altitude, so depending on the height of the wind turbine, and more advancements in

wind power technology, wind might someday be economical in Kentucky, but for development of Big

Rivers’ 2020 IRP, solar was the more viable alternative as discussed further in section 1.2.2, sections 5.3

and 5.4, above and in Chapter 8 (Base case analysis). The feasibility of solar was made even more evident

when Big Rivers’ Request for Proposals for solar power in 2019 yielded several respondents for supply of

solar resources to be located in Meade, McCracken, Henderson and Webster counties in Big Rivers’ service

territory, demonstrating the viability and affordability of solar in the Company’s service area. While only

three were chosen, many more Kentucky projects were submitted.

99
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Big Rivers works with MISO transmission planning for proposed generation interconnections within the

Big Rivers service territory. Solar or other projects which may be connected to the sub-transmission system

or otherwise close to load, along with their costs are considered by Big Rivers when they are included in

the proposals from potential suppliers. The MISO transmission expansion planning process allows

consideration of non-transmission projects such as distributed generation as alternatives to planned

transmission projects. In addition, Big Rivers continues to work with Direct-serve consumers wishing to

build generation for co-generation purposes.

5.5.1 Net Metering Statistics

Net-metered distributed generation installations among retail members of the Member-Owners has

increased significantly since 2016 to more than 2.5 MW. The impact of federal investment tax credit

expiration and changes to net metering regulations in Kentucky have yet to be seen, but it is expected

installations will wane beginning in 2020.

Figure 5.3

Cumulative Distributed Net-Metered Generation (kW)

100
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

5.6 Environmental

Big Rivers’ generation system consists of three active coal–fired units (R.D. Green 1 & 2 and D.B. Wilson),

and one natural gas combustion turbine (R.A. Reid CT). Big Rivers has also contracted for 178 MWs of

hydroelectric capacity from the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA). Additionally, Big Rivers

recently filed an application with the Kentucky Public Service Commission for approval of three Power

Purchase Agreements that, if approved, will give Big Rivers contractual rights to 260 MW of solar capacity

from Community Energy (40 MW and 60 MW) and Geronimo Energy (160 MW). Four additional coal-

fired units (R.A. Reid 1, K.C. Coleman 1, 2 & 3) are currently idled and set to be retired in 2020. Table

5.4 outlines Big Rivers’ current generation portfolio:

Table 5.4

Big Rivers Generation Portfolio42

SEPA

5.6.1 Clean Air Regulations – Cross State Air Pollution Rule

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) implemented the Cross State Air Pollution

Rule (“CSAPR”) on January 1, 2015, to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”) that was previously

vacated by federal courts on July 11, 2008. CSAPR requires fossil fuel-fired Electric Generating Units

(“EGU”) at coal–, gas–, and oil–fired facilities in twenty–two (22) states to reduce both sulfur dioxide (SO2)

and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions to help downwind states attain fine particle and/or ozone

42
This table does not include seven small solar demonstration projects which compose Big Rivers Solar
Education Center (https://solar.bigrivers.com/)

101
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). EPA sets a pollution limit

(emission budget) for each of the states covered by CSAPR. Authorizations to emit pollution, known as

allowances, are allocated by EPA to affected sources based on these state emissions budgets. Sources can

buy and sell allowances and bank (save) allowances for future use as long as each source holds enough

allowances to account for its emissions by the end of the compliance period.

Phase I allowances issued by EPA under CSAPR ran from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016,

and Phase 2 allowances began January 1, 2017. Phase 2 allowance allocations were reduced by

approximately 55 percent (55%) for SO2, 10 percent (10%) for NOx annual, and 50 percent (50%) for NOx

seasonal as compared to Phase 1 allocations. Phase 2 NOx allowances issued under CSAPR are surrendered

at a rate of one allowance for each ton of NOx emitted for both the annual program and the seasonal program,

which runs from May 1 to September 30 each calendar year. Phase 2 SO2 allowances issued to Big Rivers

under CSAPR are presently sufficient to meet the emissions of the operating facilities as a whole. However,

due to the age and inefficiency of its flue gas desulphurization (“FGD”) system, Wilson Station has operated

under an S02 allocation deficit annually since 2017. As part of its 2020 ECP filed with the Commission,

Big Rivers sought approval of a project to replace and upgrade the FGD system by recycling the Coleman

Station FGD/absorber system. In its order dated August 6, 2020, the Commission approved that project.43

That approved project, once implemented, will allow Wilson Station to operate within its annual emission

allowance. Additionally, Big Rivers maintains a bank of approximately 42,000 SO2 allowances as of May

2020.

On September 7, 2016, EPA revised the CSAPR ozone season NOX program by finalizing an update to

CSAPR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, known as the CSAPR Update. The CSAPR Update ozone season

43
See In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for Approval of its 2020
Environmental Compliance Plan, Authority to Recover Costs Through a Revised Environmental Surcharge and Tariff,
the Issuance of a Certificate Of Public Convenience and Necessity for Certain Projects, and Appropriate Accounting
and Other Relief – Case No. 2019-00435. Application filed February 7, 2020; Final Order issued August 6, 2020.

102
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

NOX program largely replaced the original CSAPR ozone season NOX program as of May 1, 2017. The

CSAPR Update further reduced summertime NOX emissions from power plants in the eastern U.S. On

December 6 2018, EPA concluded that the provisions of the CSAPR Update were sufficient to address the

"good neighbor" provisions of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), which require states to tackle interstate

movement of air pollution. The CSPAR Update would effectively end the obligation of most states,

including Kentucky, to continue to reduce emissions under the rule.

On September 13, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that

the CSAPR Update unlawfully allows significant contribution to continue beyond downwind attainment

deadlines and therefore remanded the rule to EPA to address the court’s holding. EPA is currently

considering its options for handling the Court’s remand. Big Rivers is closely monitoring the situation and

any impacts it may have on operations.

5.6.2 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

To meet the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) requirements, Big Rivers installed Activated

Carbon Injection with Dry Sorbent Injection (“DSI”) on Green Units 1 and 2. The system was placed into

operation in April 2016. Wilson Station has Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”) and FGD systems

already in service, which control mercury. Big Rivers updated Wilson’s existing DSI system in 2016 to

make it more reliable. However, Wilson Station's existing FGD system has exceeded its expected useful

life, represents dated and ineffective technology, and requires significant ongoing investment to operate

and maintain. In its 2020 Environmental Compliance plan filed with the Commission, Big Rivers sought

and secured the Commission’s approval to replace and upgrade the FGD system by recycling the Coleman

Station FGD/absorber system by moving it to the Wilson Station.

103
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

The Coleman units were idled in May 2014 and Reid Unit 1 last operated in February, 2015 and therefore,

have not operated past the April 2015 compliance date for MATS. These units are set to retire in 2020 and,

therefore, will not be subject to ongoing MATS compliance.

On April 16, 2020, EPA completed a reconsideration of the “appropriate and necessary” finding for the

MATS rule. EPA stated that the reconsideration was intended to correct flaws in the approach to

considering costs and benefits while still ensuring that hazardous air pollutant emissions from power plants

continued to be appropriately controlled. However, this reconsideration only related to the cost benefit

analysis and did not remove coal– and oil–fired power plants from the list of affected source categories for

regulation. Various environmental and civil rights organizations have filed suit against EPA alleging that

the agency’s reconsideration of the cost–benefit process was unlawful. Additionally, several coal industry

related organizations have filed suit claiming that the entire MATS rule should be vacated in its entirety as

a result of EPA’s reconsideration of the “appropriate and necessary” finding. Until such time as the courts

resolve the various challenges to the rule, the MATS standards remain in effect and Big Rivers will continue

to operate the control equipment as designed. Given the potential operational impacts, Big Rivers is

actively monitoring the ongoing MATS litigation matters.

5.6.3 Coal Combustion Residuals

Coal Combustion Residuals (“CCR”) are residues from the combustion of coal and include fly ash, bottom

ash, and scrubber waste. EPA published the final rule regulating the disposal of CCR waste in the Federal

Register on April 17, 2015 (“CCR Rule”). The rule finalized regulations to provide a comprehensive set

of requirements for the safe disposal of CCRs, commonly known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants.

The rule establishes technical requirements for CCR landfills and surface impoundments under Subtitle D

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. The CCR Rule requires that minimum design

criteria are met for new and existing sites as well as recordkeeping and design reviews to be maintained on

104
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

a publicly-accessible web site. On August 21, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit vacated much of EPA’s final rule regulating the disposal of CCRs at coal-fired power

plants.

In light of the Court’s ruling, and in response to other regulatory developments, in November 2019 and

March 2020, EPA issued a new series of proposed rules (referred to as Parts A and B) that it refers to as a

“Holistic Approach to Closure.” Part A provides the following revisions:

 Establishing a new deadline of April, 2021, for all unlined surface impoundments and those surface

impoundments that failed the location restriction for placement above the uppermost aquifer to stop

receiving waste and begin closure or retrofit.

 Establishing procedures for facilities to obtain additional time to develop alternate capacity to

manage their wastestreams (both coal ash and non–coal ash) before they have to stop receiving

waste and initiate closure of their coal ash surface impoundments.

 Changing the classification of compacted–soil–lined or clay–lined surface impoundments from

“lined” to “unlined”.

 Revising the coal ash regulations to specify that all unlined surface impoundments are required to

retrofit or close.

Part B includes the following proposals:

 Procedures to allow facilities to request approval to use an alternate liner for CCR surface

impoundments;

 Two co–proposed options to allow the use of CCR during unit closure;

 An additional closure option for CCR units being closed by removal of CCR; and

 Requirements for annual closure progress reports.

105
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

EPA published the final version of the Part A rule in the Federal Register on August 28, 2020 and

publication of the final version of the Part B rule is expected in the near future. Big Rivers is following the

developments closely to determine what impacts they may have on operations and on its closure plans for

its CCR facilities listed below.

EPA issued a pre-publication version of the Effluent Limitation Guidelines on August 31, 2020. Among

other revisions, it provides for an exemption from the rule for units that cease operation by December 31,

2020. Like the CCR revisions, Big Rivers is determining what impacts these revisions may have on

operations of its coal-fired units.

Big Rivers operates, or has operated, three facilities that utilize ash pond (surface impoundments) –

Coleman Station, Green Station, and Reid Station/HMP&L Station Two. Initially, Big Rivers installed

groundwater monitoring as required by the CCR Rule around the Green and Station Two ash ponds. Under

the original CCR Rule, the ash pond at Coleman Station, which Big Rivers idled in May 2014, was

considered a “legacy pond” and as such was not subject to the provisions of the CCR Rule. The provisions

regarding exemptions for “legacy ponds” were overturned by the August 2018 Court ruling referenced

above. EPA is currently evaluating the future treatment of such “legacy ponds.” In its 2020 ECP filing

with the Commission, Big Rivers sought approval of its plans to close the ash ponds at Coleman Station,

Green Station, and Station Two pursuant to the current or expected requirements of the CCR Rule. The

Commission’s August 6, 2020, Order approved Big Rivers’ plan for the Green and Station Two ash ponds

and conditionally approved Big Rivers’ plan for the Coleman ash pond. All pond closure activities will be

conducted in compliance with the revised CCR Rules.

Big Rivers also operates two special waste landfills, one located at the Green Station and one located at

Wilson Station. Both landfills had existing groundwater monitoring wells used to comply with the CCR

requirement. As a part of its 2020 ECP filing, Big Rivers has also sought approval to install a final cover

106
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

system for Phase 1 of the Wilson Station landfill. The Commission’s August 6, 2020, Order on Big Rivers’

2020 ECP approved this project.

Finally, Big Rivers has established a publicly-accessible web site

(http://www.bigrivers.com/environmental-services/big-rivers-electric-corporation-ccr-rule-compliance-

and-data-information/) and has populated the site with the reports and studies required to date.

5.6.4 Clean Water Act, Section 316(b)

In order to comply with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, both Big Rivers’ Wilson and Green Stations

utilize the ‘Best Available Control Technology’ with a closed cooling water system operating at each

facility. As Reid 1 and the Coleman units are currently idled and scheduled to be retired in 2020, they are

not subject to Section 316(b).

5.6.5 Affordable Clean Energy Rule

On June 19, 2019, EPA simultaneously repealed the Clean Power Plan rule and issued its replacement, the

Affordable Clean Energy (“ACE”) rule. The ACE rule establishes emission guidelines for states to use

when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) for coal-fired EGUs. The ACE rule establishes heat

rate improvement (“HRI”), or efficiency improvement, as the best system of emissions reduction of CO2

from coal-fired units. The rule lists six HRI “candidate technologies,” as well as additional operating and

maintenance practices designed to reduce emissions. The candidate technologies include:

 Neural Network/Intelligent Sootblowers,

 Boiler Feed Pumps,

 Air Heater and Duct Leakage Control,

 Variable Frequency Drives,

 Blade Path Upgrade (Steam Turbine), and

107
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Redesign/Replace Economizer.

Kentucky is currently in the process of collecting data regarding the EGUs throughout the Commonwealth

and developing a proposed plan by which it will evaluate the impact on emissions that each of the candidate

technologies would have at the unit level. Upon completion of this process, Kentucky will submit an

implementation plan to EPA that establishes CO2 emission limitation standards for each affected EGU and

will include measures that provide for the implementation and enforcement of such standards. State plans

must be submitted to EPA by July 8, 2022. Big Rivers is actively involved with several industry groups to

provide input to the state on the development of that implementation plan.

5.7 Environmental Study

As outlined above, Big Rivers has closely analyzed all relevant environmental compliance provisions and

has outlined plans to achieve compliance within the time allowed by the regulations. These plans may be

modified by the outcome of additional litigation against nearly every newly proposed regulation. Big

Rivers will continue to monitor the outcome of the litigation or regulatory modifications to the rules and

will make any necessary adjustments to meet modified compliance limits or schedules.

108
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

109
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

TRANSMISSION PLANNING

The Big Rivers transmission system consists of the physical facilities necessary to transmit power from its

generating plants and interconnection points to all substations from which customers of its three Members

are served. Transmission planning embodies making investment decisions required to maintain this system

so that it can reliably and efficiently meet the power needs of the customers served. Justifications used in

any transmission study and subsequent projects are based on technical and economic evaluations of options

that may be implemented to meet the specific need. Transmission improvement projects are designed to

meet all industry standards including those set forth by NERC and SERC.

6.1 MISO Transmission Planning

As a member of MISO, Big Rivers participates in MISO’s coordinated short– and long–term planning

processes. The transmission system expansion plans established for MISO and its member companies must

ensure the reliable operation of the transmission system, support achievement of state and federal energy

policy requirements, and enable a competitive energy market to benefit all customers. The planning

process, in conjunction with an inclusive stakeholder process, must identify and support development of

transmission infrastructure that is sufficiently robust to meet local and regional reliability standards, and

enable competition among wholesale energy suppliers. The Guiding Principles of the MISO Transmission

Expansion Planning process follow:

 Guiding Principle 1: Make the benefits of an economically efficient energy market available

to customers by identifying transmission projects that provide access to electricity at the lowest

total electric system cost.

 Guiding Principle 2: Develop a transmission plan that meets all applicable NERC and

Transmission Owner planning criteria and safeguards local and regional reliability through

identification of transmission projects to meet those needs.

110
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Guiding Principle 3: Support state and federal energy policy requirements by planning for

access to a changing resource mix.

 Guiding Principle 4: Provide an appropriate cost allocation mechanism that ensures that the

costs of transmission projects are allocated in a manner roughly commensurate with the

projected benefits of those projects.

 Guiding Principle 5: Analyze system scenarios and make the results available to state and

federal energy policy makers and other stakeholders to provide context and to inform choices.

 Guiding Principle 6: Coordinate planning processes with neighbors and work to eliminate

barriers to reliable and efficient operations.

6.2 Transmission Transfer Capability

Big Rivers routinely assesses its transmission system’s ability to transfer power into and out of Big Rivers’

local balancing area. Additionally, Big Rivers performs transfer capability studies as a participant in MISO

and SERC seasonal assessments. Transfer capability values can vary significantly due to a number of

factors. Based on study results, a simultaneous net import capability of approximately 900 MW is expected.

These study results and real-time experiences have demonstrated that Big Rivers can import sufficient

generation to satisfy all of its firm system demand requirements. Further, the existing transmission system

is sufficient to support the export of all Big Rivers’ generation power greater than the amount required to

serve Member load.

6.3 Transmission System Optimization and Expansion

With respect to the improvement and more efficient utilization of existing Big Rivers transmission facilities

during the period from 2015 through July of 2020, Big Rivers constructed and placed in service

approximately eight (8) miles of new transmission line to serve three (3) new delivery point substations of

its Members. To increase transmission line current ratings, approximately twelve (12) miles of 69 kV and

111
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

one (1) mile of 161 kV lines were reconductored with higher current capacity conductors. Additionally, Big

Rivers reviews facility rating practices on an annual basis. As part of this review, rating assumptions are

evaluated for opportunities for increased facility ratings. In 2020, the process used by Big Rivers to provide

ambient adjusted ratings to MISO was automated. This ensures that Big Rivers’ transmission facilities are

efficiently utilized within real-time operations.

A MISO market efficiency project was completed on June 11, 2020. This project consists of a new 345 kV

circuit from CenterPoint’s Duff Substation in Dubois County, Indiana to Big Rivers’ Coleman EHV

Substation in Hancock County, Kentucky. The line is thirty-one (31) miles in length and is expected to

fully mitigate transmission congestion in the area of Big Rivers’ Coleman EHV Substation.

Work toward completion of other transmission system improvements is a continuous process. A list of

completed and planned improvements to the Big Rivers system for the 2015-2034 time period is presented

in Table 6.1 and CONFIDENTIAL Table 6.2.

112
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 6.1

Completed System Additions (2015 – 2020)

Project Description Year

White Oak 161/69 kV substation addition 2015
Irvington Substation switching & metering 2015
Meade County 161/69 kV transformer replacements (2) 2015
KU Matanzas – New Hardinsburg/Paradise 161 kV tap line 2016
LAM2 Substation addition for 13.8 kV Service 2016
Hancock County-LAM-2 161 kV line addition 2016
Coleman EHV – Aleris 161 kV line additions (2 circuits) 2017
Centerview 69 kV service 2017
Reid EHV Substation expansion and 69 kV line addition 2018
Meade Co. – Andyville 69 kV line reconductor 2018
Hardinsburg 161/69 kV transformer replacements (2) 2019
Reid EHV-Reid 161 kV Circuit 1 and Circuit 2 reconductor 2019
Coleman – Coleman EHV 161 kV lines 1 and 2 upgrade 2019
Reid EHV and Reid capacitors enlargement and improvement 2020
Fort Avenue 69 kV service 2020
Morganfield – Gallatin 69 kV line reactor 2020
Hardinsburg 1 to Harned 69 kV line reconductor 2020
Coleman EHV – Duff (Vectren) 345 kV line addition 2020
Irvington – Irvington Junction 69 kV line reconductor 2020

113
 Table 6.2

Planned System Additions (2020 – 2034)

Project Description Year

27

114
115
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

MISO RESOURCE ADEQUACY PLANNING

Per the Commission’s Order approving Big Rivers’ request to join MISO in Case No. 2010-00043,44 Big

Rivers joined MISO on December 1, 2010, to meet its NERC-mandated Contingency Reserve requirements.

By joining MISO and signing the MISO Transmission Owners Agreement, Big Rivers is obligated to follow

MISO’s FERC tariff, including MISO’s Module E-1 Resource Adequacy mechanism. Big Rivers also

regularly files its IRPs for Commission review detailing Big Rivers’ load, determining appropriate reserve

requirements, and identifying sources of energy, demand-side resources, and projected need for new

generation and transmission facilities.

7.1 MISO’s Resource Adequacy Mechanism Overview (Module E-1)

MISO’s module E-1 provides mandatory requirements to ensure access to deliverable, reliable and adequate

Planning Resources to meet demand requirements. MISO’s mission is to enable reliable delivery of low-

cost energy through efficient operations and planning. MISO’s resource adequacy mechanism,

implemented in 2009, has three primary components: (1) a MISO footprint‐wide planning reserve margin,

(2) standardized resource qualifications, and (3) facilitation of Load Serving Entity (“LSE”) compliance

requirements.

• Planning Reserve Margin (“PRM”): MISO’s broad-focused PRM aims to produce

significant annual customer benefits through diversity and generation availability.

44
See In the Matter of: Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for Approval to Transfer Functional
Control of its Transmission System to Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. - Case No. 2010-
00043. Subsequent to this proceeding, MISO changed its name from Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc., to Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

116
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

• Resource Qualification: include testing, measurement, verification, availability data (forced

outage rates), performance requirements and obligations.

• Compliance Requirements: MISO monitors planning compliance and assesses an

administrative penalty to LSE’s it finds deficient. LSE is an industry term commonly used to

describe utilities or others who provide electric service to customers.

7.2 MISO Resource Adequacy Planning

Module E-1 (Resource Adequacy) of MISO’s tariff45 includes an annual Planning Resource Auction

(“PRA”) to provide a way for Market Participants to meet resource adequacy requirements. This auction

is a mechanism for MISO to ensure that LSE’s serving load in the MISO region have sufficient Planning

Resources to meet their anticipated peak demand requirements plus an appropriate reserve margin.

Some features of the Planning Resource Auction include forward transparent capacity pricing signals,

recognizing congestion that limits aggregate deliverability and complementing state resource planning

processes. The PRA uses offers of planning resources in conjunction with import and export constraints,

local clearing requirements, and other inputs to determine the least cost set of offers that respects those

constraints. Each year, MISO performs studies to evaluate current market conditions to forecast future

planning environments. The MISO Loss of Load Expectation (“LOLE”)46 study is performed annually to

set the minimum Planning Reserve Margin for the upcoming planning year and provide a nine (9) year

Planning Reserve Margin forecast.

45
https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/
46
https://www.misoenergy.org/planning/resource-
adequacy/#nt=%2Fplanningdoctype%3APRA%20Document%2Fplanningyear%3APY%2020-
21&t=10&p=0&s=&sd=

117
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

7.2.1 Annual Planning Resource Auction (PRA)

The annual capacity auction construct described in MISO Module E-1 allows Market Participants to achieve

resource adequacy and allows for transparency. MISO’s location–specific approach used in the Planning

Resource Auction is intended to provide efficient price signals to encourage the appropriate resources to

participate in the locations where they provide the most benefit. This methodology creates a variety of

options for LSEs to obtain the resources required to meet their PRM requirements, including Fixed

Resource Adequacy Plans, bilateral transactions, self-scheduling, capacity deficiency payments, and

auction purchases.

7.2.2 Module E Capacity Tracking Tool

MISO utilizes their Module E Capacity Tracking Tool (“MECT”) to collect data from Market Participants

including demand forecast, resource qualification, bilateral capacity transaction information, as well as to

designate capacity to meet their Planning Reserve Margin requirements in the Planning Resource Auction.

7.2.3 2020 Loss of Load Expectation Study

MISO conducts an annual LOLE study to determine a Planning Reserve Margin, Unforced Capacity

(“UCAP”), zonal per-unit Local Reliability Requirements (“LRR”), Zonal Import Ability, Zonal Export

Ability, Capacity Import Limits and Capacity Export Limits. The results of the study and its deliverables

supply inputs to the MISO Planning Resource Auction.

118
 Figure 7.1

MISO Local Resource Zone Map

Big Rivers is located in MISO’s regional zone 6, along with entities in Indiana, as shown in The MISO

Local Resource Zone Map above.

In accordance with the Business Practice Manual BPM011-Resource Adequacy,47 MISO establishes a

Planning Reserve Margin using a LOLE study for the upcoming MISO Planning Year. The LOLE study

is consistent with Good Utility Practice, reliability requirements, and applicable states in the MISO Region.

The PRM analysis considers factors including, but not limited to: generator forced outage rates of capacity

resources, generator planned outages, expected performance of load modifying resources and energy

efficiency resources, load forecast uncertainty, and the Transmission System’s import and export capability

47
https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/business-practice-manuals/
119
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

with external systems. MISO calculates and publishes the estimated PRM for each of the nine subsequent

planning years to provide information for long-term resource planning, without establishing any

enforceable specific resource planning reserve requirements beyond the upcoming planning year. The

outcome of the LOLE study determines the appropriate PRM for the applicable Planning Year based on the

probabilistic analysis of being able to reliably serve MISO’s Coincident Peak Demand such that the LOLE

is one (1) day in ten (10) years, or 0.1 day per year.

The MISO analysis for 2020 shows that the system would achieve this reliability level when the amount of

installed capacity available is 1.18 times that of the MISO system coincident peak. This equates to an

18.0% Planning Reserve Margin requirement for 2020/2021 based on installed capacity (“ICAP”) per unit

Local Reliability Requirements of Local Resource Zone Peak Demand. The equivalent UCAP PRM is

8.9%.

7.2.4 LOLE Modeling Input Data and Assumptions

MISO uses a program managed by Astrapé Consulting called Strategic Energy and Risk Valuation Model

(“SERVM”) to calculate the LOLE for the applicable planning year. SERVM uses a sequential Monte

Carlo simulation to model a generation system and to assess the system’s reliability based on any number

of interconnected areas. SERVM calculates the annual LOLE for the MISO system and each Local

Resource Zone (“LRZ”) by stepping through the year chronologically and taking into account generation,

load, load modifying and energy efficiency resources, equipment forced outages, planned and maintenance

outages, weather and economic uncertainty, and external support.

Building the SERVM model is the most time-consuming task of the PRM study. Many scenarios are built

in order to determine how certain variables impact the results. The base case models determine the MISO

PRM ICAP, PRM UCAP and the LRRs for each LRZ for years one, four and six.

120
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

7.2.5 MISO Generation

The 2020-2021 planning year LOLE study used the 2019 PRA converted capacity as a starting point for

identifying resources to include in the study. This ensured that only resources eligible as a Planning

Resources were included in the LOLE study. An exception was made for resources with a signed Generator

Interconnection Agreement (GIA) with an anticipated in-service date for the 2020-2021 Planning Year.

These resources were also included. All internal Planning Resources were modeled in the LRZ in which

they are physically located. Additionally, Coordinating Owners and Border External Resources were

modeled as being internal to the LRZ in which they are committed to serving load.

Forced outage rates and planned maintenance factors were calculated over a five–year period (January 2014

to December 2018) and modeled as one value for each unit. Some units did not have five years of historical

data in MISO’s Generator Availability Data System (PowerGADS)48. However, if they had at least twelve

(12) consecutive months of data then unit–specific information was used to calculate their forced outage

rates and maintenance factors. Units with fewer than twelve (12) consecutive months of unit–specific data

were assigned the corresponding MISO class average forced outage rate and planned maintenance factor

based on their fuel type. Any MISO class with fewer than thirty (30) units were assigned the overall MISO

weighted class average forced outage rate of 9.24 percent.

Additional data was gathered for Behind-the-Meter Generation and Sales to neighboring capacity markets

as well as firm off-system transactions. Generators with approved suspensions or retirements through

MISO’s Attachment Y process were removed from the analysis. Future thermal generation and upgrades

were added to the LOLE model based on unit information in the MISO Generator Interconnection Queue.

48
Generator Availability Data System

121
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Intermittent Resources such as run–of–river hydro, biomass and wind were explicitly modeled as demand-

side resources. Demand Response data came from the MECT tool.

7.2.6 MISO Load Data

The 2020-2021 LOLE analysis used a load training process with neural net software to create a neural–net

relationship between historical weather and load data. This relationship was then applied to thirty (30)

years of hourly historical weather data to create thirty (30) different load shapes for each LRZ in order to

capture both load diversity and seasonal variations. The average monthly loads of the predicted load shapes

were adjusted to match each LRZ’s Module E 50/50 monthly zonal peak load forecasts for each study year.

Direct Control Load Management and Interruptible Demand types of demand response were explicitly

included in the LOLE model as resources. These demand resources are implemented in the LOLE

simulation before accumulating LOLE or shedding of firm load.

7.2.6.1 Weather Uncertainty

MISO has adopted a six–step load training process in order to capture the weather uncertainty

associated with the 50/50 load forecasts, utilizing thirty (30) years of historical weather data in

order to predict/create thirty (30) years’ worth of load shapes for each LRZ. By adopting this

methodology for capturing weather uncertainty, MISO is able to model multiple load shapes based

off a functional relationship with weather. This modeling approach provides a variance in load

shapes, as well as the peak loads observed in each load shape. This approach also provides the

ability to capture the frequency and duration of severe weather patterns.

7.2.6.2 Economic Load Uncertainty

To account for economic load uncertainty in the 2020–2021 planning year LOLE model, MISO

utilized a normal distribution of electric utility forecast error accounting for projected and actual

122
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”), as well as electricity usage. The historic projections for GDP

growth were taken from the Congressional Budget Office , the actual GDP growth was taken from

the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the electric use was taken from the EIA. Due to lack of

statewide projected GDP data MISO relied on United States aggregate level data when calculating

the economic uncertainty.

In order to calculate the electric utility forecast error, MISO first calculated the forecast error of

GDP between the projected and actual values. The resulting GDP forecast error was then translated

into electric utility forecast error by multiplying by the rate at which electric load grows in

comparison to the GDP. Finally, a standard deviation was calculated from the electric utility

forecast error and used to create a normal distribution representing the probabilities of the load

forecast errors (“LFE”) as shown in the Economic Uncertainty Table 7.2 below.

Table 7.1

Load Forecast Errors

7.2.7 External System

Within the LOLE study, a one (1) MW increase of non-firm support from external areas leads to a one (1)

MW decrease in the reserve margin calculation. It is important to account for the benefit of being part of

the eastern interconnection while also providing a stable result. Historically, MISO modeled the external

system, including non-firm imports, in the LOLE study, which resulted in year–over–year volatility in the

123
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

PRM. In order to provide a more stable result and remove the false sense of precision, the external non-

firm support was set at an ICAP of 2,987 MW and a UCAP of 2,331 MW.

Firm imports from external areas to MISO are modeled at the individual unit level. The specific external

units were modeled with their specific installed capacity amount and their corresponding Equivalent Forced

Outage Rate demand (“EFORd”). This better captures the probabilistic reliability impact of firm external

imports. These units are only modeled within the MISO PRM analysis and are not modeled when

calculating the LRZ Local Reliability Requirements. Due to the locational Tariff filing,49 Border and

Coordinating Owners’ external resources are no longer considered firm imports. Instead, these resources

are modeled as internal MISO units and are included in the PRM and LRR analysis. The external resources

to include for firm imports were based on the amount offered into the 2019–2020 Planning Year PRA. This

is a historically accurate indicator of future imports. For the 2019–2020 Planning Year, this amount was

1,626 MW ICAP.

Firm exports from MISO to external areas were modeled the same as previous years. Capacity ineligible as

MISO capacity due to transactions with external areas was removed from the model.

7.2.8 Loss of Load Expectation Analysis and Metric Calculations

Upon completion of the SERVM database, MISO determined the appropriate PRM ICAP and PRM UCAP

for the 2020–2021 Planning Year as well as the appropriate Local Reliability Requirement for each of the

10 LRZ’s. These metrics were determined by a probabilistic LOLE analysis such that the LOLE for the

planning year was one day in 10 years, or 0.1 day per year.

49
https://www.misoenergy.org/search/#q=locational%20tariff%20filing&t=10&p=0&s=&sd=&f=

124
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

7.2.8.1 MISO-Wide LOLE Analysis and PRM Calculation

For the MISO-wide analysis, generating units were modeled as part of their appropriate LRZ as a

subset of a larger MISO pool. The MISO system was modeled with no internal transmission

limitations. In order to meet the reliability criteria of 0.1 day per year LOLE, capacity is either

added or removed from the MISO pool. The minimum amount of capacity above the 50/50 net

internal MISO Coincident Peak Demand required to meet the reliability criteria was used to

establish the PRM values.

The minimum PRM requirement is determined using the LOLE analysis by either adding or

removing capacity until the LOLE reaches 0.1 day per year. If the LOLE is less than 0.1 day per

year, a perfect negative unit with zero forced outage rate is added until the LOLE reaches 0.1 day

per year. The perfect negative unit adjustment is akin to adding load to the model. If the LOLE is

greater than 0.1 day per year, proxy units based on a unit of typical size and forced outage rate were

added to the model until the LOLE reaches 0.1 day per year.

For the 2020–2021 Planning Year, the MISO PRM analysis removed capacity (7,950 MW) using

the perfect unit adjustment.

The formulas for the PRM values for the MISO system are:

[ (Installed Capacity + Firm External Support ICAP +

ICAP Adjustment to meet a LOLE of 0.1 Days per Year) minus
MISO Coincident Peak Demand ]
PRM (ICAP) =
MISO Coincident Peak Demand

[ (Unforced Capacity + Firm External Support UCAP +

UCAP Adjustment to meet a LOLE of 0.1 Days per Year ) minus
MISO Coincident Peak Demand ]
PRM (UCAP) =
MISO Coincident Peak Demand

Where Unforced Capacity (UCAP) = Installed Capacity (ICAP) x (1 – XEFORd).

125
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

7.2.8.2 LRZ LOLE Analysis and Local Reliability Requirement Calculation

For the LRZ analysis, each LRZ included only the generating units within the LRZ (including

Coordinating Owners and Border External Resources) and was modeled without consideration of

the benefit of the LRZ’s import capability. Much like the MISO-wide analysis, unforced capacity

is either added or removed in each LRZ such that a LOLE of 0.1 day per year is achieved. The

minimum amount of unforced capacity above each LRZ’s Peak Demand that was required to meet

the reliability criteria was used to establish each LRZ’s LRR.

The 2020–2021 LRR is determined using the LOLE analysis by either adding or removing capacity

until the LOLE reaches 0.1 day per year for the LRZ. If the LOLE is less than 0.1 day per year, a

perfect negative unit with zero forced outage rate will be added until the LOLE reaches 0.1 day per

year. If the LOLE is greater than 0.1 day per year, proxy units based on a unit of typical size and

forced outage rate were be added to the model until the LOLE reaches 0.1 day per year.

For the 2020–2021 Planning Year, only LRZ-3, LRZ-4, and LRZ-8 had sufficient capacity internal

to the LRZ to achieve the LOLE of 0.1 day per year as an island. In the seven zones without

sufficient capacity as an island, proxy units of typical size (160 MW) and class-average EFORd

(4.65 percent) were added to the LRZ. When needed, a fraction of the final proxy unit was added

to achieve the exact LOLE of 0.1 day per year for the LRZ.

7.3 Planning Year 2020 – 2021 MISO Planning Reserve Margin Results

For the 2020–2021 Planning Year, the ratio of MISO capacity to forecasted MISO system peak demand

yielded a planning ICAP reserve margin of 18.0 percent and a planning UCAP reserve margin of 8.9

percent. These PRM values assume 1,572 MW UCAP of firm and 2,331 MW UCAP of non-firm external

support. See Planning Year 2020–2021 MISO System Planning Reserve Margins Table, Table 7.2.

126
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 7.2

MISO System Planning Reserve Margin

7.4 Comparison of PRM Targets across 10 Years

Figure 7.2 below compares the PRM UCAP values over the last 10 planning years. The last endpoint shows

the Planning Year 2020-2021 PRM value of 8.9%.

127
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 7.2

Recent Planning Year MISO System Planning Reserve Margins

Comparison of Recent Module E PRM Targets

7.5 Future Years 2020 through 2029 Planning Reserve Margins

Beyond the Planning Year 2020–2021 LOLE study analysis, an LOLE analysis was performed for the four–

year–out Planning Year of 2023–2024, and the six–year–out Planning Year of 2025-2026. Table 7.3

“Future Planning Year MISO System Planning Reserve Margins” shows all the values and calculations that

went into determining the MISO system PRM ICAP and PRM UCAP values for those years. Those results

are shown as the underlined values in Table 7.4 “MISO System Planning Reserve Margins 2020 through

2029.” The values from the intervening years result from interpolating the 2020, 2023, and 2025 results.

Note that the MISO system PRM results assume no limitations on transfers within MISO.

128
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

The 2023–2024 Planning Year PRM decreased slightly from the 2020–2021 Planning Year driven mainly

by new unit additions and retirements. The forecasts for the 2025–2026 Planning Year PRM increased

primarily because of additional new units and retirements.

Table 7.3

Future Planning Year MISO System Planning Reserve Margins

129
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 7.4

MISO System Planning Reserve Margins 2020 through 2029

Metric 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
ICAP
158.1 161.4 161.6 161.8 161.8 162.9 162.9 162.9 162.9 162.9
(GW)
Demand
124.6 124.8 125.1 125.3 125.3 125.6 125.8 126.0 126.2 126.5
(GW)
PRMICAP 18.0% 18.0% 17.9% 17.9% 18.2% 18.2% 18.1% 18.2% 18.2% 18.3%
PRMUCAP 8.9% 8.9% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9% 8.9%

In Table 7.4, years without underlined results indicate PRM values that were calculated through

interpolation. MISO calculated the per-unit LRR of LRZ Peak Demand (See Table 7.5 “Planning Year

2020-2021 LRZ Local Reliability Requirements”). The UCAP values reflect the UCAP within each LRZ,

including Border External Resources and Coordinating Owners. The adjustment to UCAP values are the

megawatt adjustments needed in each LRZ so that the reliability criterion of 0.1 days per year LOLE is

met. The LRR is the summation of the UCAP and adjustment to UCAP megawatts. The LRR is then

divided by each LRZ’s Peak Demand to determine the per-unit LRR UCAP. The 2020–2021 per unit LRR

UCAP values were multiplied by the updated demand forecasts submitted for the 2020–2021 PRA to

determine each LRZ’s LRR.

130
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 7.5

Planning Year 2020-2021 LRC Local Reliability Requirements

7.6 Big Rivers’ Consideration of MISO Planning Reserve Margins in this IRP

Big Rivers used the MISO PRM UCAP Planning Reserve Margin of 9%. Analysis supporting this IRP

maintained reserve margins between 8% and 10% over the analysis period. The MISO Planning Reserve

Margin requirement as determined by the Loss of Load Expectation Study is the appropriate reserve margin

for Big Rivers to use in long-term generation planning. LOLE is the industry standard for reserves, and

MISO utilizes sophisticated tools and information provided by its members and Market Participants to

perform this robust analysis. Big Rivers reviews the results of the MISO Loss of Load Expectation analysis,

which determines a minimum Planning Reserve Margin requirement for Big Rivers to meet tariff

obligations. This results in the optimal Planning Reserve Margin for Big Rivers by providing an acceptable

level of physical reliability while minimizing economic costs to Big Rivers’ Members. The Planning

Reserve Margin determined in the MISO Loss of Load Expectation analysis is based on generally accepted

industry practices and is appropriate for Big Rivers to use in lieu of an unnecessary and costly utility-

specific reserve margin study.

Big Rivers will continue to comply with MISO’s tariff requirements, which include the possibility for

varying amounts of planning reserves. As the MISO market evolves, Big Rivers will continue to evaluate

131
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

the proper reserve margin target by continuing participation in MISO Stakeholder groups such as Resource

Adequacy Subcommittee, Loss of Load Expectation Working Group, and other groups, to ensure Big

Rivers’ participation in the MISO market provides optimum value to its Members.

132
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

133
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

INTEGRATION ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION

Big Rivers’ resource assessment and acquisition plan provides an adequate and reliable supply of electricity

to meet forecasted electricity requirements at the lowest reasonable cost while staying within the risk

tolerance of the Board. Big Rivers considered the potential impacts of selected, key uncertainties as

described in this chapter and developed cost-effective resource options.

8.1 In-House Production Cost Model (Plexos)

Big Rivers has been using Energy Exemplar’s Plexos production cost modeling software since 2015. With

respect to IRP modeling efforts, the Plexos LT Plan (long-term capacity expansion planning optimization

model) optimizes Big Rivers’ fleet of energy and capacity resources over time by determining when to

retire existing units and/or acquire new assets. The LT Plan model uses advanced algorithms to analyze a

range of possible portfolio options based on the inputs and the constraints entered and provides a solution

identifying the optimal investment or retirement decisions to make and when to make them. The LT Plan

objective is to minimize the net present value (“NPV”) of the capital and production costs formulated as a

mixed-integer problem. Capital costs include the expense of building new generation, and compliance costs

associated with existing generation. In this 2020 IRP, retirement costs were modeled at zero expense.

Production costs include the expense of operating the Big Rivers generation fleet and the market cost of

energy not served by native Member generation and the market revenues from energy sold to market. The

optimal solution provided by the LT Plan provides the least cost option for the unique set of Big Rivers’

input and constraint parameters.

134
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Figure 8.1

PLEXOS LT Plan Optimization

Cost $

Minimum cost plan

Total Cost C(x) + P(x)

Capital Cost C(x)

Production Cost P(x)

x = Assets

Also, Big Rivers utilized Plexos ST Plan aka ST Schedule. The ST Plan does not solve for capacity

additions or subtractions but it emulates the economic commit and hourly dispatch of the generation

resources being modeled. The ST Plan results provide a more granular view of the portfolio options for

evaluation purposes. While the LT Plan solution provides one least-cost alternative, the ST Plan results

provide data for all the generation resource options, which can be used to reaffirm the LT Plan’s least-cost

solution and to evaluate other generation portfolio options.

135
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

8.1.1 Modeling Overview

Big Rivers developed its Base Case using inputs, constraints and assumptions based on the best information

available at the time this IRP was prepared. The LT Plan horizon was the 20-year period beginning in 2024

through 2043. The 2024 start was chosen because capacity additions (solar) are not likely to be completed.

Multiple scenarios with multiple input variables were analyzed. The Base Case and the scenarios utilized

the Big Rivers 2019-2033 Long-Term Financial Plan with the following updated inputs:

 The 2020 Load Forecast restricted to Big Rivers Member load projections;

 June 2020 market prices for energy, capacity, natural gas and fuel oil;

 The latest unit cost and performance projections for new and existing generation resources,

including a conversion of Green Units one and two to natural gas; and

 Market purchases as a resource alternative for both energy and capacity in the model.

The 2019-2033 Long-Term Financial Plan includes environmental compliance with CCR and Effluent

Limitation Guidelines (“ELG”) assuming Green Station units remain coal-fired, and it also includes capital

costs associated with relocating the Coleman scrubber to Wilson Station. In Big Rivers’ 2020 ECP case,50

Big Rivers did not request funding for Green Station ELG compliance, which would be required for the

units to continue to operate as coal-fired generation. Additional costs for ELG compliance at Green may

render these units uneconomic, given current market expectations.

50
See In the Matter of: Electronic Application of Big Rivers Electric Corporation for Approval of its 2020
Environmental Compliance Plan, Authority to Recover Costs through a Revised Environmental Surcharge and Tariff,
the Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Certain Projects, and Appropriate Accounting
and Other Relief - Case No. 2019-00435. Application filed February 7, 2020.

136
Big Rivers’ analysis utilized the following generation resource options for evaluating the 2024-2043 time

period utilizing the LT Plan model to determine the least-cost option:

 Wilson remains coal-fired and in operation throughout the period.

c . Also, Wilson

remaining coal-fired is consistent with Big Rivers’ 2020 ECP case, in which the Commission

approved the moving of the Coleman scrubber to Wilson and producing market grade gypsum.

The Green units have the option to remain coal-fired by complying with environmental regulations, convert

to natural gas or suspend operations (idle).

 The Reid combustion turbine has the option to remain a natural gas fired unit or suspend operation

(idle).

 Big Rivers may continue the status quo with the SEPA contract or exit the agreement.

 The three proposed solar facilities (Henderson Solar Facility, McCracken Solar Facility and Meade

Solar Facility) are modeled as being approved by the Commission and all are in operation by 2024.

 A partnership with several other counterparties in a new 592 MW NGCC with participation by Big

Rivers available in 10 MW increments is modeled as a new resource option. This new NGCC

could be located at Big Rivers’ Sebree site (NGCC – Sebree) or Big Rivers’ Coleman site (NGCC

– Coleman).

 A new 237 natural gas combustion turbine (“NGCT”) can be built as a resource.

 Market purchases (PPA – Block) including energy and capacity are available in 10 MW

increments.

The LT Plan model constraints are established to meet capacity reserve margin requirements, but there are

no constraints on the volume (MWh) being produced from the generation resources. The LT Plan model

works exactly the way MISO works. All Big Rivers load is purchased at the market

137
price, and the generation resources are economically dispatched at the market price. Therefore, if the

market energy price is higher than the cost to generate, the generator will be dispatched and vice-versa.

Also, the LT Plan model for the 2020 IRP has included a resource (PPA – Block) that represents purchasing

capacity and energy from the market at the forecasted prices. This enables the model to select the market

as a least-cost option capacity resource in order to meet the capacity reserve margin requirements (8%-

10%) when the other resource options are not economic. If the LT Plan model selects the PPA-Block as a

capacity resource, the model is using the forecasting inputs for capacity and energy and the associated

market risk of the forecast inaccuracy was not measured.

Note that the LT Plan model results included in this IRP do not constitute a commitment by Big Rivers to

a specific course of action. Note also that changes to the inputs, constraints and assumptions that impact

this IRP result can, and do, occur without notice, especially with the current uncertainty around

environmental requirements and commodity prices. With that said, Big Rivers has run sensitivities to the

Base Case to evaluate the impact that changing the inputs can have on the model determination of the least-

cost option. Big Rivers understands that there are relationships between the inputs, e.g. changes in natural

gas prices can have an impact on energy prices, but the majority of the sensitivities are designed to focus

on the impact of changing one input variable at a time. This single variable sensitivity analysis allows Big

Rivers to evaluate the impact of the variability of a single variable without subjecting that analysis to

additional uncertainty that would arise from the assumptions utilized to define the relationship between the

other inputs or variables. The single variable analysis shows the break points, i.e. the points when the

change in a single variable causes a new result for the least cost plan. Big Rivers also ran sensitivities

involving multiple variables and sensitivities involving carbon taxes, lowering capacity prices to zero,

renewable energy certificates (“REC”), and solar firm capacity allocation. Big Rivers also ran a sensitivity

eliminating the NGCC unit as a resource option because of the difficulty and complexity of identifying and

obtaining willing partners for the NGCC unit.

138
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

8.1.2 Model Generation Resource Options

Table 8.1 shows the generation resources that are currently operating and the options that were made

available for those resources in the model. Also, Table 8.1 shows the new generation resources that are

being added or available to be added as a least-cost resource. The LT Plan used these generation resources

as options for determining the optimal or least-cost plan for the Base Case in each scenario.

Table 8.1

Generation Resources Existing, New, and Potential

139
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

For Big Rivers’ existing resources, Wilson Unit 1 was modeled continuing to operate as a coal-fired unit

for the duration. Both Green Units were modeled with three options: remaining coal-fired; converting to

natural gas firing; or idling. The Reid CT is modeled to remain natural gas fired or idle. Big Rivers’ SEPA

entitlement was modeled as status quo or exiting the contract. For Big Rivers’ new or potential resources,

the three proposed solar facilities totaling 260 MW of capacity were modeled as being approved by the

Commission and all in operation by 2024. A new natural gas combined cycle unit (592 MW capacity) was

modeled with Big Rivers being able to take 10 MW increments of the unit located at either Big Rivers’

Sebree site or Coleman site. A new natural gas combustion turbine (237 MW capacity) was included as an

option. Also, Big Rivers modeled buying capacity and energy at the current market prices as a generation

resource in 10 MW increments up to 800 MW of capacity represented by “PPA – Block” in the models. If

the LT Plan selects the PPA – Block as the least cost option, that indicates that the power market forecast

is the least cost alternative of all the other generation options.

Big Rivers utilized the 2019-2033 Long-term Financial Plan as the starting point for developing the forecast

for the fixed operation and maintenance (“O&M”) production costs. Capital costs, including those costs

for the anticipated compliance costs for CCR and ELG for the Green units, were included in annual cash

flows.

Estimates for the Green natural gas conversion, including natural gas supply lines, were based on budgetary

information provided by multiple external sources. Equipment conversion cost information was provided

by equipment manufacturers, and pipeline cost information was sourced from pipeline companies that build,

maintain and operate natural gas pipelines. Because expected operational impacts varied, depending on the

information source, Big Rivers opted to model most of the generator operation parameters for the natural

gas conversion as unchanged from those parameters when the units are coal-fired. Only the maximum

capacity of the generation units were changed (increased three MW due to lower auxiliary load then reduced

140
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

by 10%). A detailed engineering study would be required for each Green unit to determine an accurate

change to operation parameters resulting from conversion to burn natural gas. Also, the Green natural gas

conversion was evaluated both with and without a firm gas supply charge. Firm gas is modeled as a fixed

expense and a firm gas supply charge is paid whether the unit operates or not. With firm gas, the unit pays

the spot gas price for its variable fuel expense. Non-firm gas is modeled as a variable cost where a delivery

charge (gas line and gas transportation charges) is added to the spot natural gas price.

Retirement costs were considered a sunk cost and not explicitly modeled. The Base Case complies with

the known current environmental regulations (CCR, ELG) and assumes no carbon regulations for the

period. There are two sensitivities (Carbon – ACES51 and Carbon – IHS52) that assume a carbon tax is

implemented. Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of this IRP discuss Big Rivers’ current and future environmental

compliance in more detail. See Table 8.2 for the Fixed O&M costs for Big Rivers existing assets including

natural gas conversion that were used in the models.

51
Alliance for Cooperative Energy Services.
52
IHS Markit.

141
 Table 8.2

Existing Resource Option Fixed O&M Cost Projections, $M

Existing Unit Fixed O&M (included capital expense) Cost Projections (2024 - 2033), $M
Unit/Station Option Costs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Fixed
Plant Capital
Wilson Station Coal-Fired
ECP - Coleman Scrubber (Amortized) $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58
Total
Fixed - Reduced Capacity Factor
Plant Capital - Reduced Capacity Factor
Total
Coal-Fired
CCR, ELG & 316b Capital Cost - 2024$ $36.58 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total
Maintenance Adder for Generation, $/MWh
Green Station
Fixed
Plant Capital
Natural Gas Gas Service Cost
Conversion Total
Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Fixed
Reid CT Gas-Fired Plant Capital
Total

Existing Unit Fixed O&M (included capital expense) Cost Projections (2034 - 2043), $M
Unit/Station Option Costs 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Fixed
Plant Capital
Wilson Station Coal-Fired
ECP - Coleman Scrubber (Amortized) $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58 $ 8.58
Total
Fixed - Reduced Capacity Factor
Plant Capital - Reduced Capacity Factor
Total
Coal-Fired
CCR, ELG & 316b Capital Cost - 2024$ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Total
Maintenance Adder for Generation, $/MWh
Green Station
Fixed
Plant Capital
Natural Gas Gas Service Cost
Conversion Total
Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Fixed
Reid CT Gas-Fired Plant Capital
Total

The price and volume forecast for Big Rivers’ SEPA entitlement (Big Rivers’ allotment of Cumberland

River system hydroelectric power) is based on the best information available. The model has the option of

continuing the SEPA contract or exiting the contract at any time throughout the horizon (2024 – 2043).

There is no penalty for exiting the SEPA contract but there is a minimum 37 month termination notice that

142
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

must be given by Big Rivers to SEPA. See Table 8.3 for the SEPA volume and cost projections that were

included in the models.

Table 8.3

SEPA Volume and Cost

SEPA
Price
Capacity Volume
Year (Includes Transmission)
MWs MWh
$/MWh
2024 178 267,000
2025 178 267,000
2026 178 267,000
2027 178 267,000
2028 178 267,000
2029 178 267,000
2030 178 267,000
2031 178 267,000
2032 178 267,000
2033 178 267,000
2034 178 267,000
2035 178 267,000
2036 178 267,000
2037 178 267,000
2038 178 267,000
2039 178 267,000
2040 178 267,000
2041 178 267,000
2042 178 267,000
2043 178 267,000

143
For the new solar resources, Big Rivers utilized the cost and generation profiles for the three solar facilities

totaling 260 MW of capacity with whom Big Rivers entered into the PPAs that are the subject of Case No.

2020-00183. In the Base Case, Big Rivers used the current MISO Business Practice Manual for the

determination of firm capacity associated with these solar facilities. There is a sensitivity where less firm

capacity is forecasted for solar using the MISO effective load carrying capability (“ELCC”) projections. In

modeling, Big Rivers is assuming that the Commission approves the three solar PPAs and all three solar

facilities are in operation by 2024, the start year in the 20 year horizon for the LT Plan (2024-2043).

At the base case inputs and the current proposed solar PPA costs, the model would continue to add solar

until reserve margins were met. Big Rivers chose to limit the model’s flexibility to add additional solar

beyond the proposed facilities until we have more experience with the resource and there is more clarity

about the effect of intermittent resources on the transmission system.

144
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Table 8.4

Solar Generation Profiles and Costs

145
For the new natural gas resources, Big Rivers utilized EIA data for estimated fixed O&M expenses and

vendor supplied information for natural gas supply lines and firm gas supply costs. Vendor estimates were

used for build costs of the NGCC units at either the Sebree site or Coleman site. Big Rivers used the EIA

Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants report dated February 2020 for

providing cost for the NGCT unit.53 Since that February 2020 report did not provide information on the

Advanced CC unit, Big Rivers utilized the EIA update from January 2019 for the fixed O&M and variable

O&M costs for the Advanced NGCC unit. Please see the table below for the new natural gas costs used in

the models.

53
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2020.pdf
146
 Table 8.5

New Natural Gas Unit Cost Projections, $M

New Natural Gas Unit Fixed O&M Cost and Build Cost Projections (2024 - 2033), $M
Unit/Station Option Costs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Fixed (Outage in VOM Cost)
Gas Service Cost
NGCC - Sebree Total
Gas-Fired
(592 MW) Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Build Cost, 2024$
Fixed (Outage in VOM Cost)
Gas Service Cost
NGCC - Coleman Total
Gas-Fired
(592 MW) Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Build Cost, 2024$
Fixed (Outage in VOM Cost)
Gas Service Cost - Assume in Build Cost
Total
NGCT (237 MW) Gas-Fired
Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Build Cost, 2024$

New Natural Gas Unit Fixed O&M Cost and Build Cost Projections (2034 - 2043), $M
Unit/Station Option Costs 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Fixed (Outage in VOM Cost)
Gas Service Cost
NGCC - Sebree Total
Gas-Fired
(592 MW) Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Build Cost, 2024$
Fixed (Outage in VOM Cost)
Gas Service Cost
NGCC - Coleman Total
Gas-Fired
(592 MW) Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Build Cost, 2024$
Fixed (Outage in VOM Cost)
Gas Service Cost - Assume in Build Cost
Total
NGCT (237 MW) Gas-Fired
Firm Gas Demand Charge
Total with Firm Gas
Build Cost, 2024$

Big Rivers did not include every option listed in the EIA report in the 2020 IRP modeling process. Many

of the new generation options could be dismissed without analysis for varying reasons. Advanced Nuclear,

Biomass, and Battery Storage options were dismissed due to their high costs. Onshore Wind was not

considered due to the lack of viable locations for wind energy to be built in northwestern

147
Kentucky.(see Section 5.5). The Pulverized Coal Conversion to Natural Gas price projections were not

used as Big Rivers developed high level cost projections for converting the Green coal-fired units to gas

based on information provided by Original Equipment Manufacturers, which will be closer to actual costs

than the EIA projections. The EIA data tables can be found in Technical Appendix F.

8.2 Modeling Results

8.2.1 Base Case Inputs/Constraints

Big Rivers developed the Base Case with inputs and constraints using the best information available at the

time the IRP was prepared. The inputs and constraints for the Base Case are explained in greater detail

below.

 Generation Commit: All coal-fired and natural gas fired generation units are modeled as

economic commit according to the startup characteristics of each asset and production variable

costs. These characteristics include minimum up-time, minimum down-time, ramp rates and

startup costs, and a three day look-ahead (which means the model must recover the startup costs of

a unit within three days for the unit to dispatch).

 Generation Dispatch: All coal-fired and natural gas-fired generation units are modeled as

economic dispatch with the operating parameters provided for each particular unit (max and min

capacity, heat rate, unit outage rate, planned outages). The solar units are modeled at a fixed

monthly load profile provided by the solar facility owner. The SEPA volumes are modeled per the

contract at the monthly maximum and minimum volumes and annual volume take. MISO

Business Practice Manual (“BPM”) rules require that SEPA currently must be scheduled for four

hours across each daily peak at the maximum capacity available.

 Production Fixed Costs: The production fixed costs utilized are provided in Table 8.2 for existing

resources and Table 8.5 for new or potential resources, and are based on updated projections from

148
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

the 2019-2033 long-term financial plan. Also, Big Rivers has consulted with various outside

vendors to develop a cost estimate for natural gas conversion for the Green Units and the NGCC

unit located at either Sebree or Coleman.

 Production Non-Fuel Variable Costs and Generator Operating Parameters: The production

non-fuel variable cost and the generator operating parameters (i.e., heat rate, outage rate, etc.) used

in models are available in Technical Appendix F.

 Coal Prices: Spot coal delivery prices were inflated using JD Energy’s long term fuel forecast from

September 2019 (see Technical Appendix F). Figure 8.2 below displays annual spot coal prices

along with historical prices from 2013 and forecasted prices through 2043.

Figure 8.2

Delivered Coal Prices

149
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Energy Market Prices: Energy market price forecasts were received from a third party, ACES,

whose methodology for energy market price forecasts is provided in Technical Appendix F. An

Indiana Hub Day-Ahead Locational Marginal Price (“LMP”) forward curve is the first step in

energy market forecasting. Indiana Hub is the most liquid energy trading point in MISO. The

Indiana Hub price is then adjusted based upon historical and projected relationships to produced

prices in Western Kentucky. Average monthly energy pricing is shown in Figure 8.3. Figure 8.3

shows historical prices for the time period January 2013 to August 2020 and forecasted prices

thereafter through December 2043.

Figure 8.3

Indiana Hub Around The Clock Monthly Pricing

$75.00

$65.00

$55.00
$/MWh

$45.00

$35.00

$25.00

$15.00
9/1/2017

7/1/2037
1/1/2013
3/1/2014
5/1/2015
7/1/2016

11/1/2018
1/1/2020
3/1/2021
5/1/2022
7/1/2023
9/1/2024
11/1/2025
1/1/2027
3/1/2028
5/1/2029
7/1/2030
9/1/2031
11/1/2032
1/1/2034
3/1/2035
5/1/2036

9/1/2038
11/1/2039
1/1/2041
3/1/2042
5/1/2043

Historical ATC Projected ATC

150
 Capacity Prices: Capacity price forecasts were based upon internal evaluations of the market and

are shown in Table 8.6. Historical MISO capacity auction prices are shown beginning with the

2014/2015 planning year through the 2020/2021 planning year with forecasted prices beginning in

the 2021/2022 planning year. Note the large difference between the historical PRA Auction

Clearing Prices (“ACP”) and the forward bilateral market which is used as the basis for forecasted

prices. The PRA ACP only looks forward one year at a time and many participants offer their

capacity at zero in order to ensure themselves of some revenue. Those who rely on the PRA won’t

know the price that they will pay or receive until one month before the start of the new planning

year. The forward bilateral market represents terms of one to ten years and is a better indicator of

where market participants are willing to buy or sell to hedge their risks several years into the future.

However, market information is difficult to obtain.

151
 Table 8.6

MISO Zone 6 Capacity Prices

MISO Capacity Price

Planning Year $/MW-Day
14/15 $16.75
15/16 $3.48
16/17 $72.00
17/18 $1.50
18/19 $10.00
19/20 $2.99
20/21 $5.00
21/22
22/23
23/24
24/25
25/26
26/27
27/28
28/29
29/30
30/31
31/32
32/33
33/34
34/35
35/36
36/37
37/38
38/39
39/40
40/41
41/42
42/43

152
Natural Gas Prices: Spot Henry Hub natural gas price forecasts were provided from a third party, ACES.

Please see table below that displays average monthly historical prices from January 2013 to August 2020

and projected spot prices thereafter through December 2043. See Technical Appendix F for forecasting

methodology.

Figure 8.4

Spot Henry Hub Natural Gas Prices - Monthly

While not a current requirement a firm gas supply may be required for generation resources to receive

capacity payments from MISO in the future. The forecasted firm gas demand charge was provided by

vendor estimate and is modeled at where the MMBtu amount is the volume of natural gas

to be firm. The model is assuming the full load of the resource as the volume of firm natural gas. This rate

153
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

was set constant for the 20-year horizon (2024-2043). The projected firm gas charge for each resource

option can be found in Table 8.2 for the Green natural gas conversion option and Table 8.5 above for the

potential new natural gas resources.

 Load Forecast: Load forecasts were provided by Clearspring. See Appendix A for the Long Term

Load Forecast Report. Big Rivers utilized only Member load in the models for the 2020 IRP

evaluation.

Table 8.7

Member Load included in Base Case

154
  Capacity Reserve Margin: The capacity reserve margin constraints used in the LT Plan® were

8% minimum and 10% maximum.

8.2.2 Base Case Results

The optimal (least cost) plan for the LT Plan Base Case resulted in (i) Big Rivers adding the three solar

PPAs totaling 260 MW of new solar capacity, (ii) Big Rivers adding 90 MW of a new 592 MW natural gas

combined cycle unit located at Sebree (NGCC – Sebree) in 2024, and (iii) Big Rivers idling both the Green

coal units. Big Rivers keeps Wilson unit as a coal-fired station, keeps the Reid CT available as a natural

gas peaking unit, and stays in the SEPA contract. Because the NGCC alternative was dependent upon

participation by other counterparties, Big Rivers ran a sensitivity where it assumes this coalition of partners

is not found and the NGCC unit is not available as a resource option (See Section 8.2.3.3 Other Scenarios).

Big Rivers utilized the results from the LT Plan model and the preliminary least-cost solution (Preliminary

LT Plan) had Big Rivers adding 250 MW to 290 MW of the NGCC capacity and exiting the SEPA contract.

Big Rivers utilized the Preliminary LT Plan results to develop seven portfolio options using the ST Plan

model. The portfolio modeled on the ST Plan included evaluating the current portfolio with and without

solar and five potential portfolio options utilizing varying amounts ranging from 0 MW to 330 MW of the

NGCC capacity, operating or idling the Reid CT unit, and keeping or exiting the SEPA contract. The five

potential options are listed below:

 Green Units idled with the proposed solar added and purchase 80 MW capacity from the market

 Green Units idled and 90 MW of the NGCC – Sebree Unit

 Green Units idled, Reid CT idled and 150 MW of the NGCC – Sebree Unit

 Green Units idled, exiting contract with SEPA and 260 MW of the NGCC – Sebree Unit

(Preliminary LT Plan)

155
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Green Units idled, Reid CT idled, exiting contract with SEPA, and 330 MW of the NGCC - Sebree

Unit

Table 8.8 below summarizes the ST Plan results. For the NPV evaluation, Big Rivers utilized a 4.5%

discount rate for the 20 year period from 2024 – 2043. The NPV in 2024 dollars shows how close the

economics of the NGCC unit, the Reid CT unit, and the SEPA contract are to each other at the base case

inputs. There is no clear decision between the four portfolio options where varying amounts of NGCC

capacity are added as only $3M in 2024 dollars separate the options for the 20-year period. Also, just $35M

in 2024 dollars separate the fifth portfolio option when no NGCC capacity is added and capacity is

purchased from the market. As seen in the Section 8.2.3 scenario discussion, all of these portfolio options

provide the least cost option when different inputs are varied.

A portfolio that adds 90 MW of NGCC – Sebree capacity, keeps the Reid CT in operation, and retains the

SEPA contract status quo as the generation portfolio for its Base Case is the best alternative for keeping

Member-Owner rates competitive. The Base Case achieves objectives that Big Rivers is aggressively

pursuing by right sizing its generation to Member-Owners’ load, diversifying its generation portfolio, and

moving toward carbon-free resources when economically feasible. Please see tables and charts below

displaying the base case results and see Appendix G Model Results for the complete annual data.

156
 Table 8.8

ST Plan Portfolio Results – Base Case

2024 -2043 ST Plan Portfolio Results - Base Case

Average
Cost to Serve Load Average Reserve
Energy
Generation Portfolio $M Capacity Margin Comment
Position
NPV, 2024$ Ranking MWh MW %
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 7 887,309 243.1 29.4% No Solar Added
+ Solar 6 1,450,055 427.4 51.8% Current Position
+ Solar, Green Idled 5 (500,458) (11.8) -1.4% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 4 606,067 72.2 8.7% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 3 1,180,621 57.2 6.9% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 2 1,687,738 65.2 7.9% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 1 173,877 73.7 8.9% Least cost (Base case)

157
 Table 8.9

Base Case Production Cost 2024 - 2033

Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997 996 995 993
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997 996 995 993
Net Generation, GWh 4,628 4,849 4,287 4,845 4,527 4,663 4,465 4,806 4,435 4,835
Cost to Serve Load (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Cost to Serve Load, $M
Nominal
Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh
Real Cost to Serve Load, $M
2024$ Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh
Load Market Cost, $M
Nominal Generation Market Revenue, $M
Net Market, $M
Load Market Cost, $M
Real
Generation Market Revenue, $M
2024$
Net Market, $M
Load, GWh 4,410 4,415 4,426 4,428 4,436 4,439 4,443 4,448 4,462 4,462

158
 Table 8.9

Base Case Production Cost 2034 - 2043

Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 992 991 989 988 987 986 984 983 982 980
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 992 991 989 988 987 986 984 983 982 980
Net Generation, GWh 4,301 4,708 4,667 4,820 4,726 4,787 4,635 4,682 4,229 4,747
Cost to Serve Load (Annual inflation) 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Cost to Serve Load, $M
Nominal
Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh
Real Cost to Serve Load, $M
2024$ Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh
Load Market Cost, $M
Nominal Generation Market Revenue, $M
Net Market, $M
Load Market Cost, $M
Real
Generation Market Revenue, $M
2024$
Net Market, $M
Load, GWh 4,466 4,471 4,477 4,479 4,483 4,483 4,487 4,483 4,483 4,483

159
 Table 8.10

Generation and Capacity Reserve Margin

Generation Resource Capacity, MW Native Reserve Capacity Margin

Year Peak
Coal Hydro Gas Solar Total Load MW %
2019 819 154 30 0 1003 631 372 59%
2020 809 178 46 0 1032 650 382 59%
2021 812 178 52 0 1042 662 380 57%
2022 814 178 51 0 1043 863 180 21%
2023 839 178 51 125 1193 864 329 38%
2024 393 178 149 197 917 815 102 12%
2025 393 178 149 195 915 817 98 12%
2026 393 178 149 194 914 819 95 12%
2027 393 178 149 193 913 819 94 11%
2028 393 178 149 191 911 820 91 11%
2029 393 178 149 190 910 821 89 11%
2030 393 178 149 189 909 822 87 11%
2031 393 178 149 188 908 823 85 10%
2032 393 178 149 186 906 825 81 10%
2033 393 178 149 185 905 826 79 10%
2034 393 178 149 184 904 827 77 9%
2035 393 178 149 182 902 828 74 9%
2036 393 178 149 181 901 829 72 9%
2037 393 178 149 180 900 830 70 8%
2038 393 178 149 178 898 831 67 8%
2039 393 178 149 177 897 832 65 8%
2040 393 178 149 176 896 833 63 8%
2041 393 178 149 175 895 834 61 7%
2042 393 178 149 173 893 835 58 7%
2043 393 178 149 172 892 836 56 7%

160
 Table 8.11
Base Case Generation Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
System - Base Case

Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 4,628 4,849 4,287 4,845 4,527 4,663 4,465 4,806 4,435 4,835
- Coal 3,028 3,244 2,677 3,217 2,933 3,087 2,877 3,240 2,893 3,272
- Hydro 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267
- Natural Gas 741 750 758 779 747 733 748 729 706 731
- Solar 592 588 585 582 580 576 573 570 568 564
Winter Capacity, MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997 996 995 993
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 260 259 257 256 255 254 252 251 250 248
Summer Capacity, MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997 996 995 993
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 260 259 257 256 255 254 252 251 250 248
Firm Capacity, MW 912 911 910 908 907 906 904 903 902 900
- Coal 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144
- Solar 197 195 194 193 191 190 189 188 186 185
Net Capacity Factor, % 52.4% 55.0% 48.7% 55.1% 51.6% 53.2% 51.0% 54.9% 50.8% 55.4%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu
- Coal
- Natural Gas
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh
- Coal
- Natural Gas

System - Base Case

Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 4,301 4,708 4,667 4,820 4,726 4,787 4,635 4,682 4,229 4,747
- Coal 2,773 3,184 3,133 3,325 3,242 3,328 3,181 3,283 2,863 3,431
- Hydro 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267
- Natural Gas 700 699 711 676 667 646 642 592 562 515
- Solar 561 558 556 552 549 546 544 540 537 534
Winter Capacity, MW 992 991 989 988 987 986 984 983 982 980
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 247 246 244 243 242 241 239 238 237 235
Summer Capacity, MW 992 991 989 988 987 986 984 983 982 980
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 247 246 244 243 242 241 239 238 237 235
Firm Capacity, MW 899 898 897 895 894 893 891 890 889 887
- Coal 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144
- Solar 184 182 181 180 178 177 176 175 173 172
Net Capacity Factor, % 49.4% 54.1% 53.7% 55.5% 54.5% 55.3% 53.6% 54.2% 49.0% 55.1%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu
- Coal
- Natural Gas
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh
- Coal
- Natural Gas

161
 Figure 8.5

Firm Capacity

Figure 8.6

Generation

162
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

8.2.3 Scenario Evaluation

Forty-nine (49) model sensitivities were performed using the LT Plan model. Please see the description

and results of the sensitivity models below.

8.2.3.1 Single Variable Price Scenarios

Thirty single variable price sensitivities were completed using the LT Plan model. The focus of

the single variable price scenarios are to find breakpoints where a single variable move results in

a different least cost solution from the LT Plan. Ten sensitivities each were run on the market

energy prices, delivered coal prices and natural gas spot prices. The ten sensitivities involved

varying the base price forecast at 10% increments with the limits being 50% above and 50%

below the base forecast.

As discussed in the base case, the economics of the NGCC – Sebree unit, Reid CT and SEPA are

close and as inputs are varied, the break points were found for these generation resource options

along with determining when it is more economic to purchase from the market (represented by

the PPA – Block).

The break points show the NGCC gains advantage over the other options when the market prices

are higher and natural gas prices are lower. Only a small change (10% higher market prices or

10% lower natural gas prices) result in adding more NGCC capacity while idling the Reid CT.

Also, conversely just a small change the other way (10% lower market prices or 10% lower

natural gas prices) result in keeping the Reid CT and adding smaller amounts of the NGCC unit.

The NGCC advantage over the Reid CT are lower variable cost from better heat rates resulting in

higher capacity factors during higher energy prices and lower natural gas prices. The higher

capacity factors result in higher energy margins that offset the Reid CT advantage of lower fixed

costs. The NGCC fixed costs include the build cost and the energy margins must offset the

163
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

difference between the NGCC fixed cost and the lower fixed cost of the Reid CT in order for the

NGCC to be built over idling the Reid CT.

The economics between the NGCC unit and SEPA unit are very close at the base case inputs.

The ST Plan evaluation was used to establish the least cost. The same break points hold true for

the NGCC unit and SEPA as between the NGCC unit and Reid CT for similar reasons. The

NGCC advantage over the SEPA are its ability to dispatch at higher capacity factors when

profitable during higher energy prices and lower natural gas prices, resulting in higher energy

margins. SEPA unit has a fixed contract for generation and costs. The NGCC unit will be least

cost when the energy margins offset the difference between the NGCC fixed cost and the SEPA

production cost.

Also at the lower energy prices and higher natural gas prices, the market (PPA – Block) is added

instead of the NGCC unit at 20% lower energy prices and 30% higher natural gas prices. The

production costs (fixed cost including the build cost) of the NGCC are a disadvantage at lower

energy price and higher natural gas prices. When the NGCC is not returning a net profit (when

market revenue < production costs), then the PPA-Block (market) will be used for the least cost

option. The PPA-Block net profit is zero. The table below shows the results of the single variable

price scenario results for the 20-year horizon (2024-2043). The full annual data can be seen in

Appendix G Model Results.

164
 Table 8.12

2024-2043 Preliminary LT Plan

2024 -2043 LT Plan Portfolio Results - Single Variable Price Scenarios

Cost to Average
Average Capacity
Generation Portfolio (Max Capacity) for Least Cost Plan Serve Load Energy
Scenario Reserve Margin
$M Position
Wilson Solar Reid CT SEPA NGCC PPA - Block MWh MW %
Big Rivers Base Case (ST Plan) 412 260 65 178 90 - 173,877 73.7 8.9%
Preliminary LT Plan 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
Base 50% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,168,192 76.0 9.2%
Base 40% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,151,463 76.0 9.2%
Base 30% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,107,767 76.0 9.2%
Base 20% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,016,990 76.0 9.2%
Base 10% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,909,052 76.0 9.2%
Base 10% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 70 - 80 0 - 20 (701,848) 71.1 8.6%
Base 20% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (1,948,726) 68.9 8.3%
Base 30% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (2,725,702) 68.9 8.3%
Base 40% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (3,296,519) 68.9 8.3%
Base 50% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (3,551,426) 68.9 8.3%
Base 50% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - (979,590) 74.8 9.1%
Base 40% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - (633,256) 74.8 9.1%
Base 30% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - (215,249) 74.8 9.1%
Base 20% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 270,320 74.8 9.1%
Base 10% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 736,351 74.8 9.1%
Base 10% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,322,442 74.8 9.1%
Base 20% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,429,019 74.8 9.1%
Base 30% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,515,801 74.8 9.1%
Base 40% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,540,455 74.8 9.1%
Base 50% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,544,179 74.8 9.1%
Base 50% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (759,982) 68.9 8.3%
Base 40% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (759,951) 68.9 8.3%
Base 30% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (759,559) 68.9 8.3%
Base 20% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 70 0 - 30 (307,139) 69.8 8.5%
Base 10% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 70 - 90 0 - 10 (147,464) 72.4 8.8%
Base 10% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,747,807 76.0 9.2%
Base 20% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,781,692 76.0 9.2%
Base 30% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,793,578 76.0 9.2%
Base 40% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,795,308 76.0 9.2%
Base 50% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,795,308 76.0 9.2%

8.2.3.2 Multi-Variable Price Scenarios

Twelve multi-variable price sensitivities were run using the LT Plan model. The multi-variable

price sensitivities represent a more comprehensive market evaluation as the sensitivities reflect

165
 that some prices (energy, natural gas and coal) are correlated and will move together. Six multi-

variable sensitivities were run at higher LMP prices and six run at lower prices at 20% intervals.

For each 20% interval for the LMP price, three scenarios were run: the natural gag (“NG”)

price and Coal price were kept the same, increased 10% above the LMP price, and decreased

10% below the LMP price. The table below shows the multi-variable price scenarios that were

completed on the LT Plan.

Table 8.13

Multi-Variable Price Scenarios for LT Plan

20% Lower All (LMP, Coal and NG Prices)

20% Lower LMP, 10% Lower Coal and NG Prices
20% Lower LMP, 30% Lower Coal and NG Prices
20% Higher All (LMP, Coal and NG Prices)
20% Higher LMP, 10% Higher Coal and NG Prices
20% Higher LMP, 30% Higher Coal and NG Prices
40% Lower All (LMP, Coal and NG Prices)
40% Lower LMP, 30% Lower Coal and NG Prices
40% Lower LMP, 50% Lower Coal and NG Prices
40% Higher All (LMP, Coal and NG Prices)
40% Higher LMP, 30% Higher Coal and NG Prices
40% Higher LMP, 50% Higher Coal and NG Prices

All of the multi-variable results discussed below were driven by the same factors as the single-variable

scenarios. When energy or natural gas prices result in higher output from the NGCC, the resulting margins

offset the higher fixed costs of the NGCC when compared to the fixed costs of the Reid CT or the

contractual demand charges of the SEPA contract and vice-versa.

The multi-variable scenario results display that the Reid CT is idled in favor of adding more NGCC capacity

at the higher price scenarios and the Reid CT is kept in operation at the lower priced scenarios.

166
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

At the higher price scenarios, the SEPA contract is exited when the prices move together or NG and coal

prices gain a 10% advantage in favor of adding more NGCC capacity. However, SEPA is kept when the

NG and coal prices have a 10% disadvantage.

At the lower LMP scenarios, SEPA is kept when prices move together and when the NG and coal prices

have a 10% disadvantage and SEPA is exited when the NG and coal prices have a 10% advantage.

Less NGCC capacity is added and market purchases are needed at the end of the horizon at the 20% lower

LMP scenarios when prices are moved together and when NG and coal prices have a 10% disadvantage.

NGCC capacity replaces the SEPA contract at the 20% lower LMP scenarios when NG and coal prices

have a 10% advantage.

For the 40% lower LMP scenarios, no NGCC capacity is taken in favor of the market when prices move

together and when NG and coal prices have a 10% disadvantage. NGCC capacity is still added at the 40%

lower LMP when NG and coal prices have a 10% advantage.

Please see the table below displaying the multi-variable price scenarios.

167
 Table 8.14

2024-2043 Preliminary LT Plan Multi-Variable Price Scenarios

2024 -2043 LT Plan Portfolio Results - Multi-Variable Price Scenarios

Cost to Average
Average Reserve
Generation Portfolio (Max Capacity) for Least Cost Plan Serve Load Energy
Scenario Capacity Margin
$M Position
Wilson Solar Reid CT SEPA NGCC PPA - Block MWh MW %
Big Rivers Base Case (ST Plan) 412 260 65 178 90 - 173,877 73.7 8.9%
Preliminary LT Plan 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,722,754 76.0 9.2%
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP -
412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,900,586 76.0 9.2%
Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP -
412 260 - 178 130 - 170 - 168,534 76.1 9.2%
Coal&NG 50% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,685,165 76.0 9.2%
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP -
412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,906,117 76.0 9.2%
Coal&NG 10% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP -
412 260 - 178 130 - 170 - 60,458 74.5 9.0%
Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 412 260 65 178 70 - 90 0 - 10 (133,646) 72.4 8.8%
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 178 60 0 - 40 (937,142) 69.2 8.4%
Coal&NG 10% Lower
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 - 260 - 300 - 1,449,759 75.4 9.1%
Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower All 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (845,039) 68.9 8.3%
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (1,625,698) 68.9 8.3%
Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,473,128 74.8 9.1%
Coal&NG 50% Lower

168
 8.2.3.3 Other Scenarios
Seven other model scenarios were run on the LT Plan model and the results are shown below.

Table 8.15
LT Plan Other Scenarios

2024 -2043 LT Plan Portfolio Results - Other Scenarios

Average
Average Reserve
Generation Portfolio (Max Capacity) for Least Cost Plan Energy
Scenario Capacity Margin
Position
Wilson Solar Reid CT SEPA NGCC PPA - Block MWh MW %
Big Rivers Base Case (ST Plan) 412 260 65 178 90 - 173,877 73.7 8.9%
Preliminary LT Plan 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,397,356 76.0 9.2%
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 412 260 65 178 70 0 - 30 (2,138,244) 71.5 8.7%
LT Plan - No Capacity Price 412 260 - - - 290 - 330 (1,027,079) 67.9 8.2%
LT Plan - REC None 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - Solar Capacity ELCC 412 260 65 - 380 - 420 - 2,167,400 75.3 9.1%
LT Plan - No NGCC Option 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (723,091) 68.7 8.3%

 The NGCC Unit not available as an alternative due to inability to acquire partners: This

scenario removes the NGCC Unit at both the Sebree or Coleman sites as a resource option.

The least cost option results in idling the Green Units and purchasing the needed capacity

from the market.

 Two carbon tax scenarios (ACES and IHS) – The carbon tax scenarios utilized a carbon

tax price for the carbon dioxide (CO2) tons emitted and a resultant change in market energy

prices. The same market energy prices with carbon were used for both scenarios. The

ACES carbon tax projections assumed implementation in 2034 and at lower rates than the

IHS projections, which implemented the tax in 2030. Only one market energy projection

that included carbon was used for both scenarios so the ACES scenario most likely has too

high market energy prices in the early years due to carbon tax being implemented later

(2034). For this reason, the IHS scenario is more representative of a portfolio if the carbon

tax regulations are implemented.

169
 The NPV impact in 2024 dollars of the IHS carbon tax scenario is from the

Base Case, and in that scenario, the portfolio is short on energy by over

as the Wilson coal unit is not economic to generate when the carbon tax is implemented.

 Two REC prices (Ohio Solar Prices and None) – The base analysis assumes REC prices

based upon the Green-E Wind REC forward curve. These scenarios show variations of the

value of the RECs for the proposed solar facilities. The REC None scenario assumes zero

value for RECs and the REC Ohio Solar scenario assumes RECs credit at the higher Ohio

Solar price. The value of the RECs in 2024 dollars for the 20 year period in the Base Case

is as that is the amount the NPV is higher than the REC none scenario. If Big

Rivers receives the Ohio Solar REC price, the NPV in 2024 dollars is higher

than the base case.

 No Capacity Price – This scenario represents no value for capacity. While zero value is

unrealistic, it can be seen as a proxy for an extremely low value close to the current annual

PRA ACPs. The least cost portfolio changes to idling both Green and the Reid CT, and

Big Rivers exiting the SEPA contract. The shortfall if made up with market purchases (290

MW – 330 MW PPA-Block). In addition, when the generation portfolio is right-sized to

load requirements, then the capacity price becomes immaterial as the capacity revenue for

generation equals the capacity cost for load.

 Solar Firm Capacity at ELCC – This scenario uses the ELCC firm capacity for the proposed

solar facilities, which is lower than the Base Case (which uses the current MISO BPM solar

firm capacity projections). The least-cost option under this scenario has Big Rivers adding

130 MW more NGCC capacity than the Base Case.

170
8.3 Summary Scenarios

Big Rivers’ mission remains unchanged: to safely deliver low-cost, reliable wholesale power and the cost-

effective shared services desired by its Member-Owners. In the Electrical Integration Analysis, Big Rivers

utilized the LT Plan® to evaluate the generation resource options for existing generators to remain coal-

fired, convert to natural gas or retire, and options to build new generation to provide the optimal or least-

cost option to serve Big Rivers’ load requirements. The LT Plan results were used to formulate and evaluate

five portfolio options using the ST Plan results. The Base Case inputs and constraints were modeled using

the best information available at the time this IRP was prepared. The capacity reserve margin requirements

utilized in the model were 8% minimum (which represents the minimum MISO UCAP capacity reserve

requirement) and 10% maximum (which represents Big Rivers’ desire to right-size the generation portfolio

for its’ Member load). Big Rivers opted not to include any existing or projected Non-Member sales as part

of this resource assessment.

The Electrical Integration Analysis determined that the least cost option under the Base Case is to continue

operation of Wilson Unit as a coal-fired generator, continue the contract with SEPA, continue the Reid CT

unit as a peaking gas unit, idle the Green Units, add the proposed three Solar Facilities and find partners to

add 90 MW of a 592 MW natural gas combined cycle generator located at its Sebree site.

Several alternative scenarios and five alternative generation portfolios were evaluated. Thirty single

variable scenarios were analyzed varying LMP prices, natural gas prices and coal prices. In the single

variable price scenarios, break points were found for the least-cost plan for varying market power prices

and natural gas prices. Twelve multi-variable price scenarios that are more representative of market moves

and eight other scenarios were completed showing the Big Rivers Optimal portfolio with the least cost

option.

171
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

The economics between the NGCC unit, Reid CT, SEPA contract and market warrant continued analysis.

The Base Case achieves Big Rivers’ objectives to both right-size its generation portfolio to its native load

and diversify the portfolio between coal, natural gas, hydro and solar resources to give Big Rivers the best

opportunity to keep its Member-Owners rates stable and competitive in light of the uncertainty in

environmental regulation and changing market conditions.

172
Big Rivers’ last Board-approved financial plan (approved in November 2019) projected Member-Owner

rates as shown in Table 8.23 below.

Table 8.16

Projected Member-Owner Rates54

Big Rivers Electric Corporation

Projected Member Wholesale Rates ($/MWh)*
2019 $ 75.09 2027
2020 2028
2021 2029
2022 2030
2023 2031
2024 2032
2025 2033
2026

* 2019 actuals and 2020-2033 forecast amounts per Big Rivers

Electric Corporation's 2020-2033 Financial Forecast approved by its
Board of Directors December 2019.

The variables impacting Big Rivers’ future rates are complex, and much has happened since December

2019, when the 2020 through 2033 Financial Plan was approved. The 2020 through 2033 Financial Plan

did include a projection for adding 250 MW of solar capacity (very similar to the current 260 MW of

proposed solar capacity) and included adding Nucor as a new large industrial load.

54
Combined Rural and LIC rates

173
However, these rates do not include the impacts of recent modifications to Big Rivers’ MRSM and related

“TIER Credit” (approved by the Commission in June 2020 in Case No. 2020-00064), which will impact

Members’ effective rates beginning in 2021. Big Rivers’ optimal plan (least cost option) for meeting its

Member -Owners’ native load requirements under the base case scenario is to idle the Green Units, add the

three proposed solar facilities, and find partners to add the optimum amount of a natural gas combined cycle

generation at Big Rivers’ Sebree site. Additionally, changes in commodity prices, market prices,

environmental regulations, Non-Member sales volumes, and many other variables can impact Big Rivers’

Member-Owners’ rates.

As noted above, significant analysis has occurred surrounding the optimum use of Big Rivers’ assets in the

future. Having a more diversified generation portfolio provides Big Rivers the optimum case for stabilizing

Member-Owners’ rates and keeping those rates competitive. With the uncertainty surrounding future

market prices for energy and commodities, upcoming political elections and environmental regulations, the

best option for Big Rivers is to remain vigilant in finding partners for the NGCC unit and make a final

decision on the future of the Green Units if they remain uneconomic. Greater clarity on the future of the

power market, coal and natural gas, and environmental regulations will be paramount to Big Rivers’

decision-making process. Big Rivers exists solely to safely and reliably serve its Member-Owners at the

lowest reasonable cost, and management will continue to focus on the best options for the Member-Owners

in the years to come.

174
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

175
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

ACTION PLAN

Following the analysis required to prepare this IRP, as well as ongoing business plans, Big Rivers’ Optimal

Resource Portfolio will include the existing Wilson (417 MW), Reid CT (65 MW), SEPA Hydropower

allocation (178 MW), Solar PPAs (260 MW), and suspension of Green (454 MW). Following the planned

retirement of Coleman (443 MW) and Reid 1 (65 MW) in 2020, Big Rivers’ existing load and Non-Member

sales obligations will require additional resources. Analysis supporting this IRP indicates the least cost

resource addition, likely around 2026, will be a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) unit, and to achieve

sufficient economies of construction, etc., that resource will likely need to exceed the volume Big Rivers

requires. Neighboring entities may also have need for additional resources that are short of the efficient

size (600-800 MW), so pursuing a purchase of a portion of a NGCC resource is the logical approach. In

order to proceed with the addition of a NGCC resource, Big Rivers needs to collaborate with neighboring

entities with a need for a substantial portion of the NGCC output. Big Rivers is uncertain at this time if

those neighboring entities’ future resource needs include a NGCC.

Big Rivers has access to the wholesale power markets to buy and sell energy to maximize Member value

and meet fluctuations in its owned–generation resource availability. Sufficient resources should be

available to purchase to meet short–term capacity needs until construction of an adequate NGCC occurs,

likely around 2024. See Section 8.2.2 Base Case Results for details of changes in projected capacity.

9.1 Big Rivers Robert D. Green Plant

In the base plan, the Green Units will be suspended by June of 2022 in order to comply with EPA

regulations. Converting the units to natural gas as a capacity-only resource is currently uneconomic and

would involve regulatory risk, but Big Rivers will continue to examine the feasibility of that approach. A

176
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

recent (August 2020) EPA order may create an opportunity to extend the life of the Green units through

December 31, 2028. Analysis of that opportunity is ongoing at the deadline for submitting this IRP.

9.2 Big Rivers Optimal Plan

Over the past several years, Big Rivers worked to adapt to changing requirements while keeping costs

affordable for its Members. Considering fuel diversity and reliability, it is unlikely that nationwide long–

term energy and environmental objectives will be met without retaining high–capacity–factor electric

generation sources (i.e., generation available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). Since most generation from

renewable sources is weather and time–of–day dependent and thus intermittent in output, there must be

sufficient generation sources to support this variability. Reliable and flexible generation sources like Big

Rivers’ Wilson Station will still be needed to react to customer electricity needs as intermittent solar and

wind generation fluctuates. Failing to keep baseload resources available and online would not only lead to

much higher costs, but may have serious reliability consequences. In order to retain a supply of safe,

reliable and cost–effective resources for our Members, a diverse portfolio is optimal in order to meet future

energy needs.

Consistent with Big Rivers’ business plan and mission to safely deliver competitive and reliable wholesale

power to our Member-Owners, the Optimal Plan to meet annual and seasonal peak demands and total

energy requirements identified in the base load forecast at the lowest reasonable costs includes:

 Continue to operate existing efficient generating units;

 Continue to monitor the energy and capacity market to efficiently meet the needs of Member load

and fixed-term non-member sales, purchasing as necessary to meet those needs and to reduce risk;

 Constantly evaluate off-system sales activity to ensure that it continues to provide low-risk value

to our Members, but only to the degree that it supports Big Rivers’ mission and core business.

177
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

 Continue to monitor the political landscape for changes that may impact the nature and/or timing

of environmental requirements;

 Complete the required approvals and purchase of 260 MW solar generation to be constructed within

the Big Rivers footprint;

 Initiate outreach to similarly situated utilities who seek economies of scale that larger combined–

cycle generators provide but do not require the full output of those generators. Big Rivers’ goal is

to either construct a facility, or purchase partial output of a facility constructed by another utility,

in an amount to meet Member load needs at least through 2039; and

 Idle inefficient units.

Big Rivers’ existing Wilson, Green, and Reid CT units are currently economic and remain efficient. Under

expected conditions as described in the Base Case, the Green units become uneconomic, especially with

upcoming environmental regulations that require significant expenditures, and thus the expectation is to

idle the Green units. The November 2020 presidential election may bring additional risk of changes in

future environmental and market requirements. Incremental changes in costs and/or markets may alter the

Optimum Plan at a future date, and this IRP and Optimal Plan considers the best information and analysis

available at this time. Big Rivers is in position to defer additional investment in “steel in the ground” by

leveraging the economical capacity and energy markets for the next few years while at the same time finding

partners, negotiating the agreements, monitoring technology developments, and developing a plan to jointly

build new generation. Currently, that new generation would be a natural gas combined cycle unit located

at Big Rivers’ Sebree site. This IRP presents an appropriate time to build and optimum amount of that

generation for Big Rivers. That time and quantity represent placeholders while Big Rivers monitors

developments in technology, economy, and the political landscape.

178
 LOAD FORECAST

2020
BigRivers ELECTRIC CORPORATION

--,
.........-
.-..,"4
.,..=.,.....;
-..,-,..; ,..........
,....
........
_.,..,
c
';:','!------,..,_,
.,-- --...,
.........
----'
....r.'
„..._ ...,
A's

'''-',.•::-- ,,
,..=.„.....,,
,.... ii4S,Slo I
0 1- 4 '...-.

. ir
1101__ las ", •
ft
ji
1 I .
1) 1

■
 2020 Big Rivers Electric Corporation
Load Forecast Study

August 10, 2020

Prepared By:

Clearspring Energy Advisors LLC

1050 Regent St., Suite L3

Madison, WI 53715
608.442.8668
www.clearspringenergy.com

Confidentiality Statement
The information contained in this document shall not be duplicated, used in whole or in part for any
purpose other than the express purpose for which it was intended. No information presented herein
shall be disclosed outside of the intended parties to this document.

2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction and System Summary .......................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Big Rivers’ Member Information...................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Native Forecast Summary ................................................................................................................ 7
1.3.1 Monthly Peak Forecast .............................................................................................................. 11
1.4 2019 Weather Conditions .............................................................................................................. 12
1.5 Forecast Process Summary ............................................................................................................ 15
2 Energy Forecast Results .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Residential Class............................................................................................................................. 16
2.1.1 Residential Consumer Forecast.................................................................................................. 18
2.1.2 Residential Use per Consumer Forecast .................................................................................... 18
2.2 Commercial and Industrial Class .................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1 General Commercial and Industrial (GCI) Class ......................................................................... 20
2.2.2 Large Commercial and Industrial (LCI) Class .............................................................................. 24
2.2.3 Direct Serve Class ....................................................................................................................... 26
2.3 Street and Highway Class ............................................................................................................... 28
2.4 Irrigation Class................................................................................................................................ 30
2.5 Total Rural Energy .......................................................................................................................... 32
2.6 Total Native System Energy ........................................................................................................... 34
2.7 Non-Member Energy Sales ............................................................................................................ 38
3 Peak Demand .......................................................................................................................................... 42
3.1 Coincident Peak Demand ............................................................................................................... 42
3.2 Non-Member Capacity Sales .......................................................................................................... 44
3.3 Non-Coincident Peak Demand ....................................................................................................... 45
4 DSM IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................................... 46
5 Alternative System Forecasts and Uncertainty Analysis ........................................................................ 49
5.1 Weather Scenarios ......................................................................................................................... 49
5.2 Economic Scenarios ....................................................................................................................... 51
6 Weather Normalized Values ................................................................................................................... 54
7 Forecast Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 57

3|Page
 7.1 Database Setup and Analyses ........................................................................................................ 57
7.2 Key Economic and Demographic Assumptions .............................................................................. 59
7.3 Model Development ...................................................................................................................... 60
7.4 Forecast Development ................................................................................................................... 61
7.5 Changes in Methodology From 2017 Load Forecast ..................................................................... 62
8 Tracking Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 64
8.1 Tracking 2013 through 2017 Forecasts to Actual Values ............................................................... 64
8.2 Comparisons to the 2017 Forecast By Class .................................................................................. 73
9 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................. 84

4|Page
1 INTRODUCTION AND SYSTEM SUMMARY

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The 2020 Big Rivers Electric Corporation (“Big Rivers”) electric load forecast has been created from
the bottom up. That is, forecast models have been developed for each of the three distribution
systems served by Big Rivers and then integrated into Big Rivers’ forecast. Each distribution
Member forecast is conducted separately, and each distribution Member has reviewed and
approved the load forecast applicable to its system.

Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC (Clearspring) was selected by Big Rivers and its Members to
prepare this 2020 electric load forecast. The forecasting process relies on internal system data,
third-party demographic and economic data, and insight from cooperative staff that are most familiar
with the end-uses and trends in the service territory. An emphasis has been placed on strong
coordination between Big Rivers, the three Member systems, and Clearspring in preparing this
study to ensure accurate and useful load forecast results. The Big Rivers forecast team members
include the following individuals.

Project Team

Name Company Role

Marlene Parsley Big Rivers Electric Corporation Project Manager
Russ Pogue Big Rivers Electric Corporation DSM Study
Jeff Williams Jackson Purchase Energy Corporation Load Forecast Representative
Scott Ribble Jackson Purchase Energy Corporation Load Forecast Representative
Steve Thompson Kenergy Corporation Load Forecast Representative
Travis Siewert Kenergy Corporation Load Forecast Representative
Anna Swanson Meade County RECC Load Forecast Representative
David Poe Meade County RECC Load Forecast Representative
Mike French Meade County RECC Load Forecast Representative
Matt Sekeres Clearspring Energy Advisors Lead Consultant
Steve Fenrick Clearspring Energy Advisors Model Development
Josh Hoyt Clearspring Energy Advisors DSM Study
Doug Carlson Clearspring Energy Advisors MISO Peak Forecast

5|Page
The forecast results meet the requirements of and will be used in United States Department of
Agriculture (“USDA”) Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”) loan applications. The forecast will be used by
Big Rivers as a key input into an Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”) being completed to satisfy
Kentucky Public Service Commission (“Commission”) statutory requirements, and the forecast will
be used for other internal uses such as planning and financial projections. This forecast may also
be used externally to meet state and federal regulatory requirements and participating in reliability
council and independent transmission organization activities. This forecast was developed using
methods and procedures in general use by the electric utility industry.

1.2 BIG RIVERS’ MEMBER INFORMATION

The three distribution cooperatives are Jackson Purchase Energy Corporation (“JPEC”), Kenergy
Corporation (“Kenergy”), and Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (“MCRECC”).
These three Big Rivers Members serve more than 118,000 residential households, businesses,
and farms in western Kentucky. This report details the load forecast for the total Big Rivers system.
The service territories of the three Big Rivers distribution Members are shown below.

Service Territory

6|Page
1.3 NATIVE FORECAST SUMMARY

The forecast study develops a forecast for individual retail classes. The forecasted retail classes
are:

 Residential,
 General Commercial and Industrial (“GCI”),
 Large Commercial and Industrial (“LCI”),
 Irrigation,
 Street & Highway, and
 Direct Serve sales.

The Residential, GCI, LCI, Irrigation, and Street and Highway classes along with own use and
distribution losses make up the Rural system requirements. Direct Serve sales and transmission
losses are aggregated with the Rural system to provide total system (“Native”) requirements. The
total Rural forecast is the sum of the forecasts for each of the three distribution Members. Each
Member’s retail class sales forecast is the product of the consumer forecast and the use per
consumer forecast for each class. The Member’s total sales forecast is constructed by summing
the individual retail class sales forecasts.

The table below provides the total Rural energy requirements, Direct Serve energy requirements,
Rural peak demand coincident to Big Rivers, Direct Serve peak demand coincident to Big Rivers,
Rural system load factor, and Native system load factor for the last five historical years (2015-2019)
and the forecasts for the next 20 years. Throughout this load forecast study, 2019 is considered a
historical data year even though due to timeline considerations November and December of 2019
often contain estimated data.

7|Page
 Native System Summary1

Big Rivers Native System Totals

Total Rural Direct Serve Rural System Direct Serve Rural System Native System
Energy Energy Coincident Coincident Coincident Coincident
Year
Requirements Requirements Peak Demand Peak Demand Peak Load Peak Load
(MWh) (MWh) (MW) (MW) Factor Factor
2015 2,325,204 946,873 566.6 121.1 46.9% 54.5%
2016 2,330,037 915,310 486.7 120.8 54.5% 60.8%
2017 2,209,837 919,895 504.3 114.4 50.0% 57.7%
2018 2,366,988 953,822 556.7 95.5 48.5% 58.2%
2019 2,271,772 957,994 490.9 117.9 52.8% 60.6%
2020 2,313,997 987,552 483.9 127.1 54.4% 61.5%
2021 2,342,004 987,552 489.2 127.1 54.6% 61.7%
2022 2,345,137 2,038,752 489.6 322.0 54.7% 61.7%
2023 2,357,028 2,038,752 491.6 322.0 54.7% 61.7%
2024 2,366,988 2,041,632 493.4 322.0 54.6% 61.6%
2025 2,376,885 2,038,752 495.1 322.0 54.8% 61.7%
2026 2,386,410 2,038,752 496.9 322.0 54.8% 61.7%
2027 2,388,504 2,038,752 497.1 322.0 54.8% 61.7%
2028 2,394,976 2,041,632 498.4 322.0 54.7% 61.6%
2029 2,400,628 2,038,752 499.4 322.0 54.9% 61.7%
2030 2,403,821 2,038,752 500.0 322.0 54.9% 61.7%
2031 2,409,248 2,038,752 501.1 322.0 54.9% 61.7%
2032 2,419,240 2,038,752 503.1 322.0 54.7% 61.5%
2033 2,424,117 2,038,752 504.1 322.0 54.9% 61.7%
2034 2,427,766 2,038,752 504.8 322.0 54.9% 61.7%
2035 2,431,849 2,038,752 505.7 322.0 54.9% 61.7%
2036 2,435,950 2,038,752 506.5 322.0 54.8% 61.5%
2037 2,440,157 2,038,752 507.3 322.0 54.9% 61.6%
2038 2,444,021 2,038,752 508.1 322.0 54.9% 61.6%
2039 2,448,197 2,038,752 509.0 322.0 54.9% 61.6%
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 0.15% -2.27% -1.32% 0.98% 1.49% 0.29%
Previous 5 Years -1.22% -0.17% -4.44% -1.03% 3.37% 3.01%
Next 5 Years 0.82% 16.34% 0.10% 22.25% 0.67% 0.31%
Next 10 Years 0.55% 7.85% 0.17% 10.57% 0.38% 0.18%
Next 20 Years 0.37% 3.85% 0.18% 5.15% 0.19% 0.08%

1
Big Rivers has no current non-pilot Demand Side Management (DSM) or Energy Efficiency (EE) programs and
is not projected to have any new programs in the base forecast. Alternate forecasts with projected DSM impacts are
discussed in section 4.

8|Page
The following graph provides the Native system Rural energy requirements forecast.

Rural Energy Requirements

Big Rivers Total Rural Energy Requirements (MWh)

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000
SALES (MWH)

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
2018

2037
2015

2016

2017

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2038

2039
YEAR

Residential GCI LCI Irrigation Street & Highway Dist. Losses & Own Use

9|Page
The figure below provides the Native system Rural sales distribution by class for 2019.

2019 Rural Sales by Class Distribution

Big Rivers 2019 Rural Sales Distribution

Irrigation Street & Highway
0% 0%

LCI
7%

GCI Residential
28% GCI
LCI
Irrigation
Street & Highway
Residential
65%

The figure below provides the Native system Rural sales forecasted distribution by class for 2039.

2039 Rural Sales by Class Distribution

Big Rivers 2039 Rural Sales Distribution

Irrigation Street & Highway
0% 0%

LCI
7%

Residential
GCI GCI
32%
LCI
Irrigation
Residential Street & Highway
61%

10 | P a g e
1.3.1 Monthly Peak Forecast

Monthly load factors have been econometrically modeled for each Member system. The load factor
models are used in conjunction with the energy forecasts to calculate monthly peak demands. The
monthly Rural peak demand forecast (coincident with Big Rivers) for the prior and next five years
is presented in the following figure.

Monthly Rural Peak Forecast

Big Rivers Five Year Rural Monthly CP Forecast (kW)

600,000

500,000

400,000
Peak (kW)

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
Jan-15

Jan-16

Jan-17

Jan-18

Jan-19

Jan-20

Jan-21

Jan-22

Jan-23

Jan-24
Apr-15
Jul-15

Apr-16
Jul-16

Apr-17
Jul-17

Apr-18
Jul-18

Apr-19
Jul-19

Apr-20
Jul-20

Apr-21
Jul-21

Apr-22
Jul-22

Apr-23
Jul-23

Apr-24
Jul-24
Oct-15

Oct-16

Oct-17

Oct-18

Oct-19

Oct-20

Oct-21

Oct-22

Oct-23

Oct-24
Date

11 | P a g e
1.4 2019 WEATHER CONDITIONS

There contains an assumption of a “normal” weather scenario for the forecasts for each class.
Clearspring Energy compiled historical weather observations to enable the estimation of weather
impacts onto sales and peak loads. Weather variables such as cooling degree days (CDD), heating
degree days (HDD), and peak temperatures were gathered using weather stations within each
service territory. Paducah, KY was used as the primary weather station to gather data for JPEC.
Owensboro, KY was used as the primary weather station to gather data for Kenergy. Louisville,
KY was used as the primary weather station to gather data for MCRECC. In the cases of missing
historical data, a variety of backup stations were used to fill in missing data. The figure below
displays the last fifteen years of CDDs for Big Rivers along with the 15-year average CDD.

Cooling Degree Days for Last 15 Years

Cooling Degree Days

2500

2000

1500
CDD

1000

500

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

CDD 15 Year Average CDD

The figure below provides the CDD deviation in 2019 from a 30-year normal amount for the entire
state of Kentucky, showing the distribution of weather conditions across the full service territory.
The map shows an isolated pocket of mild summer CDD amounts in the northern portion of the
service territory. However, most of the service territory experienced a hotter-than-normal summer
season with the most extreme areas occurring in the southwest area of the service territory.

12 | P a g e
 Kentucky 2019 CDD Deviations

The figure below displays the last fifteen years of HDDs for Big Rivers along with the 15-year
average HDD.

13 | P a g e
 Heating Degree Days for Last 15 Years

Heating Degree Days

6000

5000

4000
HDD

3000

2000

1000

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

HDD 15 Year Average HDD

The figure below provides the HDD deviation in 2019 from a 30-year normal amount for the entire
state of Kentucky. The map shows mostly average winter HDD amounts, with some slightly more
mild areas in the southwest portion of the service territory.

14 | P a g e
 Kentucky 2019 HDD Deviations

1.5 FORECAST PROCESS SUMMARY

Clearspring developed econometric models in order to forecast Residential energy per consumer,
General C&I (GCI) consumers, GCI use per consumer, and the Rural system’s monthly load factors.
A growth index using projections for the number of households was used to forecast Residential
consumers. Historical weather and economic data were gathered from various sources to estimate
the impacts of variables onto the corresponding category. Normalized weather and forecasted
economic variables are then combined with the parameter estimates of the models to calculate
forecasted values.

Forecasts for the LCI and Direct Serve commercial loads have been prepared based on input from
the cooperatives and historical value. Judgment and trend analysis are used to project Irrigation,
Street and Highway, own use, and distribution losses. The forecasts have been provided to Big
Rivers and the Member systems and have been approved by each.

15 | P a g e
2 ENERGY FORECAST RESULTS

2.1 Residential Class

The Residential sales forecast is comprised of a forecast for Residential use per consumer and a
forecast for Residential retail members. The product of the two disaggregated forecasts equals the
Residential sales forecast.

The following table provides the last five years of historical data and the next 20 years of forecasted
data for the number of Residential customers, Residential use per consumer, and Residential
energy sales. Growth rates for the prior 5 and 10 years and projected growth rates for the next 5,
10, and 20 years are also provided.

16 | P a g e
 Historical and Projected Residential Consumers, Use per Consumer, and Sales

Big Rivers Residential Class

% Change per Use Per % Change per % Change per
Number of Energy Sales
Year Year in Consumer Year in Use Per Year in Energy
Consumers (MWh)
Consumers (kWh) Consumer Sales

2015 97,971 14,783 1,448,343

2016 98,583 0.62% 14,565 -1.48% 1,435,874 -0.86%
2017 99,451 0.88% 13,553 -6.95% 1,347,867 -6.13%
2018 99,724 0.27% 14,955 10.34% 1,491,338 10.64%
2019 99,891 0.17% 14,083 -5.83% 1,406,754 -5.67%
2020 100,314 0.42% 14,195 0.79% 1,423,914 1.22%
2021 101,044 0.73% 14,170 -0.17% 1,431,787 0.55%
2022 101,667 0.62% 14,153 -0.12% 1,438,903 0.50%
2023 102,180 0.50% 14,114 -0.28% 1,442,148 0.23%
2024 102,616 0.43% 14,073 -0.29% 1,444,122 0.14%
2025 102,990 0.36% 14,047 -0.18% 1,446,702 0.18%
2026 103,193 0.20% 14,040 -0.05% 1,448,868 0.15%
2027 103,256 0.06% 14,006 -0.25% 1,446,170 -0.19%
2028 103,282 0.03% 13,996 -0.07% 1,445,528 -0.04%
2029 103,263 -0.02% 13,985 -0.08% 1,444,108 -0.10%
2030 103,200 -0.06% 13,963 -0.16% 1,440,938 -0.22%
2031 103,101 -0.10% 13,955 -0.05% 1,438,824 -0.15%
2032 102,970 -0.13% 13,977 0.16% 1,439,236 0.03%
2033 102,815 -0.15% 13,978 0.01% 1,437,166 -0.14%
2034 102,644 -0.17% 13,975 -0.02% 1,434,434 -0.19%
2035 102,460 -0.18% 13,976 0.01% 1,431,962 -0.17%
2036 102,269 -0.19% 13,979 0.02% 1,429,572 -0.17%
2037 102,079 -0.19% 13,985 0.04% 1,427,550 -0.14%
2038 101,894 -0.18% 13,989 0.03% 1,425,414 -0.15%
2039 101,718 -0.17% 13,994 0.04% 1,423,491 -0.13%
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 0.29% -0.43% -0.14%
Previous 5 Years 0.41% -2.09% -1.69%
Next 5 Years 0.54% -0.01% 0.53%
Next 10 Years 0.33% -0.07% 0.26%
Next 20 Years 0.09% -0.03% 0.06%

17 | P a g e
2.1.1 Residential Consumer Forecast

Third party household growth projections are gathered from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. The
projections are based at the county level and weighted up for each county within the distribution
Member’s service territories using the current distribution of Residential consumers across each
county. These household growth estimates are used to project the number of Residential members
in future years with additional adjustments made based on cooperative staff recommendations.
The following figure provides the historical and projected Residential consumers on the Big Rivers
system. Residential consumers are projected to increase over the next five years at an average
annual rate of 0.5% driven mostly by increased large C&I activity creating a demand for new
housing in the service territory. After the first five years of the forecast the housing growth is
expected to slow and decline slightly in the later years of the forecast.

Residential Consumers

Big Rivers Residential Consumers

110,000

108,000

106,000

104,000

102,000
CONSUMERS

100,000

98,000

96,000

94,000

92,000

90,000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039

YEAR

Historical Forecast

2.1.2 Residential Use per Consumer Forecast

The Residential use per consumer forecast is estimated using econometric models for each
distribution Member that relates certain explanatory variables to Residential use per consumer.
The models employ a monthly dataset with 154 observations from January 2007 to October 2019.

18 | P a g e
The models use price of electricity, alternate fuel prices, cooling and heating degree days, appliance
saturation levels, and appliance efficiencies. Explanatory variable values are projected in future
years using demographic and economic projections and weather normalized values. Preliminary
model results were reviewed by cooperative staff and modifications were made if necessary where
staff had specific knowledge of the service territory and conditions. Use per consumer values are
projected to fall slightly through the first ten years of the forecast at an average annual rate of -
0.1%. The reduction is due to continuing efficiency gains in appliance stocks as older, less efficient,
appliances are replaced with more efficient ones. During the last ten years of the forecast additional
efficiency gains are slower and the effect on use per consumer is balanced by the continuing
decreasing real cost of electricity resulting in flat growth in the final years of the forecast period. The
Residential use per consumer models are provided in the Appendix. The following figure provides
the historical and projected Residential use per consumer for the Big Rivers Native system.

Residential Use Per Consumer

Big Rivers Residential Use Per Consumer (kWh)

18,000

17,000

16,000
USE PER CONSUMER

15,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

11,000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039

YEAR

Historical Forecast

19 | P a g e
2.2 Commercial and Industrial Class

The total commercial and industrial class is divided into three distinct sub classes. The majority of
the commercial and industrial retail members are placed and forecasted within the General C&I
(GCI) class. This class consists of the relatively smaller C&I consumers at each distribution
Member. The second commercial and industrial class is the Large C&I (LCI) class. This class
consists of the largest commercial and industrial customers that are not served under Big Rivers’
Large Industrial Customer tariff (LIC) and therefore do not qualify as Direct Serve consumers. The
third class are Direct Serve consumers. The consumers that fall under this class are served under
Big Rivers’ LIC. These Direct Serve customers are individually forecasted based on input from the
member system, Big Rivers, or the Direct Serve consumer itself. The Direct Serve sales are
aggregated to the Native system requirements separately from the Rural system load.

2.2.1 General Commercial and Industrial (GCI) Class

The GCI class is defined as the total commercial and industrial loads minus the Direct Serve and
LCI loads. Given the importance of the GCI class, Clearspring used econometric modeling to
project both the GCI consumer counts and the GCI use per consumer for the Big Rivers distribution
Members.

The following table provides the last five years of historical data and the next 20 years of forecasted
data for the number of GCI customers, GCI use per consumer, and GCI energy sales. Growth rates
for the prior 5 and 10 years and projected growth rates for the next 5, 10, and 20 years are provided
in the table for GCI consumers, use per consumer, and sales.

20 | P a g e
 Historical and Projected GCI Consumers, Use per Consumer, and Sales

Big Rivers General C&I Class

% Change per Use Per % Change per % Change per
Number of Energy Sales
Year Year in Consumer Year in Use Per Year in Energy
Consumers (MWh)
Consumers (kWh) Consumer Sales

2015 16,805 36,121 607,011

2016 17,110 1.81% 35,949 -0.48% 615,083 1.33%
2017 17,290 1.05% 34,721 -3.42% 600,334 -2.40%
2018 17,483 1.12% 35,398 1.95% 618,866 3.09%
2019 17,732 1.42% 34,050 -3.81% 603,764 -2.44%
2020 18,188 2.57% 34,138 0.26% 620,892 2.84%
2021 18,406 1.20% 34,237 0.29% 630,164 1.49%
2022 18,641 1.28% 34,283 0.14% 639,079 1.41%
2023 18,872 1.24% 34,293 0.03% 647,167 1.27%
2024 19,104 1.23% 34,270 -0.07% 654,681 1.16%
2025 19,314 1.10% 34,251 -0.05% 661,534 1.05%
2026 19,524 1.09% 34,238 -0.04% 668,455 1.05%
2027 19,734 1.08% 34,110 -0.37% 673,141 0.70%
2028 19,942 1.06% 34,096 -0.04% 679,960 1.01%
2029 20,150 1.04% 34,082 -0.04% 686,774 1.00%
2030 20,357 1.03% 34,041 -0.12% 692,988 0.90%
2031 20,562 1.01% 34,056 0.04% 700,284 1.05%
2032 20,765 0.99% 34,164 0.32% 709,422 1.30%
2033 20,966 0.97% 34,157 -0.02% 716,148 0.95%
2034 21,166 0.95% 34,128 -0.08% 722,361 0.87%
2035 21,365 0.94% 34,109 -0.06% 728,729 0.88%
2036 21,562 0.92% 34,089 -0.06% 735,033 0.87%
2037 21,759 0.91% 34,059 -0.09% 741,068 0.82%
2038 21,954 0.90% 34,020 -0.11% 746,889 0.79%
2039 22,149 0.89% 33,988 -0.10% 752,795 0.79%
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 1.88% -1.26% 0.59%
Previous 5 Years 1.81% -1.97% -0.20%
Next 5 Years 1.50% 0.13% 1.63%
Next 10 Years 1.29% 0.01% 1.30%
Next 20 Years 1.12% -0.01% 1.11%

21 | P a g e
2.2.1.1 GCI Consumer Forecast

The GCI consumer forecast is estimated using econometric models for each Big Rivers distribution
Member that relates explanatory variables to the GCI consumer count. The models use gross
regional product (GRP) and total retail sales within the counties served and are aligned with each
distribution cooperatives 2019 GCI consumer values. Explanatory variable values are projected in
future years using economic projections. Preliminary model results were reviewed by cooperative
staff and modifications were made if necessary where staff had specific knowledge of the service
territory and conditions. The GCI consumer models are provided in the Appendix. The following
figure provides the historical and projected GCI consumers for the Big Rivers Native system.

GCI Consumers

Big Rivers GCI Consumers

30,000

28,000

26,000

24,000

22,000
CONSUMERS

20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
YEAR

Historical Forecast

22 | P a g e
2.2.1.2 GCI Use per Consumer Forecast

The GCI use per consumer forecast is estimated using econometric models for each of the Big
Rivers distribution Members that relates certain explanatory variables to the GCI use per consumer.
The models use electricity price, employment per consumer, cooling degree days, and heating
degree days within the counties served. Explanatory variable values are projected in future years
using demographic and economic projections and weather normalized values. Preliminary model
results were reviewed by cooperative staff and modifications were made if necessary where staff
had specific knowledge of the service territory and conditions. The GCI use per consumer models
are provided in the Appendix. The following figure provides the historical and projected GCI use
per consumer for the Big Rivers Native system.

GCI Use per Consumer

Big Rivers GCI Use Per Consumer (kWh)

44,000

42,000
USE PER CONSUMER

40,000

38,000

36,000

34,000

32,000

30,000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039

YEAR

Historical Forecast

23 | P a g e
2.2.2 Large Commercial and Industrial (LCI) Class

The Large C&I (LCI) class consists of the largest commercial and industrial customers at each
distribution Member that do not qualify as Direct Serve consumers. In 2019 the Big Rivers LCI
class contained 31 consumers. The sales forecasts are based on staff knowledge and judgement
with input from each cooperative. The following table provides the last five years of historical data
and the next 20 years of forecasted data for the number of LCI consumers, LCI use per consumer,
and LCI energy sales. Growth rates for the prior 5 and 10 years and projected growth rates for the
next 5, 10, and 20 years are provided in the table for LCI consumers, use per consumer, and sales.

24 | P a g e
 Historical and Projected LCI Consumers, Use per Consumer, and Sales

Big Rivers Large C&I Class

% Change per Use Per % Change per % Change per
Number of Energy Sales
Year Year in Consumer Year in Use Per Year in Energy
Consumers (MWh)
Consumers (MWh) Consumer Sales

2015 33 4,778 157,680

2016 32 -3.28% 4,982 4.26% 158,999 0.84%
2017 29 -10.18% 5,143 3.24% 147,433 -7.27%
2018 29 1.16% 5,266 2.39% 152,708 3.58%
2019 31 5.46% 5,203 -1.20% 159,111 4.19%
2020 32 3.81% 5,064 -2.67% 160,778 1.05%
2021 32 0.79% 5,323 5.12% 170,333 5.94%
2022 31 -3.13% 5,075 -4.67% 157,311 -7.64%
2023 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2024 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2025 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2026 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2027 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2028 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2029 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2030 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2031 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2032 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2033 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2034 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2035 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2036 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2037 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2038 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
2039 31 0.00% 5,075 0.00% 157,311 0.00%
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 5.49% -2.79% 2.55%
Previous 5 Years -0.32% 0.86% 0.53%
Next 5 Years 0.27% -0.50% -0.23%
Next 10 Years 0.14% -0.25% -0.11%
Next 20 Years 0.07% -0.12% -0.06%

25 | P a g e
2.2.3 Direct Serve Class

The Direct Serve class contains consumers that are directly served from the transmission system.
The sales forecasts are based on manager and staff knowledge and input from each cooperative.
Big Rivers Direct Serve class contained twenty-one2 consumers in 2019. The Direct Serve class is
expected to add one additional consumer in 2022.

The following table provides the last five years of historical data and the next 20 years of forecasted
data for the number of Direct Serve customers, Direct Serve use per consumer, and Direct Serve
energy sales. Growth rates for the prior 5 and 10 years and projected growth rates for the next 5,
10, and 20 years are provided in the table for Direct Serve consumers, use per consumer, and
sales.

2
The Kenergy load forecast contains projections for two additional Direct Serve smelter load consumers that
are not included in this report because they do not contribute to the Big Rivers energy or peak requirements. Including
those two consumers the Direct Serve consumer count in 2019 would be twenty-three.

26 | P a g e
 Historical and Projected Direct Serve Consumers, Use per Consumer, and Sales

Big Rivers Direct Serve Class

% Change per Use Per % Change per % Change per
Number of Energy Sales
Year Year in Consumer Year in Use Per Year in Energy
Consumers (MWh)
Consumers (MWh) Consumer Sales

2015 20 47,344 946,873

2016 20 0.00% 45,765 -3.33% 915,310 -3.33%
2017 20 0.00% 45,995 0.50% 919,895 0.50%
2018 21 4.17% 45,783 -0.46% 953,822 3.69%
2019 21 0.80% 45,619 -0.36% 957,994 0.44%
2020 21 0.00% 47,026 3.09% 987,552 3.09%
2021 21 0.00% 47,026 0.00% 987,552 0.00%
2022 22 4.76% 92,671 97.06% 2,038,752 106.45%
2023 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2024 22 0.00% 92,801 0.14% 2,041,632 0.14%
2025 22 0.00% 92,671 -0.14% 2,038,752 -0.14%
2026 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2027 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2028 22 0.00% 92,801 0.14% 2,041,632 0.14%
2029 22 0.00% 92,671 -0.14% 2,038,752 -0.14%
2030 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2031 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2032 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2033 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2034 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2035 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2036 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2037 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2038 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
2039 22 0.00% 92,671 0.00% 2,038,752 0.00%
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 0.49% -2.74% -2.27%
Previous 5 Years 0.98% -1.14% -0.17%
Next 5 Years 0.93% 15.26% 16.34%
Next 10 Years 0.47% 7.34% 7.85%
Next 20 Years 0.23% 3.61% 3.85%

27 | P a g e
2.3 Street and Highway Class

Given the small proportion of the Street and Highway class in total sales, the forecast for this class
was calculated manually rather than through econometric modeling. The most recent consumer
values were held constant through the forecast and the prior twelve months of usage were used to
derive monthly energy forecasts for the forecast period.

The following table provides the last five years of historical data and the next 20 years of forecasted
data for the number of Street and Highway consumers, Street and Highway use per consumer, and
Street and Highway energy sales. Growth rates for the prior 5 and 10 years and projected growth
rates for the next 5, 10, and 20 years are provided in the table for Street and Highway consumers,
use per consumer, and sales.

28 | P a g e
 Historical and Projected Street & Highway Consumers, Use per Consumer, and Sales

Big Rivers Street & Highway Class

% Change per Use Per % Change per % Change per
Number of Energy Sales
Year Year in Consumer Year in Use Per Year in Energy
Consumers (MWh)
Consumers (kWh) Consumer Sales

2015 100 34,234 3,429

2016 103 3.16% 32,049 -6.38% 3,312 -3.43%
2017 104 0.73% 31,223 -2.58% 3,250 -1.87%
2018 107 3.20% 28,965 -7.23% 3,111 -4.26%
2019 106 -1.01% 28,914 -0.18% 3,074 -1.18%
2020 108 1.57% 28,892 -0.07% 3,120 1.49%
2021 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2022 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2023 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2024 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2025 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2026 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2027 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2028 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2029 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2030 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2031 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2032 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2033 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2034 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2035 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2036 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2037 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2038 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
2039 108 0.00% 28,892 0.00% 3,120 0.00%
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 2.24% -2.73% -0.54%
Previous 5 Years 3.16% -5.34% -2.34%
Next 5 Years 0.31% -0.01% 0.30%
Next 10 Years 0.16% -0.01% 0.15%
Next 20 Years 0.08% 0.00% 0.07%

29 | P a g e
2.4 Irrigation Class

Given the small proportion of the Irrigation class in total sales, the forecast for this class was
calculated manually rather than through econometric modeling. The most recent consumer values
were held constant through the forecast and the prior twelve months of usage were used to derive
monthly energy forecasts for the forecast period

The following table provides the last five years of historical data and the next 20 years of forecasted
data for the number of Irrigation customers, Irrigation use per consumer, and Irrigation energy sales.
Growth rates for the prior 5 and 10 years and projected growth rates for the next 5, 10, and 20 years
are provided in the table for Irrigation consumers, use per consumer, and sales.

30 | P a g e
 Historical and Projected Irrigation Consumers, Use per Consumer, and Sales

Big Rivers Irrigation Class

% Change per Use Per % Change per % Change per
Number of Energy Sales
Year Year in Consumer Year in Use Per Year in Energy
Consumers (MWh)
Consumers (kWh) Consumer Sales

2015 4 15,428 62
2016 4 0.00% 12,760 -17.29% 51 -17.29%
2017 4 0.00% 25,437 99.35% 102 99.35%
2018 5 12.50% 15,618 -38.60% 70 -30.93%
2019 5 11.11% 21,652 38.63% 108 54.04%
2020 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2021 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2022 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2023 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2024 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2025 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2026 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2027 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2028 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2029 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2030 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2031 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2032 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2033 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2034 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2035 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2036 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2037 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2038 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
2039 5 0.00% 21,652 0.00% 108 0.00%
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years -5.17% -7.62% -12.39%
Previous 5 Years 4.56% -8.69% -4.52%
Next 5 Years 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Next 10 Years 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Next 20 Years 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

31 | P a g e
2.5 TOTAL RURAL ENERGY

The total Rural energy requirements are calculated by taking the sales forecasts for each class,
detailed in the previous sections of this report, and adding distribution losses and own use.
Distribution losses are estimated using a three-year historical average percent. This percent is
computed after any Direct Sale loads are removed since these loads are no loss loads.

The following table provides the historical and forecast components of total Rural energy
requirements. The last five historical years are provided (2015 to 2019) along with the next twenty
years of forecasts for each component.

32 | P a g e
 Rural System Energy Summary

Big Rivers Rural Energy Summary (MWh)

Street & Total Rural
Residential General C&I Large C&I Irrigation Distribution
Year Highway Own Use Energy
Energy Sales Energy Sales Energy Sales Energy Sales Losses
Energy Sales Requirements
2015 1,448,343 607,011 157,680 62 3,429 107,766 913 2,325,204
2016 1,435,874 615,083 158,999 51 3,312 115,265 1,454 2,330,037
2017 1,347,867 600,334 147,433 102 3,250 107,908 2,944 2,209,837
2018 1,491,338 618,866 152,708 70 3,111 97,684 3,211 2,366,988
2019 1,406,754 603,764 159,111 108 3,074 95,907 3,053 2,271,772
2020 1,423,914 620,892 160,778 108 3,120 102,077 3,108 2,313,997
2021 1,431,787 630,164 170,333 108 3,120 103,358 3,132 2,342,004
2022 1,438,903 639,079 157,311 108 3,120 103,460 3,154 2,345,137
2023 1,442,148 647,167 157,311 108 3,120 104,000 3,173 2,357,028
2024 1,444,122 654,681 157,311 108 3,120 104,455 3,190 2,366,988
2025 1,446,702 661,534 157,311 108 3,120 104,904 3,205 2,376,885
2026 1,448,868 668,455 157,311 108 3,120 105,330 3,216 2,386,410
2027 1,446,170 673,141 157,311 108 3,120 105,429 3,225 2,388,504
2028 1,445,528 679,960 157,311 108 3,120 105,716 3,232 2,394,976
2029 1,444,108 686,774 157,311 108 3,120 105,968 3,238 2,400,628
2030 1,440,938 692,988 157,311 108 3,120 106,112 3,243 2,403,821
2031 1,438,824 700,284 157,311 108 3,120 106,354 3,247 2,409,248
2032 1,439,236 709,422 157,311 108 3,120 106,793 3,249 2,419,240
2033 1,437,166 716,148 157,311 108 3,120 107,012 3,252 2,424,117
2034 1,434,434 722,361 157,311 108 3,120 107,178 3,254 2,427,766
2035 1,431,962 728,729 157,311 108 3,120 107,363 3,255 2,431,849
2036 1,429,572 735,033 157,311 108 3,120 107,549 3,256 2,435,950
2037 1,427,550 741,068 157,311 108 3,120 107,742 3,257 2,440,157
2038 1,425,414 746,889 157,311 108 3,120 107,919 3,259 2,444,021
2039 1,423,491 752,795 157,311 108 3,120 108,111 3,260 2,448,197
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years -0.14% 0.59% 2.55% -12.39% -0.54% -1.65% 7.43% 0.15%
Previous 5 Years -1.69% -0.20% 0.53% -4.52% -2.34% -3.46% 22.98% -1.22%
Next 5 Years 0.53% 1.63% -0.23% 0.00% 0.30% 1.72% 0.88% 0.82%
Next 10 Years 0.26% 1.30% -0.11% 0.00% 0.15% 1.00% 0.59% 0.55%
Next 20 Years 0.06% 1.11% -0.06% 0.00% 0.07% 0.60% 0.33% 0.37%

33 | P a g e
2.6 TOTAL NATIVE SYSTEM ENERGY

The total system Native energy requirements consist of the Rural system requirements, Direct
Serve energy, and transmission losses. Transmission losses were 2.51% in 2019 and are
forecasted at 2.50% beginning in February 2020 for the remainder of the forecast. The table below
shows each component of the total system energy requirements. While Domtar is a Direct Serve
consumer, only a partial amount of the energy use contributes to the Big Rivers energy
requirements.

34 | P a g e
 Total Native System Energy Summary

Big Rivers Total Native System Energy Summary (MWh)

Total System
Total Rural Transmission
Year Direct Serve Energy
Requirements Losses
Requirements
2015 2,325,204 946,873 66,970 3,339,047
2016 2,330,037 915,310 73,420 3,318,766
2017 2,209,837 919,895 77,928 3,207,660
2018 2,366,988 953,822 86,858 3,407,668
2019 2,271,772 957,994 83,431 3,317,632
2020 2,313,997 987,552 84,688 3,386,237
2021 2,342,004 987,552 85,373 3,414,929
2022 2,345,137 2,038,752 112,407 4,496,296
2023 2,357,028 2,038,752 112,712 4,508,492
2024 2,366,988 2,041,632 113,042 4,521,662
2025 2,376,885 2,038,752 113,221 4,528,859
2026 2,386,410 2,038,752 113,466 4,538,628
2027 2,388,504 2,038,752 113,519 4,540,776
2028 2,394,976 2,041,632 113,759 4,550,367
2029 2,400,628 2,038,752 113,830 4,553,210
2030 2,403,821 2,038,752 113,912 4,556,486
2031 2,409,248 2,038,752 114,051 4,562,051
2032 2,419,240 2,038,752 114,307 4,572,299
2033 2,424,117 2,038,752 114,433 4,577,302
2034 2,427,766 2,038,752 114,526 4,581,044
2035 2,431,849 2,038,752 114,631 4,585,232
2036 2,435,950 2,038,752 114,736 4,589,439
2037 2,440,157 2,038,752 114,844 4,593,753
2038 2,444,021 2,038,752 114,943 4,597,716
2039 2,448,197 2,038,752 115,050 4,601,999
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 0.15% -2.27% 11.89% -0.45%
Previous 5 Years -1.22% -0.17% 8.91% -0.70%
Next 5 Years 0.82% 16.34% 6.26% 6.39%
Next 10 Years 0.55% 7.85% 3.16% 3.22%
Next 20 Years 0.37% 3.85% 1.62% 1.65%

35 | P a g e
The following graph provides the class components that comprise the total energy requirements for
the Big Rivers Native system.

Total Native Energy Forecast

Big Rivers Total Energy Requirements (MWh)

5,000,000

4,500,000

4,000,000

3,500,000
SALES (MWH)

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
2018

2037
2015

2016

2017

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2038

2039
YEAR

Residential GCI LCI

Irrigation Street & Highway Distribution Losses & Own Use
Direct Serve Transmission Losses

36 | P a g e
The figure below provides the Native sales distribution by each contributing component for 2019.

2019 Native System Sales by Class Distribution

Big Rivers 2019 Total System Sales Distribution

Losses & Own Use
6%

Residential

Direct Serve Residential GCI

29% 42%
LCI
Irrigation
Street & Highway
Direct Serve

Street & Highway Losses & Own Use

0%
LCI
5%

Irrigation GCI
0% 18%

37 | P a g e
The figure below provides the Native sales distribution by each contributing component for 2039.
The largest change in the class distribution is within the Direct Serve class. The Direct Serve
class contributed 29% of sales in 2019 and is projected to contribute 44% in 2039.

2039 Native System Sales by Class Distribution

Big Rivers 2039 Total System Sales Distribution

Losses & Own Use
5%

Residential Residential
31% GCI
LCI
Direct Serve Irrigation
44% Street & Highway
Direct Serve
Losses & Own Use
GCI
16%

Street & Highway

0% Irrigation LCI
0% 4%

2.7 NON-MEMBER ENERGY SALES

In addition to the Native system loads described in the previous sections, Big Rivers engages in
buying or selling any available excess resources where those transactions derive value for the Big
Rivers Members. These capacity and energy transactions are made bilaterally or through
participation in the regional transmission organization day ahead and real time markets.
Optimization of these transactions involve evaluating the costs to deliver Big Rivers’ generation
versus buying on the market, and when the costs of purchasing capacity or energy are more

38 | P a g e
economical than the comparable generation and transmission costs, those purchases are made to
drive the most value for the Member owners. The table below shows anticipated net Non-Member
energy sales. Capacity sales for Non-Member loads are discussed in section 3.2. The projections
in the table below and the projections for the non-Member capacity in section 3.2 include sales or
purchases for the following entities, and only include projections for the period of the current
contracts:

 Owensboro Municipal Utilities (OMU)3,

 Kentucky Municipal Energy Agency (KYMEA)4,
 Nebraska Entities5, and
 Short Term Bilateral Capacity6.

Non-Member Energy Sales

Non-Member Sales Under

Contract as of 2020
Calendar Year MWH

2020 1,466,620
2021 1,750,832
2022 1,784,986
2023 1,713,663
2024 1,722,453
2025 1,726,630
2026 1,732,865
2027 613,200
2028 613,200
2029 255,500

3
OMU load is net of their allocation of Southeastern Power Administration Cumberland system hydropower
and a future purchase of renewable power.
4
KYMEA is a block sale of power and the volume will vary based on economic conditions.
5
Nebraska entities’ load is net of their allocation of Western Area Power Administration hydropower,
renewables purchases, and a small amount of purchase power from their former supplier.
6
Short Term bilateral capacity with no associated energy

39 | P a g e
Big Rivers total system energy requirements include the Native system energy requirements
described in section 2.6 plus the Non-Member energy requirements described in this section. The
following table provides the total system energy requirements.

40 | P a g e
 Total System Energy Forecast

Big Rivers Total System Energy Summary (MWh)

Total System
Total Rural Transmission Non-Member
Year Direct Serve Energy
Requirements Losses Requirements
Requirements
2015 2,325,204 946,873 66,970 3,339,047
2016 2,330,037 915,310 73,420 3,318,766
2017 2,209,837 919,895 77,928 3,207,660
2018 2,366,988 953,822 86,858 75,404 3,483,072
2019 2,271,772 957,994 83,431 578,276 3,891,473
2020 2,313,997 987,552 84,688 1,466,620 4,852,857
2021 2,342,004 987,552 85,373 1,750,832 5,165,761
2022 2,345,137 2,038,752 112,407 1,784,986 6,281,282
2023 2,357,028 2,038,752 112,712 1,713,663 6,222,155
2024 2,366,988 2,041,632 113,042 1,722,453 6,244,114
2025 2,376,885 2,038,752 113,221 1,726,630 6,255,489
2026 2,386,410 2,038,752 113,466 1,732,865 6,271,493
2027 2,388,504 2,038,752 113,519 613,200 5,153,976
2028 2,394,976 2,041,632 113,759 613,200 5,163,567
2029 2,400,628 2,038,752 113,830 255,500 4,808,710
2030 2,403,821 2,038,752 113,912 4,556,486
2031 2,409,248 2,038,752 114,051 4,562,051
2032 2,419,240 2,038,752 114,307 4,572,299
2033 2,424,117 2,038,752 114,433 4,577,302
2034 2,427,766 2,038,752 114,526 4,581,044
2035 2,431,849 2,038,752 114,631 4,585,232
2036 2,435,950 2,038,752 114,736 4,589,439
2037 2,440,157 2,038,752 114,844 4,593,753
2038 2,444,021 2,038,752 114,943 4,597,716
2039 2,448,197 2,038,752 115,050 4,601,999
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years 0.15% -2.27% 11.89% - 1.15%
Previous 5 Years -1.22% -0.17% 8.91% - 2.52%
Next 5 Years 0.82% 16.34% 6.26% - 9.92%
Next 10 Years 0.55% 7.85% 3.16% - 2.14%
Next 20 Years 0.37% 3.85% 1.62% - 0.84%

41 | P a g e
3 PEAK DEMAND

3.1 COINCIDENT PEAK DEMAND

The Rural system coincident peak demand (Rural CP) is measured based on the demand
coincident with the total Big Rivers system. Clearspring econometrically modeled the Rural
coincident load factor for each distribution Member using a monthly dataset. The predicted load
factor is combined with the Rural energy forecast to forecast the Rural coincident peak demand.
The Rural load factor models use temperature on the peak day each month, cooling degree days,
heating degree days, appliance saturations, and appliance efficiencies. The Rural CP load factor
models are provided in the Appendix.

Seasonal and annual Rural CP values were set to the maximum monthly Rural CP value for each
applicable timeframe. The following table provides the last five years of historical data and the next
20 years of forecasted data for the winter, summer, and annual peaks for the Big Rivers Rural
system. The table also provides the annual coincident peak contribution for the Direct Serve class,
transmission losses at the annual peak, and the total Big Rivers coincident peak. The Direct Serve
coincident peak contribution was forecasted using an average of historical load factors for that
class. Growth rates for the prior 5 and 10 years and projected growth rates for the next 5, 10, and
20 years are provided in the table below.

42 | P a g e
 Historical and Projected CP Demands

Big Rivers Coincident Peak (kW)

Rural Summer Rural Winter Rural Annual Direct Serve Transmission Total Annual
Year
CP CP CP Annual CP Losses CP

2015 504,990 566,553 566,553 121,143 11,253 698,949

2016 486,690 484,768 486,690 120,750 13,855 621,295
2017 504,269 474,971 504,269 114,378 15,538 634,184
2018 502,549 556,742 556,742 95,530 16,382 668,654
2019 480,171 490,895 490,895 117,931 15,995 624,821
2020 483,946 484,817 483,946 127,101 15,668 626,715
2021 489,218 489,893 489,218 127,101 15,803 632,122
2022 489,558 491,914 489,558 322,043 20,810 832,412
2023 491,639 494,177 491,639 322,043 20,864 834,546
2024 493,376 495,970 493,376 322,043 20,908 836,327
2025 495,136 497,935 495,136 322,043 20,953 838,132
2026 496,879 499,794 496,879 322,043 20,998 839,920
2027 497,133 499,957 497,133 322,043 21,005 840,180
2028 498,359 500,820 498,359 322,043 21,036 841,438
2029 499,422 501,685 499,422 322,043 21,063 842,528
2030 500,004 501,900 500,004 322,043 21,078 843,125
2031 501,074 502,687 501,074 322,043 21,106 844,223
2032 503,128 504,331 503,128 322,043 21,158 846,330
2033 504,103 505,032 504,103 322,043 21,183 847,329
2034 504,841 505,432 504,841 322,043 21,202 848,086
2035 505,663 506,010 505,663 322,043 21,223 848,929
2036 506,495 506,574 506,495 322,043 21,245 849,782
2037 507,349 507,238 507,349 322,043 21,266 850,659
2038 508,129 507,810 508,129 322,043 21,286 851,459
2039 508,968 508,470 508,968 322,043 21,308 852,319
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years -0.34% -1.32% -1.32% 0.98% 11.50% -0.74%
Previous 5 Years -0.04% -4.44% -4.44% -1.03% 9.24% -3.60%
Next 5 Years 0.54% 0.21% 0.10% 22.25% 5.50% 6.00%
Next 10 Years 0.39% 0.22% 0.17% 10.57% 2.79% 3.03%
Next 20 Years 0.29% 0.18% 0.18% 5.15% 1.44% 1.56%

43 | P a g e
3.2 NON-MEMBER CAPACITY SALES

Non-Member energy sales have been previously discussed in section 2.7. In addition to the Non-
Member energy sales, the Non-Member entities contribute to capacity sales. These capacity sales
are aggregated with the Native CP totals in section 3.3 to provide the total Big River non-coincident
(NCP) peak. The following table provides the net Non-Member capacity forecast. The table
includes projections for the period of the current contracts

Non-Member Capacity Sales

Non-Member Sales Under

Contract as of 2020
Calendar Year MW
2020 422
2021 422
2022 422
2023 306
2024 210
2025 311
2026 311
2027 100
2028 100

44 | P a g e
3.3 NON-COINCIDENT PEAK DEMAND

The Big Rivers non-coincident peak is defined as the Big Rivers Native CP demand summarized in
section 3.1 plus Non-Member sales at their peak load values shown in section 3.2. The table below
displays the peak NCP forecast for the total system.

Total System NCP

Total System NCP (kW)

Year Total Annual CP Non-Member Sales Total NCP

2015 698,949 513,000 1,211,949

2016 621,295 450,000 1,071,295
2017 634,184 487,000 1,121,184
2018 668,654 314,200 982,854
2019 624,821 376,200 1,001,021
2020 626,715 421,500 1,048,215
2021 632,122 421,900 1,054,022
2022 832,412 421,500 1,253,912
2023 834,546 305,900 1,140,446
2024 836,327 210,300 1,046,627
2025 838,132 310,700 1,148,832
2026 839,920 311,100 1,151,020
2027 840,180 100,000 940,180
2028 841,438 100,000 941,438
2029 842,528 842,528
2030 843,125 843,125
2031 844,223 844,223
2032 846,330 846,330
2033 847,329 847,329
2034 848,086 848,086
2035 848,929 848,929
2036 849,782 849,782
2037 850,659 850,659
2038 851,459 851,459
2039 852,319 852,319

45 | P a g e
4 DSM IMPACTS

Clearspring was selected by Big Rivers to complete a Demand-Side Management (“DSM”) potential
study in 2020 that quantified the impact of additional DSM spending on future energy and peak
requirements. For the base case forecast it is assumed that any impacts of prior DSM programs
are captured indirectly through the historical energy and peak data used as an input to the modeling
process. The base case forecast assumes no additional DSM spending in the future and additional
future DSM impacts are set to zero.

Two alternate load forecast scenarios have been developed that are derived from the Big Rivers
DSM potential study that outline the projected impacts of $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 DSM
spending scenarios. The DSM study provides the impact at each appliance end-use. The DSM
impacts were then scaled up to capture additional decreases in distribution and transmission
losses. The table below outlines the anticipated annual impact of these two spending scenarios on
total energy requirements.

46 | P a g e
 DSM Scenario Impacts on Energy

Big Rivers DSM Spending Scenarios (MWh)

Total Energy Total Energy
Total Energy Impact of Impact of
Requirements Requirements
Year Requirements (Base $1,000,000 Spending $2,000,000 Spending
($1,000,000 ($2,000,000
Forecast) Scenario on Energy Scenario on Energy
Spending Scenario) Spending Scenario)
2015 3,339,047 0 3,339,047 0 3,339,047
2016 3,318,766 0 3,318,766 0 3,318,766
2017 3,207,660 0 3,207,660 0 3,207,660
2018 3,407,668 0 3,407,668 0 3,407,668
2019 3,317,632 0 3,317,632 0 3,317,632
2020 3,386,237 0 3,386,237 0 3,386,237
2021 3,414,929 11,186 3,403,743 21,512 3,393,417
2022 4,496,296 22,372 4,473,924 43,023 4,453,273
2023 4,508,492 33,558 4,474,934 64,535 4,443,957
2024 4,521,662 44,745 4,476,917 86,048 4,435,614
2025 4,528,859 55,931 4,472,927 107,560 4,421,298
2026 4,538,628 67,118 4,471,510 129,073 4,409,555
2027 4,540,776 78,304 4,462,472 150,585 4,390,191
2028 4,550,367 89,491 4,460,877 172,098 4,378,270
2029 4,553,210 100,133 4,453,077 192,563 4,360,647
2030 4,556,486 110,775 4,445,711 213,028 4,343,457
2031 4,562,051 110,775 4,451,276 213,029 4,349,023
2032 4,572,299 110,775 4,461,525 213,028 4,359,271
2033 4,577,302 110,775 4,466,527 213,029 4,364,273
2034 4,581,044 110,775 4,470,269 213,029 4,368,015
2035 4,585,232 110,775 4,474,456 213,030 4,372,202
2036 4,589,439 110,776 4,478,663 213,030 4,376,408
2037 4,593,753 110,776 4,482,978 213,031 4,380,723
2038 4,597,716 110,776 4,486,940 213,031 4,384,685
2039 4,601,999 110,777 4,491,222 213,032 4,388,967
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years -0.45% -0.45% -0.45%
Previous 5 Years -0.70% -0.70% -0.70%
Next 5 Years 6.39% 6.18% 5.98%
Next 10 Years 3.22% 2.99% 2.77%
Next 20 Years 1.65% 1.53% 1.41%

47 | P a g e
The table below provides the anticipated annual impact of the two spending scenarios on total Big
Rivers CP.

DSM Scenario Impacts on CP

Big Rivers DSM Spending Scenarios (kW)

Impact of Total Big Rivers CP Impact of Total Big Rivers CP
Total Big Rivers CP
Year $1,000,000 Spending ($1,000,000 $2,000,000 Spending ($2,000,000
(Base Forecast)
Scenario on CP Spending Scenario) Scenario on CP Spending Scenario)

2015 698,949 0 698,949 0 698,949

2016 621,295 0 621,295 0 621,295
2017 634,184 0 634,184 0 634,184
2018 668,654 0 668,654 0 668,654
2019 624,821 0 624,821 0 624,821
2020 626,715 0 626,715 0 626,715
2021 632,122 2,264 629,858 4,353 627,769
2022 832,412 4,527 827,885 8,706 823,706
2023 834,546 6,791 827,755 13,059 821,487
2024 836,327 9,054 827,273 17,412 818,915
2025 838,132 11,318 826,815 21,765 816,368
2026 839,920 13,581 826,339 26,118 813,802
2027 840,180 15,845 824,336 30,471 809,710
2028 841,438 18,108 823,330 34,824 806,614
2029 842,528 20,310 822,218 39,057 803,471
2030 843,125 22,511 820,614 43,291 799,834
2031 844,223 22,511 821,712 43,291 800,932
2032 846,330 22,511 823,818 43,291 803,039
2033 847,329 22,511 824,818 43,291 804,038
2034 848,086 22,511 825,575 43,291 804,795
2035 848,929 22,511 826,417 43,291 805,638
2036 849,782 22,511 827,271 43,291 806,491
2037 850,659 22,511 828,147 43,291 807,368
2038 851,459 22,512 828,947 43,291 808,167
2039 852,319 22,512 829,807 43,292 809,027
Average Annual Growth Rates
Previous 10 Years -0.74% -0.74% -0.74%
Previous 5 Years -3.60% -3.60% -3.60%
Next 5 Years 6.00% 5.77% 5.56%
Next 10 Years 3.03% 2.78% 2.55%
Next 20 Years 1.56% 1.43% 1.30%

48 | P a g e
5 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM FORECASTS AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS

While the projections summarized in previous sections are considered the most probable outcome,
it is important to remember that energy loads can be influenced by factors that are inherently difficult
to predict, such as weather and the economy. Forecasting attempts to model reality and identify the
primary drivers of growth and change. However, due to the unpredictable nature of these drivers,
the base case forecast is unlikely to be fully accurate. Therefore, it is important to develop flexible
plans for meeting future energy needs based on a range of forecast outcomes.

The study includes scenario analyses that show how the forecasts change under assumed
variations in future weather and economic growth paths. The alternate growth scenarios that have
been explored are:

1. Extreme weather with normal economic growth

2. Mild weather with normal economic growth

3. High economic growth with normal weather

4. Low economic growth with normal weather

5.1 WEATHER SCENARIOS

Weather is one of the critical components to explain year-to-year variation in load. Because of this,
extreme and mild weather scenarios were developed for the forecast period. The Residential use
per consumer and GCI use per consumer monthly energy models use cooling degree days and
heating degree days. For the creation of the mild and extreme energy scenarios these two variables
were altered to a fifteen-year historical annual maximum and minimum value. These annual
extremes were then redistributed across each month based on an average monthly distribution of
cooling degree days and heating degree days.

The Rural peak load factor model also contains cooling degree days and heating degree days for
the month. Additionally, the load factor model captures peak day weather conditions. The extreme
and mild weather scenarios alter the load factor model to use monthly weather conditions consistent

49 | P a g e
with the energy models and change the peak day conditions to the most extreme or mild found in
the last fifteen years of history for each given month. The peak values displayed are a maximum
of each monthly scenario value for the given season and therefore can occur in a different month
than the base case forecast. The following table provides the last five years of historical data and
the next 20 years of forecasted data for the mild, base, and extreme weather scenarios. The
forecasts are for the Rural system.

Rural System Weather Scenarios

Big Rivers Rural System Weather Scenarios

Energy (MWh) Winter CP Demand (kW) Summer CP Demand (kW)

Year
Mild Base Extreme Mild Base Extreme Mild Base Extreme

2015 2,325,204 566,553 504,990

2016 2,330,037 484,768 486,690
2017 2,209,837 474,971 504,269
2018 2,366,988 556,742 502,549
2019 2,271,772 490,895 480,171
2020 2,179,148 2,313,997 2,466,208 424,802 484,817 550,097 448,471 483,946 555,294
2021 2,206,842 2,342,004 2,494,467 429,655 489,893 555,362 453,741 489,218 560,678
2022 2,209,714 2,345,137 2,497,785 431,444 491,914 557,580 447,277 489,558 560,857
2023 2,221,974 2,357,028 2,509,121 433,755 494,177 559,713 449,590 491,639 562,368
2024 2,232,330 2,366,988 2,518,504 435,624 495,970 561,350 451,550 493,376 563,568
2025 2,242,531 2,376,885 2,527,949 437,624 497,935 563,207 453,497 495,136 564,870
2026 2,252,321 2,386,410 2,537,093 439,514 499,794 564,978 455,404 496,879 566,215
2027 2,255,046 2,388,504 2,538,406 439,917 499,957 564,829 455,915 497,133 565,929
2028 2,261,847 2,394,976 2,544,447 440,930 500,820 565,489 457,292 498,359 566,812
2029 2,267,819 2,400,628 2,549,684 441,925 501,685 566,171 458,491 499,422 567,563
2030 2,271,413 2,403,821 2,552,376 442,326 501,900 566,146 459,221 500,004 567,826
2031 2,277,065 2,409,248 2,557,507 443,218 502,687 566,781 460,376 501,074 568,694
2032 2,286,983 2,419,240 2,567,548 444,859 504,331 568,400 462,416 503,128 570,721
2033 2,292,000 2,424,117 2,572,233 445,630 505,032 568,995 463,437 504,103 571,571
2034 2,295,802 2,427,766 2,575,677 446,113 505,432 569,279 464,219 504,841 572,195
2035 2,299,963 2,431,849 2,579,641 446,731 506,010 569,790 465,059 505,663 572,952
2036 2,304,085 2,435,950 2,583,693 447,312 506,574 570,317 465,889 506,495 573,762
2037 2,308,239 2,440,157 2,587,936 447,951 507,238 570,992 466,716 507,349 574,642
2038 2,312,062 2,444,021 2,591,822 448,503 507,810 571,570 467,473 508,129 575,441
2039 2,316,171 2,448,197 2,596,047 449,128 508,470 572,251 468,281 508,968 576,310

50 | P a g e
Direct Serve load is assumed to not be influenced by weather and is held constant to the base case
forecast for the weather ranges. The extreme and mild ranges with the Direct Serve class included
are shown below.

Native System Weather Scenarios

Big Rivers Total System Weather Scenarios

Energy (MWh) Winter CP Demand (kW) Summer CP Demand (kW)

Year
Mild Base Extreme Mild Base Extreme Mild Base Extreme

2015 3,339,047 698,949 629,640

2016 3,318,766 612,568 621,295
2017 3,207,660 606,671 634,184
2018 3,407,668 668,654 626,212
2019 3,317,632 624,821 619,296
2020 3,247,929 3,386,237 3,542,354 556,932 618,492 685,453 590,330 626,715 696,756
2021 3,276,302 3,414,929 3,571,301 561,852 623,635 690,783 595,735 632,122 702,278
2022 4,357,402 4,496,296 4,652,858 746,457 808,477 875,826 789,046 832,412 905,538
2023 4,369,975 4,508,492 4,664,485 748,827 810,798 878,015 791,419 834,546 907,089
2024 4,383,551 4,521,662 4,677,063 750,744 812,637 879,694 793,429 836,327 908,319
2025 4,391,060 4,528,859 4,683,797 752,795 814,652 881,598 795,425 838,132 909,654
2026 4,401,100 4,538,628 4,693,175 754,733 816,559 883,415 797,381 839,920 911,033
2027 4,403,895 4,540,776 4,694,521 755,147 816,726 883,262 797,906 840,180 910,740
2028 4,413,825 4,550,367 4,703,670 756,186 817,611 883,938 799,318 841,438 911,646
2029 4,416,996 4,553,210 4,706,088 757,206 818,499 884,638 800,548 842,528 912,417
2030 4,420,682 4,556,486 4,708,850 757,618 818,719 884,613 801,296 843,125 912,686
2031 4,426,479 4,562,051 4,714,112 758,533 819,526 885,264 802,481 844,223 913,576
2032 4,436,652 4,572,299 4,724,411 760,215 821,212 886,925 804,573 846,330 915,655
2033 4,441,797 4,577,302 4,729,216 761,007 821,931 887,534 805,621 847,329 916,527
2034 4,445,696 4,581,044 4,732,748 761,502 822,341 887,826 806,422 848,086 917,167
2035 4,449,964 4,585,232 4,736,814 762,136 822,934 888,350 807,284 848,929 917,944
2036 4,454,192 4,589,439 4,740,970 762,732 823,513 888,890 808,135 849,782 918,774
2037 4,458,453 4,593,753 4,745,321 763,387 824,194 889,583 808,984 850,659 919,677
2038 4,462,373 4,597,716 4,749,306 763,953 824,780 890,175 809,760 851,459 920,496
2039 4,466,588 4,601,999 4,753,640 764,593 825,457 890,874 810,589 852,319 921,388

5.2 ECONOMIC SCENARIOS

Another critical component of a long-term load forecast is the underlying economic variables within
the service territory. Two scenarios have been developed: low economic growth and high
economic growth. To create the economic scenarios, economic variables within each
econometrically modeled class are altered by an additional plus or minus 1.0% in 2020. As the

51 | P a g e
forecast is projected further into the future, the variable values deviate by an additional 1.0% each
additional year relative to the base case forecast (variable values in 2039 are +/- 20% of the base
case forecast values). The altered variables include electricity price, GRP, employment, and total
retail sales.

The forecast for Residential consumers, LCI, Irrigation, and Street and Highway are not modeled
econometrically and are therefore directly modified by 1.0% per year relative to the base case
forecast to create the high and low economic ranges. The following table provides the last five
years of historical data and the next 20 years of forecasted data for the low, base, and high
economic scenarios.

Rural System Economic Scenarios

Big Rivers Rural System Economic Scenarios

Energy (MWh) Winter CP Demand (kW) Summer CP Demand (kW)

Year
Low Base High Low Base High Low Base High

2015 2,325,204 566,553 504,990

2016 2,330,037 484,768 486,690
2017 2,209,837 474,971 504,269
2018 2,366,988 556,742 502,549
2019 2,271,772 490,895 480,171
2020 2,300,509 2,313,997 2,327,505 484,384 484,817 485,251 480,458 483,946 487,440
2021 2,303,123 2,342,004 2,381,023 484,183 489,893 495,617 480,419 489,218 498,050
2022 2,280,873 2,345,137 2,409,772 480,882 491,914 502,995 475,905 489,558 503,292
2023 2,267,151 2,357,028 2,447,627 477,800 494,177 510,664 472,651 491,639 510,783
2024 2,251,422 2,366,988 2,483,746 474,236 495,970 517,898 469,042 493,376 517,965
2025 2,235,453 2,376,885 2,520,102 470,811 497,935 525,360 465,425 495,136 525,228
2026 2,218,993 2,386,410 2,556,329 467,245 499,794 532,776 461,768 496,879 532,523
2027 2,195,568 2,388,504 2,584,771 462,098 499,957 538,404 456,720 497,133 538,254
2028 2,176,136 2,394,976 2,618,112 457,587 500,820 544,824 452,564 498,359 545,067
2029 2,155,897 2,400,628 2,650,747 453,085 501,685 551,264 448,247 499,422 551,740
2030 2,133,428 2,403,821 2,680,818 447,985 501,900 557,024 443,498 500,004 557,911
2031 2,112,915 2,409,248 2,713,542 443,409 502,687 563,433 439,177 501,074 564,660
2032 2,096,302 2,419,240 2,751,662 439,565 504,331 570,856 435,698 503,128 572,568
2033 2,075,191 2,424,117 2,784,160 434,900 505,032 577,235 431,271 504,103 579,289
2034 2,053,019 2,427,766 2,815,392 429,972 505,432 583,301 426,641 504,841 585,767
2035 2,031,207 2,431,849 2,847,276 425,207 506,010 589,589 422,080 505,663 592,374
2036 2,009,404 2,435,950 2,879,332 420,427 506,574 595,893 417,528 506,495 599,024
2037 1,987,683 2,440,157 2,911,659 415,738 507,238 602,333 412,993 507,349 605,730
2038 1,965,680 2,444,021 2,943,723 410,971 507,810 608,693 408,398 508,129 612,378
2039 1,943,925 2,448,197 2,976,318 406,282 508,470 615,182 403,849 508,968 619,128

52 | P a g e
The Direct Serve class is not modeled using econometric modeling. The forecast for the Direct
Serve class is increased by an additional 1.0% per year relative to the base case in the high
scenario. In the low scenario the Direct Serve class is decreased by 1.0% per year relative to the
base case. The high and low ranges with the Direct Serve class included are shown below.

Native System Economic Scenarios

Big Rivers Total System Economic Scenarios

Energy (MWh) Winter CP Demand (kW) Summer CP Demand (kW)

Year
Low Base High Low Base High Low Base High

2015 3,339,047 698,949 629,640

2016 3,318,766 612,568 621,295
2017 3,207,660 606,671 634,184
2018 3,407,668 668,654 626,212
2019 3,317,632 624,821 619,296
2020 3,367,634 3,386,237 3,404,861 617,960 618,492 619,025 622,371 626,715 631,064
2021 3,361,494 3,414,929 3,468,506 616,632 623,635 630,652 621,181 632,122 643,096
2022 4,380,613 4,496,296 4,612,361 791,151 808,477 825,854 810,273 832,412 854,633
2023 4,346,970 4,508,492 4,670,756 785,103 810,798 836,606 803,786 834,546 865,465
2024 4,314,099 4,521,662 4,730,448 778,563 812,637 846,911 796,936 836,327 875,980
2025 4,275,319 4,528,859 4,784,229 772,164 814,652 857,449 790,076 838,132 886,579
2026 4,238,868 4,538,628 4,840,954 765,621 816,559 867,942 783,177 839,920 897,210
2027 4,195,273 4,540,776 4,889,695 757,457 816,726 876,599 774,851 840,180 906,237
2028 4,158,485 4,550,367 4,946,655 749,944 817,611 886,069 767,438 841,438 916,374
2029 4,115,445 4,553,210 4,996,502 742,441 818,499 895,561 759,862 842,528 926,367
2030 4,072,831 4,556,486 5,046,913 734,325 818,719 904,354 751,841 843,125 935,845
2031 4,032,222 4,562,051 5,100,046 726,745 819,526 913,812 744,261 844,223 945,916
2032 3,995,613 4,572,299 5,158,713 719,918 821,212 924,311 737,544 846,330 957,177
2033 3,954,392 4,577,302 5,211,613 712,248 821,931 933,740 729,854 847,329 967,219
2034 3,912,081 4,581,044 5,263,217 704,308 822,341 942,847 721,956 848,086 977,013
2035 3,870,140 4,585,232 5,315,488 696,534 822,934 952,182 714,129 848,929 986,938
2036 3,828,209 4,589,439 5,367,935 688,746 823,513 961,533 706,311 849,782 996,907
2037 3,786,361 4,593,753 5,420,660 681,051 824,194 971,024 698,511 850,659 1,006,935
2038 3,744,225 4,597,716 5,473,117 673,276 824,780 980,433 690,648 851,459 1,016,902
2039 3,702,342 4,601,999 5,526,116 665,581 825,457 989,974 682,834 852,319 1,026,975

53 | P a g e
6 WEATHER NORMALIZED VALUES
Weather-sensitive electricity loads comprise a large portion of electricity end-uses. Weather
conditions vary and will cause electricity sales and peak demands to increase during more extreme
periods or decrease during milder periods. In this section, we provide estimates of energy and
peak demands for Big Rivers during the last ten years with the assumption that temperatures had
been at their 15-year normal amounts in each year.

The weather normalized values are calculated using the econometric models that identified weather
as a driver of electricity sales. These are the Residential use per consumer and the GCI use per
consumer models. Additionally, the load factor model (used to project peak demands) also includes
temperature variables. The weather impacts of the deviation from the actual weather to the weather
normalized weather are estimated using these models. The weather impacts are then added (or
subtracted) to the actual load in that year to determine the weather normalized energy or peak
demand.

54 | P a g e
The following table provides the last ten years of historical data for the Big Rivers Rural system.
The normalized peak values displayed are a maximum of each monthly normalized value for the
given season and therefore frequently occur in a different month than the actual value.

Rural System Weather Normalized

Big Rivers Rural System Weather Normalization

Energy (MWh) Winter CP Demand (kW) Summer CP Demand (kW)

Year
Actual Normalized Actual Normalized Actual Normalized

2010 2,481,391 2,340,195 532,501 499,474 539,955 487,416

2011 2,371,105 2,364,681 501,923 481,872 526,815 521,536
2012 2,321,477 2,349,809 456,468 504,888 541,370 478,313
2013 2,374,921 2,378,459 484,077 487,948 472,452 495,755
2014 2,415,564 2,357,913 616,023 537,661 481,155 483,895
2015 2,325,204 2,339,796 566,553 532,134 504,990 495,380
2016 2,330,037 2,321,049 484,768 474,701 486,690 487,892
2017 2,209,837 2,288,904 474,971 503,621 504,269 492,879
2018 2,366,988 2,296,588 556,742 508,279 502,549 492,212
2019 2,271,772 2,264,292 490,895 476,628 480,171 486,620

55 | P a g e
The following table provides the last ten years of historical data for the Big Rivers total system.

Native System Weather Normalized

Big Rivers Total System Weather Normalization

Energy (MWh) Winter CP Demand (kW) Summer CP Demand (kW)

Year
Actual Normalized Actual Normalized Actual Normalized

2010 4,214,187 4,071,823 652,163 621,367 662,129 613,470

2011 3,757,727 3,751,272 626,666 609,848 658,514 653,183
2012 3,326,245 3,354,869 574,579 623,473 661,427 606,020
2013 3,431,215 3,434,768 605,121 603,822 617,356 640,983
2014 3,436,352 3,377,837 750,485 671,034 611,785 621,847
2015 3,339,047 3,353,970 698,949 663,967 629,640 626,956
2016 3,318,766 3,309,582 612,568 607,623 621,295 622,525
2017 3,207,660 3,288,655 606,671 635,975 634,184 622,509
2018 3,407,668 3,335,436 668,654 618,974 626,212 615,604
2019 3,317,632 3,309,960 624,821 610,180 619,296 625,911

56 | P a g e
7 FORECAST METHODOLOGY
The load forecast process began by discussions with Clearspring Energy to solicit feedback
from representatives of each Member system as well as Big Rivers. The forecasting
team issued an information request to each Member system requesting monthly energy data
by rate class, historical or anticipated changes in load on the system, large consumer energy
and peak demand data, and retail price forecasts. Big Rivers provided historical demand
data used as the basis to forecast load factors and peak demands.

In addition to this data, Clearspring Energy collected a variety of additional data to develop the load
forecast. This included county-level historical socioeconomic data from Woods & Poole Economics,
Inc., historical alternative fuel price data and energy efficiency indexes from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA)7, monthly and daily weather data from the Midwest Regional Climate Center
(MRCC) 8 and High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC) 9 , and appliance and end-use
saturations for each member system based off historical end-use surveys conducted by Big Rivers.
The most recent survey was conducted in 2019.

7.1 DATABASE SETUP AND ANALYSES

Upon receipt of the associated Member systems' data, Big Rivers’ data and data obtained from
external sources, Clearspring Energy reviewed the data for accuracy and adequacy for use in the
study. An electronic database with consumer and energy sales by rate class and demand data was
developed using Microsoft Excel.

County-level economic and demographic data was gathered and added to the energy database.
Any financial forecasts gathered that were not provided in real terms were converted to real dollars
using an inflation adjustment from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)10. Weighted averages
were calculated using customized member system county weights based on the service territory of

7
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
8
https://mrcc.illinois.edu/
9
https://hprcc.unl.edu/
10
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-01/56020-CBO-Outlook.pdf

57 | P a g e
each Member system. The appropriate weights were calculated using the number of Residential
consumers served for each Member system by county.

Weather variables were also calculated and added to the database. Appropriate customized
weather station data was used based on the service territory location of each Member system.
Historical fifteen-year averages of the selected weather variables were calculated and used as the
basis for the normal weather expectation in future years and in the weather normalization results.

Big Rivers conducts residential end-use appliance surveys for residential consumers every few
years and plans to continue this process in the future. The surveys provide data on major appliance
saturations, fuel types, housing characteristics, as well as adoption rates for new equipment and
technologies. This information provides valuable insight into the makeup of the Residential class
and the Big Rivers load forecasting effort will continue to make enhancements to the forecasting
process as the market penetration of new technologies and equipment continues. The various data
elements and sources are displayed in the table below.

Data Sources

Data Category Data Source

Energy, Demand, Customers, and Big Rivers and its three member systems
Electricity Price
Economic & Demographic Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.
Weather Midwest Regional Climate Center
High Plains Regional Climate Center
Alternative Fuel Prices and Appliance Energy Information Administration
Energy Efficiency
End-Use Appliance Saturations Big Rivers Survey Reports

58 | P a g e
7.2 KEY ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS

Various economic and demographic variables are used in the econometric models developed for
the 2020 load forecast. The key economic and demographic assumptions for these variables are
listed below.

 Households are projected to increase at an average annual growth rate of 0.1% through
the forecast period.
 Real residential electricity prices are projected to
.
 Air conditioning saturation levels are projected to continue increasing slowly through the
forecast period.
 Electrical heating saturation levels are projected to remain flat through the forecast period.
 Major appliance efficiencies are projected to continue increasing through the forecast
period, but at a decreasing rate as maximum efficiencies are approached.
 Employment is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.6% through the
forecast period.
 Real GRP is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.2% through the forecast
period.
 Real total retail sales is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 0.8% through
the forecast period.
 .
 Cooling degree days, heating degree days, and peak day weather conditions are based
on a prior fifteen-year average.

59 | P a g e
7.3 MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Clearspring estimated econometric models to forecast Residential use per consumer, GCI
consumers, GCI use per consumer, and the Rural load factor. A separate model was developed
for each Member system and for each component. A growth index using household forecasts was
used to escalate Residential consumers.

Forecasts for the LCI and Direct Serve commercial consumers were prepared judgmentally based
on input from the cooperatives. Due to their relatively small size, trend analysis was used to project
the Street and Highway and Irrigation classes.

Econometric parameters were estimated using the ordinary least squares (OLS) approach to
regression analysis employed by the EViews™ version 10 econometric software package.
Heteroskedasticity adjusted standard errors were calculated for statistical significance testing of the
included variables. The models were selected based on theoretical and statistical validity as well
as the reasonableness of the forecast results generated.

The statistical validity of each variable included in the model needed to pass two key criterion to be
included in the model. A simple but important standard is that the coefficient of each explanatory
variable must have a logical sign. For example, energy sales will generally increase during periods
of colder or hotter weather (i.e., these variables should have positive coefficients). Conversely,
energy sales generally decrease with increasing electricity prices (i.e., the coefficient of this variable
should be negative).

The second criterion is the fact that each explanatory variable has a statistically significant influence
on the dependent variable. The statistical significance of an explanatory variable is measured by
the t-statistic. The specific value of a particular t-statistic required for statistical significance depends
on both the degrees of freedom (the number of data points less the number of variables) of the
equations and desired level of confidence in the estimated coefficients. In general, however, the t-
statistic should have a magnitude of at least 1.645 for a 90 percent level of confidence.

Another validity criterion that we took into consideration are examinations of the equation residuals
(the difference between the actual historical and estimated historical values). In a good equation,
the residuals are randomly distributed and of approximately constant magnitude, in absolute terms.

60 | P a g e
This indicates that there is no obvious pattern in the data that has not been explained by the
equation.

The models developed must also pass a test of reasonableness. Models must make intuitive sense
to the Members of the forecasting team and the forecasts that result must be plausible given
reasonable assumptions of growth factors. All models created in the load forecast pass these
criteria.

7.4 FORECAST DEVELOPMENT

Using the econometric equations developed as part of the modeling process, monthly forecasts
were created for each of the Member systems. The modeled classes are calculated using the
estimated equations along with forecasted values for those variables that enter into the estimated
equation.

The amount of energy required by each system (the total energy ultimately generated by Big Rivers)
is greater than the sum of the retail energy sales. System own-use and energy losses are forecast
for each Member system. Energy losses are forecasted as a percentage of total system energy
requirements based on historical loss data.

Three monthly demand values are determined for each of the Member distribution cooperatives.
The individual Direct Serve consumer non-coincident peaks, the distribution cooperative’s Rural
non-coincident peak demand, and its contribution to the Big Rivers monthly coincident peak (CP).
Clearspring developed a load factor econometric model to forecast the Rural coincident peak load
factor which we then use to calculate the peak demand forecasts for each of the three Member
systems.

Preliminary forecasts were distributed to the respective Member systems and Big Rivers for their
review and input. The Member systems offered suggestions for revisions to the forecasts and these
revisions were incorporated.

61 | P a g e
7.5 CHANGES IN METHODOLOGY FROM 2017 LOAD FORECAST

The 2020 research was conducted by Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC whereas the 2017
research was conducted by GDS Associates, Inc (“GDS”). Clearspring has reviewed the past load
forecast report and other documents and lists the known methodological changes that we are aware
of based on this review of the prior consultants’ research. We note that it is often difficult to assume
what the exact research of another consultant consisted of. We offer the list, acknowledging that
we may be incorrect in interpreting the exact methodological approach used by GDS.

1. Clearspring uses “weighted” economic and demographic variables that are weighted based
on the calculated consumer counts in each county served by each Member system. We
believe that GDS did not calculate the variables based on weighted consumer counts but
used unweighted variables.
2. GDS used a Statistical Adjusted End-Use (SAE) modeling approach. Clearspring uses
econometric modeling to directly estimate the impacts of variables that influence use per
consumer or consumer counts.
3. Clearspring directly models the electricity price in relationship to an alternative price fuel
index (comprised of natural gas and propane prices). We are not aware of GDS directly
inserting alternative fuel prices into the analysis.
4. Clearspring calculates the price elasticity based on the relative impact of the electricity price
and the alternative fuel index. This price elasticity is estimated directly in the econometric
model. Conversely, GDS did not use their SAE modeling but, rather, estimated the price
elasticity with a separate econometric model that did not account for other possible drivers
of electricity use.
5. Clearspring uses a 15-year weather normal for the base case load forecasts, whereas GDS
used a 20-year weather normal.
6. Different weather station mappings were used compared to the previous load forecast.
Owensboro, KY was used for Kenergy rather than Evansville, IN due to being a better
geographic representation. Additionally there are likely different secondary stations used to
fill in historical readings across all Members resulting in slight historical differences from the
previous forecast.

62 | P a g e
 7. Clearspring uses daily high/low temperature values for the load factor econometric model
used to forecast peak demands. GDS appears to use hourly values to forecast peak
demands.
8. GDS makes some references to using trended energy amounts in the forecast. Annual
energy and peak amounts were set to specific monthly distributions and fixed to those
relative percentages for the full forecast. As the relative composition percentages of these
classes change over time due to different class growth rates it is only reasonable to assume
the distribution of energy and peak across each season will shift as well. The 2020 load
forecast directly forecasts energy and peak monthly creating a more complete monthly
weather normalization process and allowing for anticipated shifts in the monthly load shape
to occur as class compositions change through the forecast.

63 | P a g e
8 TRACKING ANALYSIS

8.1 TRACKING 2013 THROUGH 2017 FORECASTS TO ACTUAL VALUES

The following section provides a tracking analysis comparing portions of the 2013, 2015, and 2017
load forecasts to actual values. The table below shows the total consumer forecast from each of
the prior three forecasts. The forecasted consumer values have been consistently over-projected
in the past. The three forecasts over-projected 2017 actual consumer counts by an average of
0.1%. 2018 actual values were over-projected by an average of 0.6% across the forecasts and
2019 values were over-projected by an average of 1.1%.

64 | P a g e
 Total Consumer Tracking Analysis

Comparison of Consumer Forecasts

2013 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2017 Forecast

2013 Load 2015 Load 2017 Load 2020 Load
Year Actual Compared to Compared to Compared to
Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
Actual Actual Actual

2008 111,691
2009 111,940
2010 112,410
2011 112,885
2012 113,250
2013 113,717 113,562 -0.1%
2014 114,208 114,545 0.3%
2015 114,934 115,658 0.6% 114,864 -0.1%
2016 115,852 116,753 0.8% 115,694 -0.1%
2017 116,898 117,815 0.8% 116,511 -0.3% 116,843 0.0%
2018 117,369 118,818 1.2% 117,529 0.1% 117,809 0.4%
2019 117,785 119,796 1.7% 118,538 0.6% 118,737 0.8%
2020 120,784 119,523 119,781 118,667
2021 121,772 120,465 120,701 119,616
2022 122,734 121,386 121,568 120,474
2023 123,678 122,313 122,434 121,218
2024 124,582 123,206 123,299 121,886
2025 125,473 124,067 124,197 122,470
2026 126,366 124,910 125,044 122,883
2027 125,712 125,882 123,157
2028 126,511 126,786 123,391
2029 127,688 123,579
2030 128,589 123,723
2031 129,438 123,830
2032 130,286 123,901
2033 131,134 123,947
2034 131,983 123,976
2035 132,831 123,991
2036 133,680 123,997
2037 124,003
2038 124,014
2039 124,033

The following table provides a breakdown of the 2017 forecasted consumer values by Residential
and GCI class. The majority of the high consumer forecast can be traced back to the Residential
class. The 2017 forecast projected the 2019 Residential consumer count at 915 consumers above

65 | P a g e
actual. Historically, the short-term Residential consumer forecasts were done using a simple trend
that did not reflect the typical number of Residential consumers added on the service territory over
the prior decade. The 2020 Residential consumer forecast is considerably lower than previous
forecasts.

Consumer Tracking Analysis by Class

Comparison of Consumer Forecasts by Class

2017 2017 Forecast 2020 2017 Forecast

Residential 2017 GCI Load 2020 GCI Load
Year Residential Compared to Residential GCI Actual Compared to
Actual Forecast Forecast
Load Forecast Actual Load Forecast Actual

2008 96,886 14,672

2009 97,084 14,725
2010 97,467 14,808
2011 97,750 14,999
2012 97,675 15,435
2013 97,773 15,797
2014 97,851 16,210
2015 97,971 16,805
2016 98,583 17,110
2017 99,451 99,290 -0.2% 17,290 17,398 0.6%
2018 99,724 100,046 0.3% 17,483 17,607 0.7%
2019 99,891 100,806 0.9% 17,732 17,774 0.2%
2020 101,619 100,314 18,005 18,188
2021 102,311 101,044 18,234 18,406
2022 102,952 101,667 18,460 18,641
2023 103,594 102,180 18,684 18,872
2024 104,236 102,616 18,907 19,104
2025 104,913 102,990 19,128 19,314
2026 105,542 103,193 19,346 19,524
2027 106,162 103,256 19,563 19,734
2028 106,852 103,282 19,777 19,942
2029 107,542 103,263 19,990 20,150
2030 108,233 103,200 20,199 20,357
2031 108,874 103,101 20,407 20,562
2032 109,514 102,970 20,615 20,765
2033 110,155 102,815 20,823 20,966
2034 110,795 102,644 21,031 21,166
2035 111,436 102,460 21,239 21,365
2036 112,077 102,269 21,447 21,562
2037 102,079 21,759
2038 101,894 21,954
2039 101,718 22,149

66 | P a g e
The following table compares the 2013, 2015 and 2017 forecasts to actual energy values for the
Native system. The three forecasts over-projected 2017 energy values by an average of 7.6%.
2018 actual values were over-projected by an average of 2.7% across the forecasts, and 2019
values were over-projected by an average of 6.7%. Comparing the prior forecasts to weather
normalized energy values explains some of the fluctuation in the comparisons of these three years,
making the comparisons for 2017 and 2018 much more consistent. When the forecasts are
compared to weather normalized values 2017 was over-projected by an average of 5.0%, 2018
was over-projected by 4.9%, and 2019 was over-projected by 7.0%. The 2020 forecast shows a
much higher long-range energy forecast. This is attributable to an additional large consumer
expected in 2022.

Total Native Energy Tracking Analysis

Comparison of Native Energy Forecasts (GWh)

2013 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2017 Forecast

Weather 2013 Load 2015 Load 2017 Load 2020 Load
Year Actual Compared to Compared to Compared to
Normalization Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
Actual Actual Actual

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 3,290 3,319
2013 3,385 3,389 3,350 -1.0%
2014 3,382 3,324 3,408 0.8%
2015 3,272 3,287 3,384 3.4% 3,318 1.4%
2016 3,245 3,236 3,373 3.9% 3,413 5.2%
2017 3,130 3,209 3,394 8.4% 3,452 10.3% 3,259 4.1%
2018 3,321 3,250 3,416 2.9% 3,469 4.5% 3,343 0.7%
2019 3,234 3,227 3,437 6.3% 3,486 7.8% 3,433 6.1%
2020 3,460 3,496 3,473 3,302
2021 3,485 3,514 3,475 3,330
2022 3,511 3,536 3,479 4,384
2023 3,537 3,560 3,481 4,396
2024 3,562 3,581 3,490 4,409
2025 3,589 3,602 3,495 4,416
2026 3,616 3,624 3,502 4,425
2027 3,644 3,642 3,509 4,427
2028 3,669 3,521 4,437
2029 3,691 3,526 4,439
2030 3,714 3,535 4,443
2031 3,737 3,544 4,448
2032 3,760 3,557 4,458
2033 3,782 3,562 4,463
2034 3,805 3,572 4,467
2035 3,581 4,471
2036 3,593 4,475
2037 4,479
2038 4,483
2039 4,487

67 | P a g e
The following table provides a breakdown of the 2017 forecasted energy values by Residential and
GCI class. When the prior forecast is compared to weather normalized values the Residential
forecast was an average of 1.6% high during the 2017-2019 forecast period. The GCI forecast was
an average of 3.8% high during the 2017-2019 forecast period compared to weather normalized
actual values. In addition to the high consumer forecasts being a contributing factor, possible
factors that could have led to high use per consumer forecasts in the past forecasts include:

 Higher than actual household income projections,

 Lower than actual electric price projections,
 Higher than actual appliance saturation projections,
 Lower than actual appliance efficiency projections,
 Omission of alternate fuel prices, price of electricity in the commercial modeling, or any
economic variables in the GCI use per consumer modeling,
 Additional unknown factors that influence electrical usage per consumer that were omitted
from prior modeling.

The 2020 forecast projects lower Residential energy values. This is directly attributable to the lower
Residential consumer forecast. GCI forecasted values in the 2020 forecast are comparable to the
previous forecast iteration.

68 | P a g e
 Energy Tracking Analysis by Class

Comparison of Class Energy Forecasts (GWh)

2017 Forecast 2017 Forecast

Residential 2017 2017 Forecast 2020 2017 Forecast
Residential Compared to GCI Weather 2017 GCI Load Compared to 2020 GCI Load
Year Weather Residential Compared to Residential GCI Actual Compared to
Actual Weather Normalization Forecast Weather Forecast
Normalization Load Forecast Actual Load Forecast Actual
Norm Norm

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 1,466 1,491 595 596
2013 1,510 1,511 601 604
2014 1,532 1,484 610 604
2015 1,448 1,457 607 612
2016 1,436 1,432 615 611
2017 1,348 1,409 1,425 5.7% 1.1% 600 615 623 3.8% 1.4%
2018 1,491 1,441 1,440 -3.4% -0.1% 619 602 629 1.6% 4.5%
2019 1,407 1,402 1,452 3.2% 3.6% 604 602 634 5.0% 5.4%
2020 1,458 1,424 640 621
2021 1,457 1,432 646 630
2022 1,463 1,439 652 639
2023 1,467 1,442 658 647
2024 1,475 1,444 664 655
2025 1,485 1,447 670 662
2026 1,492 1,449 675 668
2027 1,500 1,446 681 673
2028 1,509 1,446 687 680
2029 1,518 1,444 693 687
2030 1,528 1,441 698 693
2031 1,537 1,439 704 700
2032 1,546 1,439 709 709
2033 1,556 1,437 715 716
2034 1,565 1,434 720 722
2035 1,574 1,432 726 729
2036 1,583 1,430 731 735
2037 1,428 741
2038 1,425 747
2039 1,423 753

The following table compares the 2013, 2015 and 2017 forecasts to actual peak values for the
Native system. The three forecasts over-projected 2017 peak values by an average of 4.1%. 2018
actual values were under-projected by an average of -0.4% across the forecasts, and 2019 values
were over-projected by an average of 7.6%. Comparing the prior forecasts to weather normalized
energy values explains some of the fluctuation in the comparisons of these three years. When the
forecasts are compared to weather normalized values 2017 was over-projected by an average of
3.8%, 2018 was over-projected by 7.6%, and 2019 was over-projected by 7.4%. The over-
projection of peak on prior forecasts is attributable to the higher than actual energy forecast.

69 | P a g e
 Native Peak Tracking Analysis

Comparison of Native Peak Forecasts (MW)

2013 Forecast 2015 Forecast 2017 Forecast

Weather 2013 Load 2015 Load 2017 Load 2020 Load
Year Actual Compared to Compared to Compared to
Normalization Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
Actual Actual Actual

2008 618 626

2009 673 627
2010 662 621
2011 659 653
2012 661 623
2013 617 641 632 2.4%
2014 750 671 635 -15.4%
2015 699 664 635 -9.1% 661 -5.4%
2016 621 623 637 2.5% 683 9.9%
2017 634 636 642 1.2% 691 9.0% 648 2.2%
2018 669 619 645 -3.5% 693 3.6% 660 -1.3%
2019 625 626 649 3.9% 695 11.2% 673 7.7%
2020 653 697 676 627
2021 658 701 678 632
2022 663 704 679 832
2023 668 707 680 835
2024 673 711 681 836
2025 678 715 682 838
2026 683 720 683 840
2027 724 685 840
2028 729 686 841
2029 734 688 843
2030 740 689 843
2031 745 691 844
2032 750 693 846
2033 755 695 847
2034 761 696 848
2035 698 849
2036 700 850
2037 851
2038 851
2039 852

The historical weather normalized values in this section were completed using fifteen-year average
values as the definition for normal weather. This is consistent with the normal weather definition
used throughout the forecast. If the time span used to define normal weather is shortened to a ten-
year average, the normal CDD values would be slightly higher and the normal HDD values would
be slightly lower. Conversely, if a twenty-year average is used, the normal CDD values would be
slightly lower and the HDD values slightly higher. Altering the time span used to define normal
weather to either ten or twenty years would cause one season to go up slightly and the other season
to fall slightly. This creates a balancing effect resulting in very little overall annual impact in

70 | P a g e
normalized sales figures by changing the normalization period. The following figures show CDD
and HDD values for the last fifteen years as well as the ten, fifteen, and twenty-year averages.

Cooling Degree Day Normal Values

Cooling Degree Days

3,000

2,500

2,000
CDD

1,500

1,000

500

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
CDD 1,728 1,404 1,970 1,530 1,354 2,107 1,748 1,943 1,512 1,567 1,682 1,955 1,657 2,079 1,882
10 Year Avg CDD 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813 1,813
15 Year Avg CDD 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741 1,741
20 Year Avg CDD 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676

71 | P a g e
 Heating Degree Day Normal Values

Heating Degree Days

5,000

4,800

4,600

4,400

4,200
HDD

4,000

3,800

3,600

3,400

3,200

3,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
HDD 4,027 3,858 3,970 4,437 4,175 4,432 3,955 3,416 4,410 4,722 3,903 3,699 3,423 4,277 3,966
10 Year Average HDD 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020 4,020
15 Year Average HDD 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045 4,045
20 Year Average HDD 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062 4,062

72 | P a g e
8.2 COMPARISONS TO THE 2017 FORECAST BY CLASS

The following figures display comparisons to the 2017 Load Forecast results. Comparisons are
shown for Rural totals, total system load, and comparisons for each separate class.

2017 Forecast Total Consumers Comparison

Total Consumers
160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000
CONSUMERS

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

73 | P a g e
 2017 Forecast Native Sales Comparison

Native Sales (MWh)

5,000,000

4,500,000

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000
SALES (MWH)

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

2017 Forecast Summer CP Comparison

Total System Summer CP (kW)

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000
PEAK (KW)

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

74 | P a g e
 2017 Forecast Winter CP Comparison

Total System Winter CP (kW)

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000
PEAK (KW)

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

2017 Forecast Rural Energy Requirements Comparison

Rural Energy Requirements (MWh)

3,000,000

2,500,000
RURAL ENERGY (MWH)

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

75 | P a g e
 2017 Forecast Distribution Loss Comparison

Rural Distribution Loss Percentage

6.00%

5.00%

4.00%
RURAL LOSS %

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%

0.00%
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

2017 Forecast Rural Summer CP Comparison

Rural Summer CP (kW)

600,000

500,000

400,000
RURAL CP (KW)

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

76 | P a g e
 2017 Forecast Rural Winter CP Comparison

Rural Winter CP (kW)

700,000

600,000

500,000
RURAL CP (KW)

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

2017 Forecast Residential Consumers Comparison

Residential Consumers
120,000

100,000

80,000
CONSUMERS

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

77 | P a g e
 2017 Forecast Residential Sales Comparison

Residential Sales (MWh)

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000
SALES (MWH)

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

2017 Forecast Residential Use Per Consumer Comparison

Residential Use Per Consumer (kWh)

18,000

16,000

14,000
USE PER CONSUMER (KWH)

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

78 | P a g e
 SALES (MWH) CONSUMERS

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000

0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
2008
2008

79 | P a g e
2009
2009

2010 2010

2011 2011

2012 2012

2013 2013

2014 2014

2015 2015

2016 2016

2017 2017

2018 2018

Actual

Actual
2019 2019

2020 2020

2021 2021

2022 2022

2023

2017 Forecast
2017 Forecast
2023

2024 2024
GCI Consumers

GCI Sales (MWh)

2025 2025

2026 2026

2027 2027

2020 Forecast
2020 Forecast

2028
2017 Forecast GCI Sales Comparison 2028

2029 2029
2017 Forecast GCI Consumer Comparison

2030 2030

2031 2031

2032 2032

2033 2033

2034 2034

2035 2035

2036 2036

2037 2037

2038 2038

2039 2039
 SALES (MWH) CONSUMERS

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2008

0
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000

20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
2008 2009

80 | P a g e
2009 2010

2010 2011

2011 2012

2012 2013
2013 2014
2014 2015
2015 2016
2016 2017
2017 2018
2018
2019

Actual

Actual
2019
2020
2020
2021
2021
2022
2022
2023

2017 Forecast
2017 Forecast
2023
2024
2024
LCI Consumers

LCI Sales (MWh)

2025
2025
2026
2026
2027
2027
2028

2020 Forecast
2020 Forecast

2028
2029
2017 Forecast LCI Sales Comparison
2029
2030
2017 Forecast LCI Consumer Comparison

2030
2031
2031
2032
2032

2033 2033

2034 2034

2035 2035

2036 2036

2037 2037

2038 2038

2039 2039
 2017 Forecast Direct Serve Consumer Comparison

Direct Serve Consumers

25

20

15
CONSUMERS

10

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

2017 Forecast Direct Serve Sales Comparison

Direct Serve Sales (MWh)

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000
SALES (MWH)

1,000,000

500,000

0
2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

81 | P a g e
 SALES (MWH) CONSUMERS

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

0
100
150
200
250
450
500

50
300
350
400
2008
2008
2009

82 | P a g e
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
2012
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
2016
2016
2017
2017
2018
2018
2019

Actual
Actual
2019
2020
2020
2021
2021
2022
2022
2023
2023

2017 Forecast
2017 Forecast
2024
2024

2025 2025
Irrigation Consumers

2026

Irrigation Sales (MWh)

2026

2027 2027

2028

2020 Forecast
2020 Forecast

2028

2029 2029

2030 2030
2017 Forecast Irrigation Sales Comparison

2031 2031
2017 Forecast Irrigation Consumer Comparison

2032 2032

2033 2033

2034 2034

2035 2035

2036 2036

2037 2037

2038 2038

2039 2039
 2017 Forecast Street & Highway Consumer Comparison

Street & Highway Consumers

120

100

80
CONSUMERS

60

40

20

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039
Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

2017 Forecast Street & Highway Sales Comparison

Street & Highway Sales (MWh)

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500
SALES (MWH)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

Actual 2017 Forecast 2020 Forecast

83 | P a g e
9 APPENDIX
The following table provides the details on the consumers, sales, and use per consumer for each
class for the Big Rivers Native system. The prior five years and the forecasted year values are
provided in the table. Both historical and forecasted growth rates for each class are also provided.

BIG RIVERS TOTAL FORECAST

RESIDENTIAL 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 97,971 98,583 99,451 99,724 99,891 100,314 101,044 101,667 102,180 102,616
SALES-MWH 1,448,343 1,435,874 1,347,867 1,491,338 1,406,754 1,423,914 1,431,787 1,438,903 1,442,148 1,444,122
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 14,783 14,565 13,553 14,955 14,083 14,195 14,170 14,153 14,114 14,073
GENERAL C&I 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 16,805 17,110 17,290 17,483 17,732 18,188 18,406 18,641 18,872 19,104
SALES-MWH 607,011 615,083 600,334 618,866 603,764 620,892 630,164 639,079 647,167 654,681
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 36,121 35,949 34,721 35,398 34,050 34,138 34,237 34,283 34,293 34,270
LARGE C&I 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 33 32 29 29 31 32 32 31 31 31
SALES-MWH 157,680 158,999 147,433 152,708 159,111 160,778 170,333 157,311 157,311 157,311
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 4,778,175 4,981,686 5,143,005 5,265,808 5,202,541 5,063,866 5,322,904 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561
IRRIGATION 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
SALES-MWH 62 51 102 70 108 108 108 108 108 108
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 15,428 12,760 25,437 15,618 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652
STREET & HIGHWAY 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 100 103 104 107 106 108 108 108 108 108
SALES-MWH 3,429 3,312 3,250 3,111 3,074 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 34,234 32,049 31,223 28,965 28,914 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892
RURAL TOTAL 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 114,914 115,832 116,878 117,348 117,764 118,646 119,595 120,452 121,196 121,864
SALES-MWH 2,216,525 2,213,318 2,098,985 2,266,093 2,172,812 2,208,812 2,235,513 2,238,522 2,249,855 2,259,342
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 19,289 19,108 17,959 19,311 18,451 18,617 18,692 18,584 18,564 18,540
OWNUSE-MWH 913 1,454 2,944 3,211 3,053 3,108 3,132 3,154 3,173 3,190
PURCHASES-MWH 2,325,204 2,330,037 2,209,837 2,366,988 2,271,772 2,313,997 2,342,004 2,345,137 2,357,028 2,366,988
DISTRIBUTION LOSSES-MWH 107,766 115,265 107,908 97,684 95,907 102,077 103,358 103,460 104,000 104,455
LOSSES (%) 4.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.1% 4.2% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%
DIRECT SERVE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 22 22
SALES-MWH 946,873 915,310 919,895 953,822 957,994 987,552 987,552 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,041,632
USE PER CONSUMER-MWH 47,344 45,765 45,995 45,783 45,619 47,026 47,026 92,671 92,671 92,801
SYSTEM TOTAL WITH DIRECT SERVE 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
CONSUMERS 114,934 115,852 116,898 117,369 117,785 118,667 119,616 120,474 121,218 121,886
SALES-MWH 3,163,398 3,128,628 3,018,880 3,219,916 3,135,240 3,196,364 3,223,065 4,277,274 4,288,607 4,300,974
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 27,524 27,005 25,825 27,434 26,618 26,936 26,945 35,504 35,379 35,287
OWNUSE-MWH 913 1,454 2,944 3,211 3,053 3,108 3,132 3,154 3,173 3,190
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MWH (NO TRANS. LOSSES) 3,272,077 3,245,346 3,129,732 3,320,811 3,234,200 3,301,549 3,329,556 4,383,889 4,395,780 4,408,620
DISTRIBUTION LOSSES-MWH 107,766 115,265 107,908 97,684 95,907 102,077 103,358 103,460 104,000 104,455
DISTRIBUTION LOSS (%) 3.3% 3.6% 3.4% 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 3.1% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
TRANSMISSION LOSSES-MWH 66,970 73,420 77,928 86,858 83,431 84,688 85,373 112,407 112,712 113,042
TRANSMISSION LOSS (%) 2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MWH 3,339,047 3,318,766 3,207,660 3,407,668 3,317,632 3,386,237 3,414,929 4,496,296 4,508,492 4,521,662
ANNUAL PEAK 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
RURAL CP - kW 566,553 486,690 504,269 556,742 490,895 483,946 489,218 489,558 491,639 493,376
DIRECT SERVE CP - kW 121,143 120,750 114,378 95,530 117,931 127,101 127,101 322,043 322,043 322,043
TOTAL CP - kW 687,696 607,440 618,647 652,272 608,826 611,047 616,319 811,601 813,682 815,419
TRANSMISSION LOSSES - kW 11,253 13,855 15,538 16,382 15,995 15,668 15,803 20,810 20,864 20,908
TRANSMISSION LOSS (%) 2.0% 2.2% 2.4% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
TOTAL CP - kW (WITH TRANSMISSION LOSSES) 698,949 621,295 634,184 668,654 624,821 626,715 632,122 832,412 834,546 836,327

84 | P a g e
BIG RIVERS TOTAL FORECAST
RESIDENTIAL 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 102,990 103,193 103,256 103,282 103,263 103,200 103,101 102,970 102,815 102,644
SALES-MWH 1,446,702 1,448,868 1,446,170 1,445,528 1,444,108 1,440,938 1,438,824 1,439,236 1,437,166 1,434,434
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 14,047 14,040 14,006 13,996 13,985 13,963 13,955 13,977 13,978 13,975
GENERAL C&I 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 19,314 19,524 19,734 19,942 20,150 20,357 20,562 20,765 20,966 21,166
SALES-MWH 661,534 668,455 673,141 679,960 686,774 692,988 700,284 709,422 716,148 722,361
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 34,251 34,238 34,110 34,096 34,082 34,041 34,056 34,164 34,157 34,128
LARGE C&I 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
SALES-MWH 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561
IRRIGATION 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
SALES-MWH 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652
STREET & HIGHWAY 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108
SALES-MWH 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892
RURAL TOTAL 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 122,448 122,861 123,135 123,369 123,557 123,701 123,808 123,879 123,925 123,954
SALES-MWH 2,268,776 2,277,864 2,279,851 2,286,028 2,291,422 2,294,466 2,299,648 2,309,197 2,313,854 2,317,335
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 18,529 18,540 18,515 18,530 18,545 18,548 18,574 18,641 18,671 18,695
OWNUSE-MWH 3,205 3,216 3,225 3,232 3,238 3,243 3,247 3,249 3,252 3,254
PURCHASES-MWH 2,376,885 2,386,410 2,388,504 2,394,976 2,400,628 2,403,821 2,409,248 2,419,240 2,424,117 2,427,766
DISTRIBUTION LOSSES-MWH 104,904 105,330 105,429 105,716 105,968 106,112 106,354 106,793 107,012 107,178
LOSSES (%) 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%
DIRECT SERVE 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
SALES-MWH 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,041,632 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752
USE PER CONSUMER-MWH 92,671 92,671 92,671 92,801 92,671 92,671 92,671 92,671 92,671 92,671
SYSTEM TOTAL WITH DIRECT SERVE 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
CONSUMERS 122,470 122,883 123,157 123,391 123,579 123,723 123,830 123,901 123,947 123,976
SALES-MWH 4,307,528 4,316,616 4,318,603 4,327,660 4,330,175 4,333,218 4,338,400 4,347,950 4,352,606 4,356,087
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 35,172 35,128 35,066 35,073 35,040 35,023 35,035 35,092 35,117 35,136
OWNUSE-MWH 3,205 3,216 3,225 3,232 3,238 3,243 3,247 3,249 3,252 3,254
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MWH (NO TRANS. LOSSES) 4,415,637 4,425,162 4,427,257 4,436,608 4,439,380 4,442,574 4,448,000 4,457,992 4,462,869 4,466,518
DISTRIBUTION LOSSES-MWH 104,904 105,330 105,429 105,716 105,968 106,112 106,354 106,793 107,012 107,178
DISTRIBUTION LOSS (%) 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%
TRANSMISSION LOSSES-MWH 113,221 113,466 113,519 113,759 113,830 113,912 114,051 114,307 114,433 114,526
TRANSMISSION LOSS (%) 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MWH 4,528,859 4,538,628 4,540,776 4,550,367 4,553,210 4,556,486 4,562,051 4,572,299 4,577,302 4,581,044
ANNUAL PEAK 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
RURAL CP - kW 495,136 496,879 497,133 498,359 499,422 500,004 501,074 503,128 504,103 504,841
DIRECT SERVE CP - kW 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043
TOTAL CP - kW 817,179 818,922 819,176 820,402 821,465 822,047 823,117 825,171 826,146 826,884
TRANSMISSION LOSSES - kW 20,953 20,998 21,005 21,036 21,063 21,078 21,106 21,158 21,183 21,202
TRANSMISSION LOSS (%) 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%
TOTAL CP - kW (WITH TRANSMISSION LOSSES) 838,132 839,920 840,180 841,438 842,528 843,125 844,223 846,330 847,329 848,086

85 | P a g e
 BIG RIVERS TOTAL FORECAST Last 10 Yrs Last 5 Yrs Next 5 Yrs Next 10 Yrs Next 20 Yrs

RESIDENTIAL 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 102,460 102,269 102,079 101,894 101,718 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
SALES-MWH 1,431,962 1,429,572 1,427,550 1,425,414 1,423,491 -0.1% -1.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 13,976 13,979 13,985 13,989 13,994 -0.4% -2.1% 0.0% -0.1% 0.0%
GENERAL C&I 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 21,365 21,562 21,759 21,954 22,149 1.9% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1%
SALES-MWH 728,729 735,033 741,068 746,889 752,795 0.6% -0.2% 1.6% 1.3% 1.1%
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 34,109 34,089 34,059 34,020 33,988 -1.3% -2.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
LARGE C&I 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 31 31 31 31 31 5.5% -0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
SALES-MWH 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 157,311 2.6% 0.5% -0.2% -0.1% -0.1%
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 5,074,561 -2.8% 0.9% -0.5% -0.2% -0.1%
IRRIGATION 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 5 5 5 5 5 -5.2% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
SALES-MWH 108 108 108 108 108 -12.4% -4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 21,652 -7.6% -8.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
STREET & HIGHWAY 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 108 108 108 108 108 2.2% 3.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%
SALES-MWH 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 3,120 -0.5% -2.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 28,892 -2.7% -5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
RURAL TOTAL 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 123,969 123,975 123,981 123,992 124,011 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3%
SALES-MWH 2,321,231 2,325,145 2,329,158 2,332,843 2,336,825 0.2% -1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4%
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 18,724 18,755 18,786 18,814 18,844 -0.3% -1.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
OWNUSE-MWH 3,255 3,256 3,257 3,259 3,260 7.4% 23.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3%
PURCHASES-MWH 2,431,849 2,435,950 2,440,157 2,444,021 2,448,197 0.1% -1.2% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4%
DISTRIBUTION LOSSES-MWH 107,363 107,549 107,742 107,919 108,111 -1.6% -3.5% 1.7% 1.0% 0.6%
LOSSES (%) 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% -1.8% -2.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.2%
DIRECT SERVE 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 22 22 22 22 22 0.5% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2%
SALES-MWH 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752 2,038,752 -2.3% -0.2% 16.3% 7.8% 3.8%
USE PER CONSUMER-MWH 92,671 92,671 92,671 92,671 92,671 -2.7% -1.1% 15.3% 7.3% 3.6%
SYSTEM TOTAL WITH DIRECT SERVE 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
CONSUMERS 123,991 123,997 124,003 124,014 124,033 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3%
SALES-MWH 4,359,983 4,363,897 4,367,911 4,371,595 4,375,578 -0.6% -0.8% 6.5% 3.3% 1.7%
USE PER CONSUMER-kWH 35,164 35,194 35,224 35,251 35,277 -1.1% -1.4% 5.8% 2.8% 1.4%
OWNUSE-MWH 3,255 3,256 3,257 3,259 3,260 7.4% 23.0% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3%
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MWH (NO TRANS. LOSSES) 4,470,601 4,474,703 4,478,910 4,482,773 4,486,949 -0.6% -0.9% 6.4% 3.2% 1.7%
DISTRIBUTION LOSSES-MWH 107,363 107,549 107,742 107,919 108,111 -1.6% -3.5% 1.7% 1.0% 0.6%
DISTRIBUTION LOSS (%) 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% -1.0% -2.6% -4.4% -2.1% -1.0%
TRANSMISSION LOSSES-MWH 114,631 114,736 114,844 114,943 115,050 11.9% 8.9% 6.3% 3.2% 1.6%
TRANSMISSION LOSS (%) 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 12.4% 9.6% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0%
TOTAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS-MWH 4,585,232 4,589,439 4,593,753 4,597,716 4,601,999 -0.4% -0.7% 6.4% 3.2% 1.6%
ANNUAL PEAK 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2009 - 2019 2014 - 2019 2019 - 2024 2019 - 2029 2019 - 2039
RURAL CP - kW 505,663 506,495 507,349 508,129 508,968 -1.3% -4.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%
DIRECT SERVE CP - kW 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 322,043 1.0% -1.0% 22.3% 10.6% 5.2%
TOTAL CP - kW 827,706 828,538 829,392 830,172 831,011 -0.9% -3.8% 6.0% 3.0% 1.6%
TRANSMISSION LOSSES - kW 21,223 21,245 21,266 21,286 21,308 11.5% 9.2% 5.5% 2.8% 1.4%
TRANSMISSION LOSS (%) 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 12.4% 9.6% -0.1% -0.1% 0.0%
TOTAL CP - kW (WITH TRANSMISSION LOSSES) 848,929 849,782 850,659 851,459 852,319 -0.7% -3.6% 6.0% 3.0% 1.6%

86 | P a g e
The following figures display the 2019 annual load shape and descending load curve for the Big
Rivers Native system. The five-year monthly forecast is also shown on the following page.

Chronological Load Shape

700

600

500
Demand (MW)

400

300

200

100

0
Jan

Sep
Feb

Mar

May

Jun

Jul

Nov
Apr

Aug

Oct

Dec
Month

Sorted Load Curve

700

600

500
Demand (MW)

400

300

200

100

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Hour Count

87 | P a g e
 Big Rivers Monthly Forecast
Rural Energy Requirements Native Energy Sales Native Energy
Rural Energy Sales (MWh) Peak Forecast (kW)
(MWh) (MWh) Requirements (MWh)
Total Rural Total Energy
Street & Total Rural Distribution Total Energy Transmission Direct Serve Transmission Total CP with
Year Month Residential Small C&I Large C&I Irrigation Own Use Energy Direct Serve Requirements Rural CP Total CP
Highway Sales Losses Requirements Losses CP Losses losses
Requirements with Losses
2020 January 154,330 53,296 12,149 0 267 220,041 10,194 397 230,633 83,883 314,516 8,098 322,614 484,817 118,151 602,968 15,524 618,492
2020 February 130,702 46,029 12,743 1 241 189,716 8,789 348 198,853 79,500 278,352 7,137 285,490 439,272 118,626 557,898 14,305 572,203
2020 March 115,979 44,254 12,350 5 275 172,864 7,999 277 181,139 81,969 263,108 6,746 269,854 397,360 115,445 512,806 13,149 525,954
2020 April 88,631 40,972 12,612 4 258 142,476 6,580 221 149,278 81,479 230,757 5,917 236,673 301,528 122,462 423,990 10,872 434,861
2020 May 96,850 48,753 12,915 4 239 158,761 7,325 193 166,279 81,014 247,293 6,341 253,633 381,148 119,476 500,624 12,837 513,461
2020 June 119,804 58,559 13,219 2 258 191,842 8,847 215 200,905 81,469 282,373 7,240 289,614 460,932 123,651 584,583 14,989 599,573
2020 July 138,998 62,168 14,174 16 264 215,620 9,943 223 225,786 84,078 309,864 7,945 317,809 483,719 124,043 607,762 15,584 623,346
2020 August 136,533 59,884 14,353 33 257 211,059 9,735 236 221,030 86,130 307,160 7,876 315,036 483,946 127,101 611,047 15,668 626,715
2020 September 108,348 51,034 14,645 33 262 174,322 8,042 217 182,581 82,110 264,691 6,787 271,478 443,529 124,639 568,168 14,568 582,737
2020 October 90,809 47,910 14,228 8 262 153,217 7,079 199 160,496 83,068 243,564 6,245 249,809 359,898 121,345 481,243 12,340 493,583
2020 November 104,669 51,389 14,187 3 293 170,540 7,894 253 178,687 80,219 258,907 6,639 265,546 385,238 116,231 501,469 12,858 514,327
2020 December 138,262 56,643 13,203 -1 245 208,353 9,649 329 218,330 82,634 300,964 7,717 308,681 436,705 116,386 553,091 14,182 567,273
2021 January 155,161 54,083 12,807 0 267 222,318 10,303 400 233,021 83,883 316,905 8,126 325,030 489,893 118,151 608,044 15,591 623,635
2021 February 131,470 46,723 13,536 1 241 191,971 8,897 350 201,219 79,500 280,718 7,198 287,916 460,424 122,318 582,742 14,942 597,684
2021 March 116,732 44,923 13,272 5 275 175,208 8,112 279 183,598 81,969 265,567 6,809 272,376 402,714 115,445 518,159 13,286 531,445
2021 April 89,256 41,598 13,462 4 258 144,577 6,681 223 151,481 81,479 232,960 5,973 238,933 306,022 122,462 428,483 10,987 439,470
2021 May 97,458 49,486 13,837 4 239 161,025 7,433 195 168,653 81,014 249,666 6,402 256,068 386,312 119,476 505,788 12,969 518,757
2021 June 120,356 59,419 14,026 2 258 194,061 8,954 217 203,232 81,469 284,701 7,300 292,001 466,280 123,651 589,931 15,126 605,057
2021 July 139,540 63,085 15,052 16 264 217,956 10,055 225 228,236 84,078 312,314 8,008 320,322 489,221 124,043 613,264 15,725 628,989
2021 August 137,080 60,779 15,143 33 257 213,292 9,842 238 223,372 86,130 309,502 7,936 317,437 489,218 127,101 616,319 15,803 632,122
2021 September 108,953 51,804 15,410 33 262 176,461 8,145 219 184,825 82,110 266,935 6,844 273,780 448,605 124,639 573,244 14,699 587,943
2021 October 91,415 48,638 14,974 8 262 155,297 7,179 201 162,677 83,068 245,746 6,301 252,047 364,376 121,345 485,721 12,454 498,176
2021 November 105,334 52,154 14,909 3 293 172,693 7,997 255 180,945 80,219 261,165 6,697 267,861 390,171 116,231 506,402 12,985 519,386
2021 December 139,032 57,473 13,906 -1 245 210,654 9,759 331 220,745 82,634 303,379 7,779 311,158 441,720 116,386 558,105 14,310 572,416
2022 January 156,019 54,834 12,149 0 267 223,268 10,346 404 234,017 173,163 407,180 10,441 417,621 491,914 296,351 788,265 20,212 808,477
2022 February 132,239 47,386 12,743 1 241 192,610 8,925 353 201,888 160,140 362,027 9,283 371,310 461,760 300,518 762,278 19,546 781,823
2022 March 117,466 45,565 12,350 5 275 175,661 8,130 281 184,072 171,249 355,321 9,111 364,431 403,686 293,645 697,331 17,880 715,212
2022 April 89,849 42,201 12,527 4 258 144,839 6,691 224 151,754 167,879 319,633 8,196 327,829 306,153 300,662 606,815 15,559 622,374
2022 May 98,019 50,196 12,740 4 239 161,198 7,438 196 168,832 170,294 339,125 8,696 347,821 386,618 277,876 664,495 17,038 681,533
2022 June 120,838 60,254 12,964 2 258 194,316 8,963 218 203,497 167,869 371,365 9,522 380,888 466,914 301,851 768,765 19,712 788,477
2022 July 139,980 63,978 13,823 16 264 218,061 10,057 226 228,343 173,358 401,701 10,300 412,001 489,558 322,043 811,601 20,810 832,412
2022 August 137,522 61,647 13,914 33 257 213,373 9,842 239 223,454 175,410 398,864 10,227 409,092 489,501 305,301 794,801 20,380 815,181
2022 September 109,467 52,545 14,178 33 262 176,485 8,142 220 184,847 168,510 353,357 9,060 362,418 448,580 302,839 751,419 19,267 770,687
2022 October 91,940 49,336 13,702 8 262 155,247 7,173 202 162,622 172,348 334,970 8,589 343,559 363,924 299,545 663,470 17,012 680,482
2022 November 105,902 52,881 13,635 3 293 172,713 7,994 257 180,965 166,619 347,584 8,912 356,497 390,014 294,431 684,445 17,550 701,995
2022 December 139,664 58,255 12,589 -1 245 210,752 9,760 333 220,846 171,914 392,760 10,071 402,830 441,673 294,586 736,258 18,878 755,137
2023 January 156,349 55,536 12,149 0 267 224,300 10,395 406 235,102 173,163 408,265 10,468 418,733 494,177 296,351 790,528 20,270 810,798
2023 February 132,605 48,004 12,743 1 241 193,593 8,972 355 202,920 160,140 363,060 9,309 372,369 464,008 300,518 764,526 19,603 784,129
2023 March 117,891 46,158 12,350 5 275 176,678 8,178 283 185,139 171,249 356,388 9,138 365,526 405,933 293,645 699,578 17,938 717,516
2023 April 90,246 42,752 12,527 4 258 145,788 6,736 226 152,749 167,879 320,628 8,221 328,849 307,933 300,662 608,594 15,605 624,199
2023 May 98,350 50,840 12,740 4 239 162,173 7,484 197 169,854 170,294 340,148 8,722 348,869 388,693 277,876 666,569 17,092 683,661
2023 June 120,972 61,002 12,964 2 258 195,199 9,005 219 204,423 167,869 372,292 9,546 381,838 469,062 301,851 770,913 19,767 790,680
2023 July 139,994 64,772 13,823 16 264 218,868 10,095 227 229,190 173,358 402,548 10,322 412,870 491,639 322,043 813,682 20,864 834,546
2023 August 137,558 62,422 13,914 33 257 214,184 9,881 241 224,306 175,410 399,716 10,249 409,965 491,543 305,301 796,844 20,432 817,276
2023 September 109,729 53,210 14,178 33 262 177,412 8,186 222 185,820 168,510 354,330 9,085 363,415 450,581 302,839 753,420 19,318 772,738
2023 October 92,285 49,966 13,702 8 262 156,223 7,219 203 163,645 172,348 335,993 8,615 344,608 365,716 299,545 665,261 17,058 682,319
2023 November 106,234 53,541 13,635 3 293 173,704 8,042 259 182,005 166,619 348,624 8,939 357,563 392,193 294,431 686,624 17,606 704,230
2023 December 139,935 58,965 12,589 -1 245 211,732 9,807 335 221,874 171,914 393,788 10,097 403,886 443,762 294,586 738,347 18,932 757,279
2024 January 156,533 56,167 12,149 0 267 225,116 10,434 409 235,959 173,163 409,122 10,490 419,612 495,970 296,351 792,322 20,316 812,637
2024 February 132,841 48,564 12,743 1 241 194,390 9,010 357 203,758 163,020 366,777 9,405 376,182 449,760 296,826 746,586 19,143 765,729
2024 March 118,193 46,699 12,350 5 275 177,523 8,219 284 186,026 171,249 357,274 9,161 366,435 407,797 293,645 701,442 17,986 719,428
2024 April 90,544 43,260 12,527 4 258 146,594 6,774 227 153,594 167,879 321,473 8,243 329,716 309,422 300,662 610,084 15,643 625,727
2024 May 98,585 51,436 12,740 4 239 163,003 7,524 198 170,725 170,294 341,018 8,744 349,763 390,439 277,876 668,315 17,136 685,451
2024 June 121,014 61,699 12,964 2 258 195,937 9,041 221 205,198 167,869 373,067 9,566 382,633 470,860 301,851 772,711 19,813 792,524
2024 July 139,914 65,515 13,823 16 264 219,532 10,128 228 229,888 173,358 403,246 10,340 413,586 493,376 322,043 815,419 20,908 836,327
2024 August 137,501 63,150 13,914 33 257 214,855 9,914 242 225,011 175,410 400,421 10,267 410,688 493,247 305,301 798,547 20,476 819,023
2024 September 109,896 53,835 14,178 33 262 178,204 8,224 223 186,650 168,510 355,160 9,107 364,267 452,268 302,839 755,107 19,362 774,469
2024 October 92,539 50,561 13,702 8 262 157,072 7,259 204 164,535 172,348 336,883 8,638 345,521 367,250 299,545 666,795 17,097 683,892
2024 November 106,469 54,162 13,635 3 293 174,561 8,083 260 182,903 166,619 349,523 8,962 358,485 394,079 294,431 688,510 17,654 706,164
2024 December 140,092 59,631 12,589 -1 245 212,556 9,847 337 222,740 171,914 394,654 10,119 404,774 445,530 294,586 740,115 18,977 759,093

88 | P a g e
The following tables provide the econometric models for Jackson Purchase Energy Corporation
(JPEC).

JPEC Residential Use Per Consumer Model

Sample: 2007 - 2019

Total Observations: 154

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 6.555083 0.051571 127.1073 0

February 6.471421 0.0465 139.1691 0
March 6.494198 0.037785 171.8732 0
April 6.395643 0.030825 207.4807 0
May 6.52232 0.034815 187.3398 0
June 6.629714 0.042908 154.5117 0
July 6.692348 0.04857 137.7881 0
August 6.689342 0.046313 144.4377 0
September 6.605444 0.037123 177.9347 0
October 6.422282 0.029883 214.9132 0
November 6.438005 0.038993 165.1081 0
December 6.556474 0.044827 146.261 0
Log(Residential Price/Alternate Fuel
Price) -0.066133 0.011283 -5.861178 0
Cooling Degree Days*(AC
Saturation)*(1/AC Efficiency) 0.014177 0.000883 16.0548 0
Heating Degree Days*Electric Heat
Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)
0.015707 0.001259 12.47104 0

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.9412

89 | P a g e
 JPEC General C&I Consumer Model

Sample: 1999 - 2019

Total Observations: 250

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

GRP 2.262405 0.009413 240.3562 0

January 1999 - July 2015 -1180.094 21.57386 -54.70017 0

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.926993

90 | P a g e
 JPEC General C&I Use Per Consumer Model

Sample: 1999 - 2019

Total Observations: 250

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 8.600848 0.281849 30.5158 0

February 8.522346 0.280138 30.42194 0
March 8.546241 0.276151 30.94766 0
April 8.560973 0.269839 31.72619 0
May 8.626614 0.270179 31.9293 0
June 8.614929 0.268555 32.07879 0
July 8.649323 0.269833 32.05432 0
August 8.660487 0.269027 32.19186 0
September 8.644216 0.266897 32.38786 0
October 8.617445 0.274983 31.33808 0
November 8.563895 0.277375 30.87484 0
December 8.586087 0.281162 30.53791 0
Log(C&I Electricity Price) -0.183357 0.054165 -3.385128 0.0008
Cooling Degree Days 0.00061 0.0000953 6.401003 0
Heating Degree Days 0.000201 0.000052 3.856308 0.0001
Log(Total Employment/C&I
Consumers)
0.178616 0.036983 4.829628 0
January 1999 - July 2015 0.102737 0.02041 5.033621 0

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.796959

91 | P a g e
 JPEC Load Factor Model

Sample: 2007 - 2019

Total Observations: 154

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 0.657717 0.029229 22.50207 0

February 0.690955 0.024563 28.13002 0
March 0.668066 0.021476 31.10736 0
April Cold Peaking 0.701504 0.017757 39.50476 0
April Hot Peaking 0.659123 0.021667 30.42063 0
May 0.591251 0.015673 37.72414 0
June 0.609293 0.021739 28.02783 0
July 0.60305 0.024117 25.00528 0
August 0.600394 0.022935 26.17772 0
September 0.606743 0.021043 28.83319 0
October Cold Peaking 0.732852 0.015114 48.48963 0
October Hot Peaking 0.626334 0.025267 24.78835 0
November 0.680741 0.020149 33.78508 0
December 0.695933 0.027604 25.21132 0
Cooling Degree Days on Peak
Day*(AC Saturation)*(1/AC -0.086523 0.015833 -5.464825 0
Efficiency)
Heating Degree Days on Peak
Day*Electric Heating -0.085747 0.014716 -5.826914 0
Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)
Cooling Degree During Remainder
of Month*(AC Saturation)*(1/AC 0.004952 0.000601 8.240219 0
Efficiency)
Heating Degree During Remainder
of Month*Electric Heating 0.004441 0.000788 5.636105 0
Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.711106

92 | P a g e
The following tables provide the econometric models for Kenergy Corporation.

Kenergy Residential Use Per Consumer Model

Sample: 2007 - 2019

Total Observations: 154

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 6.614538 0.051025 129.6343 0

February 6.585116 0.053226 123.7206 0
March 6.631454 0.045352 146.2217 0
April 6.555139 0.047973 136.642 0
May 6.618776 0.038003 174.1632 0
June 6.680367 0.043713 152.8245 0
July 6.784962 0.044501 152.4661 0
August 6.801286 0.043024 158.0823 0
September 6.728907 0.044558 151.013 0
October 6.544728 0.042725 153.1825 0
November 6.450676 0.041616 155.0059 0
December 6.558418 0.049587 132.26 0
Log(Residential Price/Alternate Fuel
Price) -0.070507 0.013307 -5.298569 0
Cooling Degree Days*(AC
Saturation)*(1/AC Efficiency) 0.010761 0.000612 17.574 0

Heating Degree Days*Electric Heat 0.011193 0.000849 13.18324 0

Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.922044

93 | P a g e
 Kenergy General C&I Consumer Model

Sample: 1999 - 2019

Total Observations: 250

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

GRP 1.363354 0.23916 5.700593 0

Total Retail Sales 2.918014 0.739225 3.947394 0.0001

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.559381

94 | P a g e
 Kenergy General C&I Use Per Consumer Model

Sample: 1999 - 2019

Total Observations: 250

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 11.05862 0.206038 53.67269 0

February 10.95246 0.202846 53.99397 0
March 11.01351 0.201787 54.57994 0
April 11.01615 0.201731 54.60801 0
May 11.21571 0.19844 56.51943 0
June 11.33681 0.198407 57.13918 0
July 11.32223 0.20008 56.58848 0
August 11.26737 0.200495 56.19772 0
September 11.22473 0.199892 56.15399 0
October 11.21241 0.199678 56.15239 0
November 11.2425 0.20106 55.91619 0
December 11.24374 0.205601 54.68706 0
Log(C&I Electricity Price) -0.080253 0.036195 -2.217223 0.0276
Cooling Degree Days 0.000892 0.0000848 10.51386 0
Heating Degree Days 0.000511 0.0000577 8.843284 0
Log(Total Employment/C&I
Consumers)
0.727082 0.030415 23.90546 0

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.895253

95 | P a g e
 Kenergy Load Factor Model

Sample: 2007 - 2019

Total Observations: 154

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 0.652034 0.023963 27.20968 0

February 0.679921 0.022638 30.03493 0
March 0.648822 0.01715 37.83232 0
April Cold Peaking 0.680085 0.015563 43.69874 0
April Hot Peaking 0.687651 0.019987 34.40458 0
May 0.60156 0.013883 43.33197 0
June 0.594472 0.016098 36.92744 0
July 0.59567 0.01599 37.2529 0
August 0.590477 0.016007 36.88807 0
September 0.598327 0.016549 36.15449 0
October Cold Peaking 0.725742 0.016679 43.51174 0
October Hot Peaking 0.62122 0.020181 30.78215 0
November 0.67773 0.016807 40.325 0
December 0.683866 0.02341 29.21206 0
Cooling Degree Days on Peak
Day*(AC Saturation)*(1/AC -0.082488 0.013899 -5.935027 0
Efficiency)
Heating Degree Days on Peak
Day*Electric Heating -0.068364 0.008904 -7.677592 0
Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)
Cooling Degree During Remainder
of Month*(AC Saturation)*(1/AC 0.00506 0.000622 8.129419 0
Efficiency)
Heating Degree During Remainder
of Month*Electric Heating 0.003299 0.000433 7.62205 0
Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.691088

96 | P a g e
The following tables provide the econometric models for Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative
Corporation (MCRECC).

MCRECC Residential Use Per Consumer Model

Sample: 2007 - 2019

Total Observations: 154

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 6.502017 0.032406 200.6445 0

February 6.442692 0.029824 216.0239 0
March 6.463045 0.025399 254.4629 0
April 6.344359 0.021936 289.2233 0
May 6.403802 0.021567 296.9234 0
June 6.477804 0.028175 229.9153 0
July 6.53239 0.028028 233.0685 0
August 6.501135 0.029804 218.1295 0
September 6.418795 0.023509 273.0325 0
October 6.356149 0.02102 302.3865 0
November 6.425176 0.024297 264.4417 0
December 6.511993 0.028191 230.9937 0
Log(Residential Price/Alternate Fuel
Price) -0.037951 0.006605 -5.745857 0
Cooling Degree Days*(AC
Saturation)*(1/AC Efficiency) 0.012035 0.000577 20.86585 0

Heating Degree Days*Electric Heat 0.010624 0.00039 27.22624 0

Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.977587

97 | P a g e
 MCRECC General C&I Consumer Model

Sample: 1999 - 2019

Total Observations: 250

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

GRP 2.015144 0.225529 8.935168 0

Total Retail Sales 1.943915 0.398097 4.883025 0

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.259195

98 | P a g e
 MCRECC General C&I Use Per Consumer Model

Sample: 1999 - 2019

Total Observations: 250

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 10.06521 0.348749 28.86087 0

February 10.05561 0.347507 28.93638 0
March 10.09085 0.344394 29.30033 0
April 10.11935 0.349425 28.96004 0
May 10.225 0.347119 29.45672 0
June 10.23109 0.346896 29.49327 0
July 10.24525 0.348128 29.42953 0
August 10.25894 0.349417 29.36012 0
September 10.22784 0.346684 29.50194 0
October 10.26088 0.346634 29.60148 0
November 10.19701 0.347028 29.38384 0
December 10.12429 0.349255 28.98822 0
Log(C&I Electricity Price) -0.202295 0.077951 -2.595147 0.0101
Cooling Degree Days 0.000622 0.0000764 8.148743 0
Heating Degree Days 0.000328 0.0000497 6.610873 0
Log(Total Employment/C&I
Consumers)
0.530934 0.088259 6.015658 0
2013 Forward -0.125527 0.023921 -5.247572 0

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.789073

99 | P a g e
 MCRECC Load Factor Model

Sample: 2007 - 2019

Total Observations: 154

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.

January 0.63496 0.019625 32.35468 0

February 0.671053 0.019148 35.04466 0
March 0.628937 0.013808 45.54862 0
April Cold Peaking 0.629017 0.011065 56.84797 0
April Hot Peaking 0.748793 0.023472 31.90101 0
May 0.636076 0.026591 23.92087 0
June 0.617738 0.025053 24.65735 0
July 0.618232 0.02604 23.74132 0
August 0.609817 0.026399 23.09969 0
September 0.614158 0.024352 25.22 0
October Cold Peaking 0.65492 0.010088 64.91917 0
October Hot Peaking 0.65788 0.024236 27.14475 0
November 0.643386 0.012405 51.86569 0
December 0.63915 0.016121 39.64587 0
Cooling Degree Days on Peak
Day*(AC Saturation)*(1/AC -0.112885 0.017785 -6.347315 0
Efficiency)
Heating Degree Days on Peak
Day*Electric Heating -0.097711 0.00623 -15.68304 0
Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)
Cooling Degree During Remainder
of Month*(AC Saturation)*(1/AC 0.005567 0.000627 8.883967 0
Efficiency)
Heating Degree During Remainder
of Month*Electric Heating 0.004775 0.000341 14.00279 0
Saturation*(1/Heating Efficiency)

Weighted Statistics

Adjusted R-squared: 0.776379

100 | P a g e
 Demand-Side Management
Potential Study

Big Rivers Electric Corporation

Henderson, Kentucky

Prepared By:

Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

1050 Regent St., Suite L3
Madison, WI 53715
608.442.8668
www.clearspringenergy.com

Presented By:

______________________

Joshua P. Hoyt
Principal Consultant
 Acknowledgements

Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC would like to thank the input and assistance from Big Rivers
Electric Corporation, including Russ Pogue and Marlene Parsley.
…
Expertise and analysis on this project were provided by Joshua Hoyt (Project Manager), Douglas
Carlson (Senior Analyst) and Bryce Frost (Analyst).

Disclaimer

The analysis included in this report incorporates data and estimates from third-party sources and
assumptions about future energy use, general costs and conditions that are uncertain.
Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC does not warrant the projections in this report for absolute
accuracy. Clearspring holds itself harmless for any actions taken by Big Rivers Electric
Corporation or its member-owners in response to the information or recommendations presented
herein.

Notice of Confidentiality

The information contained in this report is considered confidential and is for the sole use of Big
Rivers Electric Corporation and its member-owners. The information may not be copied,
distributed, or summarized for other parties without the express written consent of Big Rivers
Electric Corporation and Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC.
 Big Rivers Electric Corporation
Demand-Side Management Potential Study
Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1.0 Study Approach

1.1 Background
1.2 Study Objectives
1.3 Description of Measure Types
1.4 Evaluation Tests
1.5 Definition of Potential
1.6 Codes and Standards
1.7 Data Sources

2.0 Foundational Analysis

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Baseline End-Use Estimates
2.3 Identified Opportunities
2.4 Qualitative Screening Process
2.5 Multi-Perspective Model Approach
2.6 Demand-Side Potential Approach

3.0 Residential Measure Potential

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Technical Potential
3.3 Economic Potential
3.4 Achievable Potential
3.5 Program Potential

4.0 Non-Residential Measure Potential

4.1 Introduction
4.2 Technical Potential
4.3 Economic Potential
4.4 Achievable Potential
4.5 Program Potential

5.0 Demand Response Potential

5.1 Introduction
5.2 Demand-Response Considerations
5.3 Load Management and Control
5.4 Dynamic Pricing and Rate Options
5.5 Summary

Appendices
Appendix A – Appliance Standards Change List
Appendix B – Demand-Side Measure List
Appendix C – Multi-Perspective Model Results
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Big Rivers Electric Corporation

Demand-Side Management Potential Study

Executive Summary
Overview
Big Rivers Electric Corporation (Big Rivers) is a generation and transmission cooperative located
in Henderson, Kentucky. Big Rivers provides electric power to three electric distribution
cooperatives. As part of its resource planning process and as required by the Kentucky Public
Service Commission (KPSC), Big Rivers regularly evaluates its resource options to continue
providing high quality service and reliable, least-cost power to its member-owners. Big Rivers
engaged Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC to prepare an economic evaluation of demand-side
management potential, including energy efficiency measures and dynamic pricing that would be
appropriate for the member-owners of the Big Rivers system. This report, which serves as an
input to the Big Rivers Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process, presents the findings of that
study. The overall goals of this study are:
 To use methods that are transparent and consistent with established practice.
 To incorporate Big Rivers data and experience into the process whenever available or
relevant.
 To use data and resources that are widely accepted and verified and,
 To provide actionable information that Big Rivers can incorporate into its IRP process.

It is instructive to remember that the analyses presented in this report, and in the many other
reports produced just like it, rely on estimates and assumptions. This study deals with complex
topics yet many of the specific components of the drivers are unknown. It is therefore required to
utilize third-party research, average customer class data and primary research when available to
calculate potential outcomes. The expectation of results, therefore, is that they should be
reasonable and plausible.

Project Process
A multi-step process was required to develop estimates of energy efficiency potential for the Big
Rivers system. This process is informed by Big Rivers’ stated objectives:
 Develop residential and non-residential segment end-use models of energy use.
 Identify potential demand response / energy efficiency measures.
 Evaluate this measure list with a qualitative screening tool.
 Perform a quantitative economic analysis on the cost-effectiveness of these measures.
 Estimate technical, economic, achievable and program energy efficiency potential.

An extensive amount of research was undertaken for this study and a wide variety of data sources
were utilized in fulfilling the objectives identified above. These data sources are listed in detail in
Section 1.7 of this report.

Baseline End-Use Development

One of the key inputs in determining potential of energy efficiency programs is a reliable baseline
to benchmark current energy use by key end-uses. As part of this study, end-use models using
both primary and secondary research were developed for the residential and non-residential

Big Rivers Electric Corporation E-1 Executive Summary

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

segments to estimate baseline energy use. The following figures show the percentage of
residential and non-residential electricity use by major end-use category for the base year of the
study (2020). The methodologies used to estimate the end-use shares are described in more
detail in section 2.2.
Figure ES-1
Baseline Electricity End-Uses (%)
Residential Non-Residential (C&I)

15.1%
20.0%
29.4%

42.7%
18.3%

1.1%

33.7%
7.0% 15.8%

16.8%

HVAC Water Heating Lighting Appliances Other HVAC Water Heating Lighting Appliances Other

Identification of Opportunities
Following the development of the baseline end-use estimates for the residential and non-
residential (C&I) segments, a comprehensive list of demand-side measures was developed for
evaluation. These were drawn largely from Technical Resource Manuals (TRMs) referenced to
calculate specific measure savings. Measure lists were segregated into major customer type
(residential and non-residential) and process type (lighting, heating, cooling, appliance, etc.). A
total of 196 individual measures were identified with 99 measures identified for the residential
segment and 97 for the non-residential segment.

The next step was to evaluate the initial demand-side measure list using a qualitative screening
tool designed to eliminate measures that do not fit the criteria. Obvious candidates such as
measures relying on natural gas as the primary savings driver were excluded. Multiple questions
were developed for each of these categories including technical maturity, utility match, customer
acceptance, etc. A total of 133 individual measures were segmented into 60 residential measures
and 73 non-residential (C&I).

Demand-Side Savings Potential

A series of economic evaluation tests were used to compare the cumulative financial benefits of
implementing a measure against the cumulative costs. Each test categorizes the benefits and
costs from the perspective of a key stakeholder being evaluated. When taken together these tests
represent a multi-perspective analysis of each measure. The four key perspectives of the
evaluation tests below are identified in Section 1.4 of this report.
 Total Resource Cost (TRC)
 Participant Cost (PCT)
 Utility Cost (UCT)
 Rate Impact Measure (RIM)

Big Rivers Electric Corporation E-2 Executive Summary

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

The economic screening tool utilized for this purpose compares the present value of potential
benefits of a measure to the present value of costs, yielding a “benefit-cost ratio.” Benefit-cost
ratios greater than one (1.0) indicate that a measure has positive economic potential and,
therefore, is worthy of further consideration from a demand-side program perspective. The model
assumptions and process are discussed in section 2 of this report.

Four demand-side potential estimates were calculated for this study: technical, economic,
achievable and program potential. There are a variety is ways to approach potential calculations
and it is important to emphasize that each of these methods are estimates and contain
uncertainty. The results are presented in Table ES-1 and ES-2 and are presented in more detail
in sections 3 and 4. The results below and the entire study represent Big Rivers’ rural load and
excludes direct-serve customers.
Table ES-1
Energy Efficiency Potential (Cumulative Annual) Energy Savings (MWh)
Non-Res
Potential Residential (C&I)
Technical 290,322 241,646
Economic 217,845 169,463
Achievable 112,308 139,937
Program ($2m) 76,067 122,467
Program ($1m) 39,555 63,683

Table ES-2
Energy Efficiency Potential (Cumulative Annual) Demand Savings (MW)
Non-Res
Potential Residential (C&I)
Technical 81 72
Economic 45 47
Achievable 17 36
Program ($2m) 12 28
Program ($1m) 6 15

As shown in figure ES-2, maximum technical potential represents approximately 23 percent of

2030 retail MWh energy sales for Big Rivers. Economic potential represents 16.7 percent in 2030
while achievable potential is 10.9 percent. These findings are consistent with previous studies
which have looked at energy efficiency potential.1

Two hypothetical program budget scenarios were also developed as part of this study for the
program potential. The $1 million demand-side budget scenario projects energy savings around
4.5 percent over the ten-year study period or roughly 0.5 percent per year with a benefit-cost ratio
of 2.7. The $2 million scenario is expected to see 8.6 percent savings by 2030 with a benefit-cost
ratio of 2.5. These estimates are consistent with estimates from other utilities as well as with
previous filings by Big Rivers.2

1 See “Cracking the TEAPOT…”, ACEEE.

2
See “Cracking the TEAPOT…”, ACEEE.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation E-3 Executive Summary

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Figure ES-2
Energy Efficiency Potential (% Of Retail Energy Sales)

Summary
This demand-side resource potential study covers a range of tasks in estimating the potential
energy and demand savings for Big Rivers and its member-owner cooperatives. It establishes
baseline energy end-use characteristics for residential and non-residential segments. The study
presents a list of potential energy efficiency and demand response measures for evaluation. The
cost-effectiveness of these measures is tested. Finally, it presents the estimates of technical,
economic, achievable and program energy efficiency potential for Big Rivers. Two program
scenarios based on $1 million and $2 million budgets are evaluated as part of the program
potential.

There are challenges to the implementation of demand-side programs by Big Rivers. The low
energy and capacity cost values in the MISO market make it difficult for many programs to be
cost-effective currently. However, energy markets can and do change and as market values rise,
so too will cost-effective demand-side opportunities. There are also potential opportunities in
segments such as the plug-in electric vehicle market, where potential increases in peak demand
can be offset by well-planned time differentiated rates. Other future opportunities may arise as
well through new technologies that change the way consumers interact with energy.

In the end, the cost-effective alternatives to generation resources given current and projected
installed avoided capacity and energy costs represent a snapshot in time only and are meant to
provide guidance to Big Rivers management and staff and member-owner management and staff
in their planning process.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation E-4 Executive Summary

 SECTION 1

STUDY APPROACH
 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

1.0 Study Approach

1.1 Background
Big Rivers Electric Corporation (Big Rivers) is an electric generation and transmission cooperative
located in Henderson, Kentucky which provides electric power to, and is owned by, three-member
electric distribution cooperatives. The three distribution cooperatives are Jackson Purchase
Energy Corporation, Kenergy Corporation, and Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative
Corporation. These three Big Rivers Members serve more than 118,000 residential households,
businesses, and farms in western Kentucky. Big Rivers’ member-owner service territories are
shown in Figure 1.1. As part of its resource planning process, Big Rivers regularly evaluates its
resource options to ensure supply of low-cost reliable power to its member-owners.
Figure 1.1
Big Rivers System Service Territory

1.1.1 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Clearspring Energy was formed in 2004 and has been providing consulting services to utilities,
primarily electric cooperatives, for 16 years. Clearspring Energy’s staff have worked with over 150
distribution cooperatives, 15 generation and transmission (G&T) cooperatives, investor-owned
utilities, and municipalities. During that time, Clearspring Energy’s Principals have produced
utility-scale energy efficiency studies for eight G&Ts.
Clearspring Energy’s staff experience is geographically diverse, including studies in Minnesota,
North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri, Indiana, Oklahoma,
Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Texas, and Vermont.
Clearspring Energy’s staff includes several members with master’s degrees in economics,
statistical analysis, and market research. Clearspring Energy’s Principals have nearly 100 years
of combined experience to draw upon. Clearspring Energy staff have produced numerous reports
that have passed regulatory scrutiny at the state, federal and international level. Clearspring
Principals have both given and evaluated testimony in those proceedings. The Principals with the

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-1 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

most involvement are Joshua Hoyt and Douglas Carlson. Brief biographies of both are presented
below.
Joshua Hoyt
Mr. Hoyt is a Principal and co-founder of Clearspring Energy Advisors with 25 years of industry
knowledge. He is an experienced economic analyst and manager who has prepared economic
studies for over 100 distribution cooperatives, and 10 G&Ts. This includes developing cost-benefit
analyses and demand-side program development, as well as measurement and verification
tracking of energy efficiency programs. He has also worked as an energy management consultant
providing demand and supply side energy solutions for large C&I clients. He holds a master’s
degree in Economics from Marquette University and has continued his professional development
with seminars and university courses on the energy industry, utility deregulation, energy
forecasting and survey research.
Douglas Carlson
Mr. Carlson is a Principal and co-founder of Clearspring Energy Advisors. Mr. Carlson has over
25 years of experience in the utility industry with significant work in load forecasting, market
research, and demand-side management program evaluation. Mr. Carlson previously served as
the Director of DSM Programs for Alliant Energy and was responsible for program development,
management, and regulatory approvals. He has also developed and evaluated residential DSM
programs for utilities in the Midwest and Northeastern U.S. Mr. Carlson has developed residential
end-use models for several cooperative utilities for purposes of load forecasting, load profiling,
and DSM program design. Mr. Carlson has a bachelor’s degree in Economics, a master’s degree
in Urban and Regional Planning, and a master’s certificate in Energy Analysis and Policy, all from
the University of Wisconsin – Madison.
1.2 Study Objectives
The core objective of this study is to identify potential cost-effective demand-side opportunities
that can directly and verifiably reduce demand for, and consumption of, electricity. Cost effective
demand reduction for electricity may reduce future need for supply-side resources. Traditional
generation resources have long planning horizons and capital investment. In contrast, demand-
side management options might provide a resource option at lower cost and with more flexibility.
Ultimately, the cost of delivering demand-side reductions must compete with other traditional and
contemporary resource options to be considered viable. The following process has been outlined
by Big Rivers for this project:
 Establish baseline end-use energy characteristics for the residential and non-residential
sectors.
 Identify potential demand-side measures including energy efficiency and demand-
response categories.
 Evaluate these measures with Clearspring Energy’s qualitative screening tool.
 Develop estimates of demand-side measure potential including technical, economic,
achievable, and program-level potential.
 Perform multi-perspective analyses of the benefits and costs of potential demand-side
measures.

The focus of this study is the evaluation of potential demand-side options as part of the overall
energy resource planning equation. Figure 1.2 shows resource planning components as part of
the integrated resource planning process.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-2 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Figure 1.2
Resource Planning Components

The methods and practices in this study use generally accepted approaches and are informed by
the previous Demand-Side Management studies. A brief overview of the study approach is
presented below with greater detail provided in section 2.0, Foundational Analysis. The analyses
presented in this report rely on assumptions about future costs and benefits. This study deals with
complex topics and therefore often relies on third-party research, projected customer class data
and primary research to calculate potential outcomes. The expectation of the results is that they
should be reasonable and plausible.

1.2.1 Baseline End-Use Development

Energy consumption by individual customer classes is a sum of equipment used, energy source,
age of equipment and efficiency. End-use models are designed to capture appliance stocks and
their corresponding energy and demand usage. Models rely on primary and secondary research
to estimate the various portfolio stocks. The model inputs establish a base case appliance stock
estimate, benchmarked to the 2020 Electric Load Forecast for use in evaluating the proposed
energy efficiency programs.

1.2.2 Identification of Opportunities

One of the first steps in developing energy efficiency potential studies, and potentially programs
to deliver savings, is to develop an inclusive set of potential demand-side management measures
for residential, commercial, and industrial customers to be evaluated. Numerous studies and tools
exist to compile a comprehensive list and the experience of energy agencies and peer utilities
and states is important to consider. As discussed in section 2.3.1, Clearspring Energy developed
the initial list from recent Technical Resource Manuals (TRMs).

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-3 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

1.2.3 Qualitative Screening Analysis

The initial measure list developed in 1.2.2 was evaluated using a qualitative screening tool to
determine which measures should advance to the economic tests in the potential development
stage. The qualification screening is a series of questions designed to gauge appropriateness of
the measure for inclusion in potential programs. These questions include:
 Is the measure a fit for the utility or its customers?
 Is the measure unproven or too new to be considered?
 Is the technology older and is there a better technology that could replace it?

An example in this study would be the exclusion of energy-efficient natural gas technologies as
Big Rivers is solely a provider of electricity.

1.2.4 Demand-Side Savings Potential Analysis

As discussed above in section 1.2, potential demand-side savings represent a resource that could
displace traditional generation in the integrated resource plan. There are four potential savings
examined in this study including technical, economic, achievable and program potential. The
general definition of each is presented in Section 1.5, while the calculation equations are
presented in section 2.6.

1.3 Description of Energy Efficiency Measure Types

The measures that make up the comprehensive list that determines the potential estimates can
be broadly grouped into two main categories. These categories are hardware and behavioral:

Hardware measures involve the installation of physical equipment either as an upgrade at the
time of purchase or as an early retirement or retrofit. The new equipment should use less energy
than the baseline equipment it replaces (or would be otherwise purchased) and, if standards
apply, be rated as “energy-efficient” by rating agencies (such as ENERGY STAR™) and based
on standards set by the Department of Energy (DOE). Examples include purchasing an energy
star rated heat pump instead of a standard efficiency model or adding attic insulation to achieve
an R-value of 50.

Behavioral measures rely on end-use consumers changing energy consumption patterns in a

predictable way. They involve customers making conscious choices that result in lower energy
use at a point in time. Examples include setting the temperature of a water heater lower to use
less energy for hot water, turning off lights, responding to peak alert notices, and setting back
thermostat temperatures. Programmable thermostats with temperature setback capabilities are
an example of a hybrid hardware-behavioral measure.

While both types of measures have their place in reducing demand for energy, behavioral
measures are often inconsistent due to the factors mentioned above. As such, the focus on
hardware-based measures is more reliable to achieving verifiable savings. Behavioral measures
can still be a useful tool in energy education programs and on their own when paired with clear
incentives and verified reductions.

1.4 Energy Efficiency Evaluation Tests

This study evaluates potential demand-side measures using a series of tests commonly referred
to as the “California tests” to determine whether a specific measure deserves to be considered a
part of a portfolio of demand-reduction programs.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-4 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

1.4.1 Evaluation Tests

The evaluation tests performed for this study are economic tests that evaluate cumulative benefits
of implementing a measure compared with the cumulative costs of providing it. Each of the tests
categorizes these benefits and costs differently based on the perspective of the key stakeholder
that is being evaluated. When taken together they represent a multi-perspective analysis of each
measure. The four key perspectives of the evaluation tests are3:
 Total Resource Cost (TRC)
 Participant Cost (PC)
 Utility Cost (UC)
 Rate Impact Measure (RIM)

Each economic screening tool utilized by Clearspring for this purpose compares the net present
value (NPV) of potential benefits of a measure to its costs, yielding a benefit-cost ratio. Benefit-
cost ratios greater than one (1.0) indicate that a measure has economic potential and are
considered for further demand-side program evaluation. Because the various benefits and costs
do not accrue uniformly to stakeholders, a measure may pass the participant economic screening
test but may not be cost effective for the utility.

Economic Costs
Costs relevant to economic screening include the incremental cost of the measure, which is the
difference between the costs of the energy efficient alternative and its less efficient counterpart,
plus net installation, site preparation or disposal costs, if any. For measures that involve the
purchase of new appliances or equipment, it is assumed that the decision to replace such
appliances or equipment has already been made. In the case of an add-on measure such as
home insulation, the incremental cost is simply the installed cost of the measure itself.

Economic Benefits
Economic benefits are defined as real value that is derived from the implementation and operation
of the selected measure. The benefits relevant to economic screening include:
 Demand-related avoided costs.
 Energy-related avoided costs.
 Net reductions in operating, maintenance costs or other costs (such as reduced water
usage).

Avoided costs of supply are calculated by multiplying a measure’s energy savings and demand
impacts by the applicable resource cost over its useful life.

Several benefits were not included even though they could potentially have an impact on the
benefit-cost analysis. These benefits and the rationale for excluding them are:
 Impact of avoided carbon taxes or surplus credits for cap and trade. The lack of any clearly
defined programs makes this problematic.

3 Understanding Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs, November 2008

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-5 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

 Environmental external benefits (“externalities”) such as avoiding adverse impacts on

human health or the environment are disregarded, because of the complexity and
uncertainty of quantifying such benefits.4
 Avoided distribution and transmission construction costs. While losses in the distribution
and transmission system have been included, benefits in the form of avoided distribution
and transmission costs have not been considered primarily due to the fact that Big Rivers’
load is not expected to grow significantly during the study period, putting the value of those
benefits (beyond normal system maintenance) in doubt.
 Smaller, less tangible benefits such as decreased water consumption, lower detergent
use or other consumer benefits are not explicitly detailed in part due to the difficulty in
measurement.

1.4.2 Total Resource Cost Test

Economic potential is based on the financial impact from a Total Resource Cost (TRC)
perspective. The test evaluates the benefits and costs from the perspective of all utility customers
(participants and non-participants) in the utility service territory. The benefits include avoided
capacity and energy costs plus operations and maintenance (O&M) savings and tax credits. Costs
include incremental measure costs, program costs and any O&M costs.

1.4.3 Participant Test

The Participant Test focuses on the benefits and costs that accrue to the customer installing the
measure. In this case it is the member-owners served by Big Rivers’ three distribution cooperative
owners. Benefits include lower electric bills, incentive payments, tax credits (if available), as well
as potential O&M savings. The costs include the incremental cost of purchasing and installing the
energy efficient technology.

1.4.4 Utility Cost Test

The Utility Cost Test considers measures from the perspective of the utility, government agency,
or third party implementing the program and integrates expected program administrative costs,
member participation rates, program promotions or incentives as well as measurement and
verification costs into the economic screening analysis. Benefits include the avoided energy and
demand supply costs.

1.4.5 Rate Impact Measure Test

The Rate Impact Measure or RIM test evaluates the impact on non-participating ratepayers
overall. The test evaluates changes in utility revenues and operating costs, comparing savings
from avoided energy and capacity costs to costs such as program overhead costs, utility/program
administrator incentive and installation costs, and lost revenue due to reduced energy bills.

1.5 Definition of Energy Efficiency Potential

There are four key definitions of potential calculated for this study: technical, economic,
achievable and program potential. Each is defined below:

4 These would be included from the Societal Cost test but not the Total Resource Cost (TRC) perspective
used in the economic screening The Societal perspective is not required by the Kentucky PSC and is not
included in this analysis.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-6 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

1.5.1 Technical Potential

Technical potential is the theoretical maximum amount of energy that could be displaced by
demand-side measures. It disregards non-engineering constraints such as cost-effectiveness and
the willingness of end-users to adopt the efficiency measures. It assumes immediate
implementation of all technologically feasible energy saving measures. New customers are
assumed to implement efficiency opportunities automatically.

1.5.2 Economic Potential

A subset of technical potential, economic potential excludes measures that have failed the total
resource cost test. Both technical and economic potential represent theoretical abstractions of
demand-side savings that ignore the “real-world” challenges of implementing such programs.
These include utility budgets, administrative capacity, market barriers and customer preferences
and behaviors.

1.5.3 Achievable Potential

Achievable potential considers real-world barriers to the end-user when adopting efficiency
measures, as well as administration, marketing, and other program costs, plus the challenges
most utilities face ramping up programs effectively and efficiently. Measures are considered part
of the achievable potential if they pass the Participant Test under aggressive implementation
parameters. In this case this involves Big Rivers paying the full incremental cost of the energy
efficient measure to the participant in the form of an incentive payment.

1.5.4 Program Potential

Program potential differs from achievable potential in that it focuses on the amount of demand-
side savings projected based on a specific program budget and includes administrative cost,
promotion, and incentive payments. This study estimates program potential based on two feasible
scenarios: $1 million-, and $2 million-dollar total expenditure. The program potential analysis is a
general concept and does not represent a proposed program design for Big Rivers or incorporate
the member-owner objectives.

1.6 Codes and Standards

This study incorporates the most recent (or important upcoming) federal codes and standards.
Various equipment codes and standards are set by the federal government or by consortiums
(National Electrical Manufacturers Association) and agencies (ENERGY STAR™). By utilizing the
most recent technical resource manuals (TRMs), the analysis of savings is already predisposed
to incorporating the newest standards in the modeling process. However, the current and
upcoming standards were reviewed to make sure that all standards and codes were up to date in
the model development process.
 The 2007 EISA lighting standards effectively transform the lighting market, however there
are likely to be opportunities to encourage early retirements, so lighting is not completely
removed from consideration.
 Improved water heater standards were utilized which effectively make heat pump water
heaters the only efficient option at 55 gallons or above.
 A more detailed list of the key dates of the federal energy standards is presented in
Appendix A.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-7 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

There are numerous factors involved with setting/changing codes and standards including
technological, market and political. While it is likely that codes and standards may change over
the ten-year window evaluated, it would be speculative to include those in this analysis.

1.7 Data Sources

Information was gathered from a wide variety of sources to develop the initial measure list to be
analyzed in the qualitative screening stage. Some of the key data sources utilized include:

Data Sources for Residential End-Use Model

 Big Rivers residential consumer survey (2019).
 Big Rivers electric load forecast (2020).
 Residential Energy Consumption Surveys (RECS), Energy Information Administration
(DOE), https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/
 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Energy Information
Administration (DOE), https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/
 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS), Energy Information Administration
(DOE), https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/
 County Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cbp.html

Data Sources for Energy Efficiency Potential

 “Understanding Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs: Best Practices,
Technical Methods, and Emerging Issues for Policy-Makers,” National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency (DOE), November 2008.
 “Cracking the TEAPOT: Technical, Economic, and Achievable Energy Efficiency Potential
Studies” https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1407.pdf
 https://www.energy.gov/eere/slsc/energy-efficiency-potential-studies-catalog
 “Guide for Conducting Energy Efficiency Potential Studies,” National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency (DOE), November 2007. www.epa.gov/eeactionplan
 https://appliance-standards.org/national

Data Sources for Measure Costs and Savings Estimates

 Missouri Technical Resource Manual (2017)
 Minnesota Technical Resource Manual (2019)
 TVA Technical Resource Manual (2017)
 Michigan Technical Resource Manual (2017)
 Wisconsin Focus on Energy Technical Resource Manual (2019)
 Ohio Technical Resource Manual (2010)
 Massachusetts Technical Resource Manual (2011)
 “Saving Energy Cost-Effectively: A National Review of the Cost of Energy Saved
Through Utility Sector Energy Efficiency Programs” ACEEE, 2009.
 DOE - Energy Star Program http://www.energystar.gov/
 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy http://www.aceee.org/
 http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_furnace.htm
 Wisconsin Focus on Energy http://www.focusonenergy.com/
 https://www.kentuckypower.com/save/residential/calculate/

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-8 Study Approach

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Data Sources (Other)

 Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), https://www.misoenergy.org/
 Big Rivers, hourly load data.
 “The National Potential for Load Flexibility” The Brattle Group, 2019.
 Electric Vehicle Charging Station Pilot Evaluation Report, Xcel Energy
 “An emerging push for time-of-use rates sparks new debates about customer and grid
impacts.” Utility Dive, 2019.
 “A Survey of Residential Time-Of-Use (TOU) Rates.” The Brattle Group, 2019.
 “Guidance for Utilities Commissions on Time of Use Rates: A Shared Perspective from
Consumer and Clean Energy Advocates.” National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, 2017.
 “International Evidence on Dynamic Pricing.” Arcturus, 2013.
 “The Effect of Mandatory Time-of-Use Pricing Reform on Residential Electricity Use.” UC
Davis and Boston University, 2012.
 “Voluntary Time-of-Use Rates Induced Load Shifting and Peak Load Reduction.” Iowa
Power, 1993.
 “Symmetric Treatment of Load Generation: A Necessary Condition for Demand
Response to Benefit Wholesale Market Efficiency and Manage Intermittency.” Stanford
University, 2010.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 1-9 Study Approach

 SECTION 2

FOUNDATIONAL
ANALYSIS
 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

2.0 Foundational Analysis

2.1 Introduction
The following sections detail the specific process, methodologies and results used in the
development of demand-side potential and sample programs for the residential and non-
residential segments.

2.2 Baseline End-Use Estimates

Two separate end-use models were developed for this study; residential, and non-residential.
Non-residential includes commercial and industrial members served under the rural delivery tariff.
End-use models are developed by estimating the portfolio mix and energy use of key appliances
for a given class as a baseline to incorporating efficiency changes. These are most often
developed for residential applications because of the relative homogeneity of the residential class
compared to the commercial and industrial sectors. The importance of the end-use models in this
study is that they allow current appliance usage and the relative magnitude of end-use segments
to be identified. The results from the residential and non-residential end-use models are presented
below along with summary tables.

2.2.1 Residential End-Use Model

The end-use model estimates the number of electrical appliances, average energy use and
overall impact on system sales. The residential end-use model was developed using data from
Big Rivers’ 2019 residential customer survey and appliance energy use information from the
Department of Energy’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).

RECS provides end-use energy estimates by major appliance type. Blended estimates (especially
weather-driven ones) such as electric heating, air conditioning and electric water heating were
adjusted based on Big Rivers’ survey data and modeling from the TRMs using regionally specific
heating and cooling data so that the energy use estimates were more aligned with Big Rivers
actual experience.

The resulting energy consumption estimates are the product of the number of appliances and the
energy use per appliance and are reconciled to the 2020 Big Rivers electric load forecast study
using 2020 as a base year and evaluating the measures over the 2021-2030 period.

Residential End-Use Results Summary

The baseline residential end-use shares are presented in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1 below. They
provide the starting point against which to evaluate total potential energy efficiency savings.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-1 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Figure 2.1
Residential End-Use %

15.1%

42.7%
18.3%

7.0%

16.8%

HVAC Water Heating Lighting Appliances Other

Table 2.1
Residential End-Use %
kWh Per Big Rivers Member Total Percent of
End-Use Household /1 Survey % /2 Count /3 Energy (MWh) Total %
Space heating 6,338 46.7% 47,190 299,089 21.0%
Air handlers (heat) 114 89.8% 90,738 10,344 0.7%
Air conditioning 2,819 92.4% 93,369 263,208 18.5%
Air handlers (cool) 136 92.4% 93,369 12,698 0.9%
Ceiling fans 358 90.9% 91,854 32,884 2.3%
Dehumidifiers 768 16.9% 17,077 13,115 0.9%
Water heating 3,476 69.0% 69,724 242,360 17.0%
Clothes washers 73 97.5% 98,523 7,192 0.5%
Clothes dryers 875 92.9% 93,875 82,140 5.8%
Lighting 1,000 100.0% 101,049 101,049 7.1%
Refrigerators 579 98.2% 99,230 57,454 4.0%
Second refrig. 487 25.3% 25,565 12,450 0.9%
Separate freezers 513 66.5% 67,198 34,472 2.4%
Cooking 291 72.1% 72,856 21,201 1.5%
Microwaves 110 98.6% 99,634 10,960 0.8%
Dishwashers 116 74.3% 75,079 8,709 0.6%
Most-used TVs 260 93.2% 94,178 24,486 1.7%
Second TVs 141 32.5% 32,841 4,631 0.3%
Pool pumps 1,329 15.3% 15,460 20,547 1.4%
Hot tub pumps 300 4.7% 4,749 1,425 0.1%
Hot tub heaters 1,100 4.7% 4,749 5,224 0.4%
Other 1,570 100.0% 101,049 158,647 11.1%
TOTAL 101,049 1,424,287 100.0%
Notes: /1 From EIA, Residential Energy Consumption Survey
/2 Appliance penetration data from 2019 Big Rivers survey
/3 2020 estimate from 2020 Big Rivers load forecast

2.2.2 Non-Residential End-Use Model

Non-residential customers are comprised of commercial and industrial loads (C&I) excluding
accounts under direct serve agreements. Commercial and industrial energy consumption is the
product of a variety of end-use applications that vary greatly by industry (and even within specific
industry market segments). Big Rivers does not survey commercial and industrial retail members.
Clearspring used established third party resources such as the Commercial Building End-Use
Survey (CBECS) and Manufacturing End-Use Survey (MECS) published by the Energy

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-2 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Information Administration, a part of the Department of Energy (DOE) and County Business
Patterns (CBP) from the Census Bureau as data resources to develop the non-residential end-
use baseline.

The CBECS and MECS surveys are conducted periodically across a nation-wide sample of
businesses. Data collected includes building types, building characteristics, energy sources,
business segment, major end-use characteristics, and energy efficient technology adoption. The
Census CBP is produced annually and includes data on number of establishments and
employment size by industry type by county. US Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns data
was used to develop the number of non-residential members by 2-digit North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) code industry type in the counties served by Big Rivers’ member-
owners.
Figure 2.2
Non-Residential Industry %

9.0%

35% 18.9%

7.1%

9.1% 7.0%

13.9%
Construction Retail trade
Finance and ins. Professional
Healthcare Accomm. and food
Other

Table 2.2
Non-Residential Breakdown By Industry Type
CBP Retail
Code NAICS Industry Share % Accounts
22 Utilities 0.4% 73
23 Construction 9.0% 1,625
31-33 Manufacturing 4.6% 836
42 Wholesale trade 4.6% 826
44-45 Retail trade 18.9% 3,411
48-49 Transp. and warehousing 3.5% 633
51 Information 1.5% 262
52 Finance and insurance 7.1% 1,288
53 Real estate, rental, leasing 3.9% 713
54 Prof./scient./tech. services 7.0% 1,261
56 Admin. and support 4.0% 716
62 Health care and social assist. 13.9% 2,501
72 Accommodation, food services 9.1% 1,639
81 Other services (excl. public admin.) 12.6% 2,272
TOTAL 100.0% 18,422
Notes: County Business Patterns, Census.gov
EIA-DOE, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
EIA-DOE, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
Total represents a weighted average of industry types

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-3 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Total facility electric energy use was obtained for building/industry types from the Department of
Energy (DOE) Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) and Manufacturing
Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). The CBECS survey data is segmented into the following
key building types:
 Education
 Food Sales
 Food Service
 Health Care
 Lodging
 Retail
 Office
 Public Assembly / Worship
 Service
 Warehouse
 Other

MECS data is segmented into different categories than the CBECS data. It focuses on process
and production energy details as these are of greater weight in the overall manufacturing energy
of end-users. The MECS contains the following major end-use categories:
Indirect Process - Boiler
 Conventional Boiler
 CHP or Cogeneration
Direct Process
 Process Heating
 Process Cooling / Refrigeration
 Machine Drive
 Electro-Chemical
 Other Process
Direct Non-Process
 Facility HVAC
 Facility Lighting
 Other Facility Support
 On-Site Transportation
 Conventional Electric Generation
 Other Non-Process
Other
 Other energy

The non-residential end-use model is structured similarly to the residential end-use model
described in section 2.2.1 but includes breakouts by business type along with key appliance end-
uses (as opposed to specific appliances) and relies on an allocation methodology. These
categories include the following end-uses:
 Cooling
 Lighting
 Office Equipment
 Refrigeration
 Ventilation

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-4 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

 Space Heating
 Cooking
 Water Heating
 Other

Construction of the non-residential end-use model required the shares of energy associated with
each building industry segment be developed. CBECS and MECS data was matched with the
NAICS categories so that electric end-use percentages are available for each industry type. For
the manufacturing segment, “Process” end-uses were included in the “Other” category. Weighted
averages of end-use percentages were calculated for Big Rivers’ non-residential segment based
on the individual industry end-use percentages and the number of establishments by industry
type. These percentages were applied to the projected kWh energy use from the 2020 Big Rivers
electric load forecast to establish the baseline energy by end-use category.

Non-Residential End-Use Results Summary

A summary of the end-use categories is presented in Figure 2.3 and Table 2.3. The top two
electric consumption categories in the non-residential segment are HVAC with 29 percent of total
end-use energy and appliances with 34 percent of energy consumption.

Figure 2.3
Non-Residential End-Use %

20.0%
29.4%

1.1%

33.7%
15.8%

HVAC Water Heating Lighting Appliances Other

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-5 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 2.3
Non-Residential End-Use Shares
Space Space Water Office
Code NAICS Industry Heating Cooling Vent. Heating Lighting Cooking Refrig. Equip. Comp. Other Total
22 Utilities 4% 13% 24% 1% 16% 1% 4% 4% 19% 15% 100%
23 Construction 4% 13% 24% 1% 16% 1% 4% 4% 19% 15% 100%
31-33 Manufacturing 1% 6% 2% 2% 6% 12% 7% 0% 0% 63% 100%
42 Wholesale trade 3% 13% 5% 0% 27% 0% 21% 3% 5% 23% 100%
44-45 Retail trade 2% 8% 10% 2% 15% 5% 43% 2% 2% 10% 100%
48-49 Transp. and warehousing 3% 13% 5% 0% 27% 0% 21% 3% 5% 23% 100%
51 Information 4% 13% 24% 1% 16% 1% 4% 4% 19% 15% 100%
52 Finance and insurance 4% 13% 24% 1% 16% 1% 4% 4% 19% 15% 100%
53 Real estate, rental, leasing 4% 13% 24% 1% 16% 1% 4% 4% 19% 15% 100%
54 Prof./scient./tech. services 4% 13% 24% 1% 16% 1% 4% 4% 19% 15% 100%
56 Admin. and support 4% 13% 24% 1% 16% 1% 4% 4% 19% 15% 100%
62 Health care and social assist. 2% 19% 21% 1% 16% 4% 5% 4% 9% 18% 100%
72 Accommodation, food services 2% 8% 10% 3% 9% 8% 38% 7% 1% 13% 100%
81 Other services (excl. public admin.) 2% 14% 8% 0% 19% 0% 8% 1% 22% 25% 100%
TOTAL 3% 12% 15% 1% 16% 3% 16% 3% 11% 20% 100%
Notes: County Business Patterns, Census.gov
EIA-DOE, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
EIA-DOE, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
Total represents a weighted average of industry types

2.3 Identified Opportunities

Following the development of the end-use models for the residential and non-residential
segments, Clearspring researched and created a comprehensive list of demand-side measures
for evaluation. This section presents the process.

2.3.1 Energy Efficiency Measure List

Technical Resource Manuals (TRMs) from neighboring states in the region were reviewed for the
development of the residential and non-residential measure lists. Section 1.7 presented the list of
TRMs used. Greater weight was given to the newer TRMs as it was assumed the most recent
measure technology would be found there. The lists of the various TRMs was then consolidated
into a master list for the residential and non-residential segments.

The demand-side measure lists were segregated into major customer type (residential and non-
residential) as well as process type (lighting, HVAC, water heating, appliance, building envelope,
other, etc.). The initial list included nearly 200 measures, although within each category some
included multiple iterations.

2.3.2 Final Measure List Results

From the TRM sources mentioned above, a draft list was developed. This list was then provided
to Big Rivers for review and comment. A meeting was held to discuss the comments and revisions
were then made to arrive at the final measure list for analysis.

A total of 196 individual measures were identified with 99 measures identified for the residential
segment and 97 for the non-residential segment. Tables showing the demand-side measures
developed for inclusion in the qualitative screening analysis of this study are presented in
Appendix A. The following figures show the approximate percentage of each measure by major
category for the residential and non-residential segments.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-6 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Figure 2.4
Residential Measure End-Use Categories (%)
8%

24%

19%

10%

27%
12%

Appliance HVAC Building Shell

Lighting Water Heating Load Management

Figure 2.5
Non-Residential Measure End-Use Categories (%)
19%

21%

3% 10%

12%
16%
8%

11%
HVAC Building Shell
Lighting Water Heating
Cooking Refrigeration
Load Management Other

2.4 Qualitative Screening Process

Clearspring developed a qualitative screening tool to assess the initial measure list. Measures
that passed the qualitative screening were then screened for quantitative or economic cost-
effectiveness.

2.4.1 Qualitative Screening Model

The qualitative screening tool is derived from a series of questions about the selected measures
based on several qualitative characteristics including:
 Technological maturity: Is the technology experimental or have its benefits been
proven and validated?
 Market maturity and market transformation: Is this technology already achieving
significant penetration in the market? If so, free riders may be a key concern.
 Utility match: Does the proposed measure fit with the characteristics of Big Rivers?

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-7 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

 Availability of competing measures: Are there multiple measures that can achieve
similar results? Is one measure superior to another?
 Impact measurement and quantification: Can the energy and peak demand impacts
be quantified, measured, and tracked in a way that confirms a reliable cost-benefit
calculation in future assessments?
 Level of customer acceptance: Are customers likely to accept the proposed measure
and is it easily integrated into their appliance portfolio?

Multiple questions were developed for each of these categories. This had the benefit of allowing
some flexibility in screening measures but at the same time made it more difficult to pass
measures on the strength of narrow questions. In general, a “No” answer increased the likelihood
that a measure would be dropped.

2.4.2 Qualitative Screening Results

The measures identified in the initial measure list were run through the qualitative screening tool
in an iterative process. This process is described as follows:
 Clearspring Energy’s team scored the measures in the qualitative screening
independently.
 The independent screenings were consolidated into a single draft screening table.
 The draft screening results were provided to Big Rivers for review and comment.

Following that review, a total of 133 individual measures were identified: 60 measures for the
residential segment and 73 for the non-residential segment. There are additional sub-categories
of these measures that increase the overall number of potential measures to 345. Measures
relying on natural gas as the savings driver were excluded. Multi-family residential were included
in the totals under the assumption that multi-family units could still take advantage of the
programs. The initial qualitative screening results were evaluated by Clearspring Energy and
passing measures were moved forward to the economic screening analysis phase. Qualitative
screening results can be found in Appendix A.

2.5 Economic Multi-Perspective Model Approach

The 133 measures and sub-measures identified in the qualitative phase were evaluated using the
quantitative screening tool in an iterative process.5 This process is described as follows:

2.5.1 Economic Modeling Process

Economic modeling is a step-by-step approach to calculate the benefit-cost ratio that will be used
to evaluate a given measure. The process involves:
 Estimating the monetary value of initial and future costs and benefits of the measure over
its useful life.
 Discounting all relevant costs and benefits to their present values using a discount rate.
 Dividing the present value of benefits by the present value of costs to yield the discounted
benefit-cost ratio.
 The net present value (NPV) of each measure was calculated to estimate the future
savings resulting from measure implementation.

5 Several measure categories have multiple iterations included in the analysis (such as multiple motor HP
sizes).

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-8 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

 Other metrics such the simple payback period, or time required for the return on
investment and the cost per kWh of the measure were calculated.

The same process was used for each test in the multi-perspective approach (Total Resource
Cost, Participant Cost, Utility Cost, and Rate Impact Measure).

2.5.2 Model Assumptions

The economic models require a variety of common inputs and assumptions regarding economic
conditions. The assumptions included in the analysis are:
 Each measure is assigned a useful life drawn from the technical resource manuals.
 The Big Rivers discount rate is 5.0% and is assumed to remain at that level throughout
the study period.
 All incremental O&M costs are assumed to escalate at 2% per year.
 Avoided capacity and energy cost data is based on forward curves developed by ACES
Power Marketing for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) market.
 Distribution losses of 4.4% and transmission losses of 2.5% were applied to energy and
demand as identified in the 2020 Big Rivers load forecast.
 Administration costs of 15% of incentive spending was applied to the overall program
cost.6

2.6 Demand-Side Potential Approach

As discussed in section 1.5, there are four key definitions of demand-side potential that were
calculated for this study. These are technical, economic, achievable and program potential. There
are a variety of ways to approach potential calculations and it is as critically important to
emphasize that each of these are fundamentally estimates and contain inherent uncertainty.

Figure 2.6
Type of Energy Efficiency Potential

Not Technically
Technical Potential
Feasible

Not Technically Not Cost

Economic Potential
Feasible Effective

Not Technically Not Cost

Market Barriers Achievable Potential
Feasible Effective

2.6.1 Technical Potential

The overall estimation of technical potential is developed using the following equation:

Residential (MWh) x End-Use Share (%) x Availability Factor (%) x End-Use Savings (%) = End-
Use Technical Potential (MWh)

6A national study by ACEEE found a range of 8-38% for administrative costs looking across multiple
states. See “Saving Energy Cost-Effectively…”, ACEEE, 2009.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-9 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

The first step in the estimation of technical potential is the assignment of an energy efficiency
savings percentage value to each of the end-use categories presented in section 1.5.1. These
savings percentages were developed by analyzing the savings calculated for each measure that
passed the qualitative screening. Most of the residential measures are based on specific
appliances. However, for the heating and cooling categories, equipment savings was combined
with building shell savings. The commercial end-use categories are slightly broader, but the same
approach was used.

The next step was the development of an availability factor to determine the amount of energy
efficiency already achieved for a specific end-use category. To accomplish this for the residential
segment, data from the 2019 Big Rivers residential appliance survey was used to determine the
percentage of a specific appliance stock that was 5 years old or less.7 It was assumed that those
appliances would already be efficient (or at least unavailable to replace in either case). There
were two exceptions to this. If age data was not available, then the average measure life was
used assuming an even distribution of age. The other exception was lighting. While new lighting
standards are now in effect and it could be argued that the lighting market is transformed, the
appliance survey indicated that there were still incandescent and compact-fluorescent lights in
homes that could be induced to retrofit. For this reason, a factor of 10 percent was applied to
allow for some lighting savings. This same approach was applied to televisions and personal
computers.

The final step in the calculation of technical potential was the application of the availability factor
and savings percentage to the electric end-use energy percentage developed previously in the
baseline end-use model development.

A similar approach was applied to the non-residential segment. CBECS and MECS surveys were
reviewed to determine industry-wide energy efficiency adoption. In addition, actual Big Rivers
energy efficiency program results from the previous five years were reviewed. In the case where
neither of those two approaches were available, then the measure-life retirement assumption
referenced in the residential approach was used. Office equipment (largely personal computers
and monitors) received the same treatment as residential.

The development of technical potential peak demand savings was calculated by applying the ratio
of peak savings to energy savings by measure from the TRMs to the estimated technical potential
energy savings. This approach was also used for the economic, achievable and program potential
calculations as well.

2.6.2 Economic Potential

Economic potential, as described in section 1.5.2, differs from technical potential only in that it
removes those measures that fail the Total Resource Cost (TRC) cost test described earlier. To
accomplish this, the technical potential savings that was calculated previously was multiplied by
a TRC factor developed for each end-use category. In summary, the economic potential equation
is defined as:

End-Use Technical Potential (MWh) x TRC Factor (%) = End-Use Economic Potential (MWh)

7Big Rivers historic DSM program results over the past five years were reviewed to make sure they did
not reveal a greater share of adoption than the 5-year assumption would.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-10 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

The TRC factor for each end-use was based on an analysis of the sub-measures in each category
that failed or passed. In most cases, the TRC factor was binary (a 1 or 0) and when in the absence
of a clear reason otherwise was set to 1 (100%). There were several adjustments to this approach,
however.

For the residential segment, the HVAC TRC factor was reduced by the market shares of
geothermal and mini-split heat pumps as they failed the TRC test. Central air conditioners also
failed and represent roughly 50 percent of the cooling market, so that TRC factor was similarly
reduced. The lighting TRC was factor was set at 50 percent, again based on the concept that
there is perhaps some retrofit savings that could be justified despite the assumption of a
transformed lighting market.

Non-residential segment HVAC and water heating end-uses were largely left intact from the
technical potential. Cooking was reduced to 14 percent as many of the cooking measures failed
the TRC test. Office equipment was set to zero as most of the office equipment represent
computers and monitors which were deemed to be a transformed market. Roughly half of the
lighting measures passed the TRC, as did 80 percent of refrigeration. The Other category (which
includes the process uses from manufacturing) was set at 88 percent as most of those measures
passed the TRC test.

2.6.3 Achievable Potential

As described in section 1.5.3, achievable potential represents the amount of energy efficiency
that could be realized under aggressive promotion, including the utility paying up to 100 percent
of the incremental cost of a measure. The overall achievable potential equation is presented
below:

End-Use Economic Potential (MWh) x Program Factor (%) x Adoption Factor (%) x Measure-Life
Factor (%) = End-Use Achievable Potential (MWh)

The first step is the development of a program factor. Like the TRC factor described in economic
potential, it represents a percentage of measure savings that passes the participant test in the
multi-perspective models after an assumption of Big Rivers paying 100 percent of the incremental
cost. The only adjustment to the residential segment was to de-rate high investment cost
equipment (HVAC and water heating) by the Big Rivers area poverty rate of 16% to represent a
market barrier. For the non-residential segment, HVAC, refrigeration and other were reduced by
the percentage of measures that failed the participant test at the 100 percent of incremental cost
incentive.

Next, an adoption factor was applied as a barrier based on the idea that it is unreasonable to think
that 100 percent of a measure would be replaced. This considers that there are technical or other
constraints that could inhibit adoption. In the absence of specific data, a standard 0.95 factor was
applied to de-rate achievable potential. It is highly likely that this factor should be lower, reflecting
actual higher technical and market barriers. This represents a conservative estimate that was
deemed reasonable and plausible.

Finally, a measure-life factor was applied to each end-use based on the measure life assuming a
regular replacement rate of equipment (rather than the full immediate adoption assumption in the
technical and economic potential estimates).

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-11 Foundational Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

2.6.4 Program Potential

How much demand-side savings could realistically be achieved under a set of programs with a
defined hypothetical spending budget defines program potential, as discussed in section 1.5.4.
The program potential equation is then:

End-Use Achievable Potential (MWh) x Replacement Rate x Budget Factor = End-Use Program
Potential (MWh)

For the purposes of this study, two budget scenarios were developed. Scenario 1 assumes a
budget of $2 million while scenario 2 is based on a budget of $1 million. It is important to note that
the budget assumptions and the savings estimates for the program potential savings are
hypothetical scenarios only. Rather than selecting a specific set of programs for this analysis, it
was assumed that all of the measures from the achievable potential would be available.

The cumulative achievable savings for the existing and new member end-users was developed
using an age-replacement method. Savings were assumed to accrue based on a replacement
rate as appliances and equipment wear out and are replaced by new, efficient equipment. This
was calculated on an end-use basis by assuming a regular replacement based on the end-use
measure life taken from the multi-perspective measure models and applying that over the ten-
year study window.

The budget cost of acquiring the end-use program savings was developed by multiplying the
program MWh by the $/MWh measure cost derived from the multi-perspective evaluation models.
A budget factor was then used to scale the total cost up or down to match with the program-level
budget assumed in each scenario.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 2-12 Foundational Analysis

 SECTION 3

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL
 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

3.0 Residential Energy Efficiency Potential

3.1 Introduction
This section presents the results from the various potential estimates for the residential segment.
The four potential definitions presented are technical, economic, achievable and program. The
process and assumptions have been described previously in sections 1 and 2.

3.2 Technical Potential

Technical potential represents an estimate of maximum energy efficiency potential. A total of the
60 residential measures passed the qualitative screening test and were modeled. The results
were used to estimate overall technical potential. The following tables present the results of the
technical potential analysis for the residential energy efficiency measures:

Table 3.1
Residential Technical Potential By Major End-Use Category
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 153,755 154,936 155,528 155,958 156,262 156,466 156,599 156,653 156,611 156,481
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 88,145 88,816 89,152 89,397 89,569 89,686 89,761 89,791 89,768 89,694
Appliance 30,883 31,186 31,338 31,448 31,526 31,579 31,613 31,627 31,616 31,583
Lighting 3,062 3,222 3,302 3,361 3,402 3,429 3,447 3,455 3,449 3,431
Other 8,667 8,720 8,746 8,765 8,779 8,788 8,794 8,796 8,794 8,789
Total 284,513 286,881 288,066 288,929 289,538 289,948 290,214 290,322 290,239 289,978

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 63.5 64.0 64.3 64.5 64.6 64.7 64.7 64.8 64.7 64.7
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Appliance 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Total 79.7 80.3 80.6 80.9 81.0 81.1 81.2 81.2 81.2 81.2
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-1 Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 3.2
Residential Technical Potential By End-Use (MWh)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 70,368 70,909 71,180 71,377 71,516 71,610 71,671 71,695 71,676 71,617
Air handlers (heat)HVAC 1,445 1,456 1,462 1,466 1,469 1,471 1,472 1,472 1,472 1,471
Air conditioning HVAC 60,213 60,704 60,950 61,129 61,255 61,340 61,395 61,418 61,400 61,346
Air handlers (cool)HVAC 1,673 1,686 1,693 1,698 1,701 1,704 1,705 1,706 1,706 1,704
Ceiling fans HVAC 17,024 17,130 17,183 17,221 17,248 17,267 17,279 17,283 17,280 17,268
Dehumidifiers HVAC 3,033 3,051 3,060 3,067 3,072 3,075 3,077 3,078 3,077 3,075
Water heating Water Heating 88,145 88,816 89,152 89,397 89,569 89,686 89,761 89,791 89,768 89,694
Clothes washers Appliance 2,065 2,085 2,095 2,103 2,108 2,112 2,114 2,115 2,114 2,112
Clothes dryers Appliance 12,264 12,384 12,445 12,489 12,520 12,541 12,554 12,560 12,555 12,542
Lighting Lighting 3,062 3,222 3,302 3,361 3,402 3,429 3,447 3,455 3,449 3,431
Refrigerators Appliance 3,713 3,745 3,762 3,773 3,782 3,787 3,791 3,793 3,791 3,788
Second refrig. Appliance 8,046 8,116 8,151 8,177 8,195 8,207 8,215 8,218 8,216 8,208
Separate freezers Appliance 2,228 2,247 2,257 2,264 2,269 2,272 2,275 2,276 2,275 2,273
Cooking Appliance 936 942 945 947 949 950 951 951 951 950
Microwaves Appliance 484 487 489 490 491 491 491 492 491 491
Dishwashers Appliance 675 681 684 686 688 689 690 690 690 689
Most-used TVs Appliance 398 418 429 436 442 445 448 448 448 445
Second TVs Appliance 75 79 81 82 84 84 85 85 85 84
Pool pumps Other 967 973 976 978 980 981 981 982 981 981
Hot tub pumps Other 67 67 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
Hot tub heaters Other 246 247 248 249 249 249 250 250 250 249
Other Other 7,387 7,432 7,454 7,471 7,482 7,490 7,495 7,497 7,495 7,490
Total 284,513 286,881 288,066 288,929 289,538 289,948 290,214 290,322 290,239 289,978
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 3.3
Residential Technical Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air handlers (heat)HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air conditioning HVAC 60.2 60.7 60.9 61.1 61.3 61.3 61.4 61.4 61.4 61.3
Air handlers (cool)HVAC 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Ceiling fans HVAC 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Dehumidifiers HVAC 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
Water heating Water Heating 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Clothes washers Appliance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Clothes dryers Appliance 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
Lighting Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Refrigerators Appliance 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Second refrig. Appliance 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Separate freezers Appliance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Cooking Appliance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Microwaves Appliance 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Dishwashers Appliance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Most-used TVs Appliance 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Second TVs Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pool pumps Other 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Hot tub pumps Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hot tub heaters Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Other Other 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Total 79.7 80.3 80.6 80.9 81.0 81.1 81.2 81.2 81.2 81.2
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-2 Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

3.3 Economic Potential

A subset of technical potential, the economic potential represents those measures that pass the
total resource cost test (TRC). Of the 60 measures presented in the technical potential analysis,
18 measures yielded a benefit-cost greater that one and, therefore, passed the economic
screening test. As described previously, these results were then used to estimate economic
potential for the residential segment. The following tables present the results of the economic
potential estimates.
Table 3.4
Residential Economic Potential By Major End-Use Category
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 104,373 105,185 105,592 105,888 106,097 106,238 106,329 106,366 106,338 106,248
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 88,145 88,816 89,152 89,397 89,569 89,686 89,761 89,791 89,768 89,694
Appliance 16,051 16,194 16,265 16,317 16,354 16,379 16,395 16,401 16,396 16,381
Lighting 1,531 1,611 1,651 1,680 1,701 1,715 1,724 1,727 1,725 1,716
Other 3,506 3,528 3,538 3,546 3,552 3,555 3,558 3,559 3,558 3,555
Total 213,607 215,334 216,199 216,828 217,273 217,573 217,766 217,845 217,784 217,594

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 32.9 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.5 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.5
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Appliance 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total 44.6 45.0 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.4 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.4
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 3.5
Residential Economic Potential By End-Use (MWh)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 68,116 68,640 68,902 69,093 69,228 69,318 69,377 69,401 69,383 69,325
Air handlers (heat) HVAC 1,445 1,456 1,462 1,466 1,469 1,471 1,472 1,472 1,472 1,471
Air conditioning HVAC 30,107 30,352 30,475 30,564 30,628 30,670 30,698 30,709 30,700 30,673
Air handlers (cool) HVAC 1,673 1,686 1,693 1,698 1,701 1,704 1,705 1,706 1,706 1,704
Ceiling fans HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dehumidifiers HVAC 3,033 3,051 3,060 3,067 3,072 3,075 3,077 3,078 3,077 3,075
Water heating Water Heating 88,145 88,816 89,152 89,397 89,569 89,686 89,761 89,791 89,768 89,694
Clothes washers Appliance 2,065 2,085 2,095 2,103 2,108 2,112 2,114 2,115 2,114 2,112
Clothes dryers Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lighting Lighting 1,531 1,611 1,651 1,680 1,701 1,715 1,724 1,727 1,725 1,716
Refrigerators Appliance 3,713 3,745 3,762 3,773 3,782 3,787 3,791 3,793 3,791 3,788
Second refrig. Appliance 8,046 8,116 8,151 8,177 8,195 8,207 8,215 8,218 8,216 8,208
Separate freezers Appliance 2,228 2,247 2,257 2,264 2,269 2,272 2,275 2,276 2,275 2,273
Cooking Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Microwaves Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dishwashers Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most-used TVs Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Second TVs Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pool pumps Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hot tub pumps Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hot tub heaters Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Other 3,506 3,528 3,538 3,546 3,552 3,555 3,558 3,559 3,558 3,555
Total 213,607 215,334 216,199 216,828 217,273 217,573 217,766 217,845 217,784 217,594
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-3 Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 3.6
Residential Economic Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air handlers (heat) HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air conditioning HVAC 30.1 30.4 30.5 30.6 30.6 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7
Air handlers (cool) HVAC 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Ceiling fans HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dehumidifiers HVAC 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
Water heating Water Heating 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Clothes washers Appliance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Clothes dryers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lighting Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Refrigerators Appliance 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Second refrig. Appliance 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Separate freezers Appliance 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Cooking Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Microwaves Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dishwashers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Most-used TVs Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second TVs Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pool pumps Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hot tub pumps Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hot tub heaters Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Other 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total 44.6 45.0 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.4 45.5 45.5 45.5 45.4
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

3.4 Achievable Potential

As discussed in section 1.5, achievable potential removes the unrealistic “immediate adoption”
constraint of the technical and economic potential calculations and instead imagines the natural
adoption of energy efficiency measures under an aggressive incentive of 100 percent of
incremental measure cost. Of the 18 measures that passed the TRC screening test, all measures
yielded a benefit-cost greater than one from the participant screening test and, therefore, would
be considered for achievable energy efficiency potential. The following tables present the results
of the economic screening for the residential achievable potential.

Table 3.7
Residential Achievable Potential By Major End-Use Category
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 4,616 8,932 12,922 16,822 20,652 24,428 28,163 31,855 35,493 39,083
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 6,131 12,017 17,636 23,182 28,671 34,114 39,525 44,900 50,232 55,524
Appliance 1,717 3,373 4,961 6,530 8,085 9,629 11,164 12,690 13,262 13,824
Lighting 208 381 517 642 759 869 975 1,076 1,171 1,260
Other 284 558 822 1,084 1,343 1,601 1,857 2,112 2,366 2,618
Total 12,956 25,262 36,858 48,260 59,510 70,641 81,684 92,633 102,524 112,308

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 1.5 2.9 4.2 5.5 6.7 8.0 9.2 10.4 11.6 12.8
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.6
Appliance 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6
Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7
Total 2.4 4.7 6.8 8.9 10.9 13.0 15.0 17.0 18.8 20.7
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-4 Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 3.8
Residential Achievable Potential By End-Use (MWh)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 2,848 5,506 7,954 10,346 12,693 15,005 17,291 19,550 21,775 23,968
Air handlers (heat) HVAC 106 207 303 397 490 583 674 765 855 945
Air conditioning HVAC 1,275 2,459 3,547 4,607 5,647 6,670 7,681 8,679 9,661 10,629
Air handlers (cool) HVAC 124 241 352 462 570 677 783 888 992 1,095
Ceiling fans HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dehumidifiers HVAC 264 519 766 1,010 1,253 1,494 1,734 1,972 2,210 2,446
Water heating Water Heating 6,131 12,017 17,636 23,182 28,671 34,114 39,525 44,900 50,232 55,524
Clothes washers Appliance 166 324 471 617 760 901 1,041 1,180 1,318 1,454
Clothes dryers Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lighting Lighting 208 381 517 642 759 869 975 1,076 1,171 1,260
Refrigerators Appliance 294 573 837 1,097 1,354 1,608 1,860 2,111 2,358 2,603
Second refrig. Appliance 1,041 2,051 3,028 3,995 4,956 5,910 6,861 7,808 7,805 7,798
Separate freezers Appliance 217 425 625 821 1,016 1,209 1,401 1,592 1,781 1,969
Cooking Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Microwaves Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dishwashers Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most-used TVs Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Second TVs Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pool pumps Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hot tub pumps Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hot tub heaters Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Other 284 558 822 1,084 1,343 1,601 1,857 2,112 2,366 2,618
Total 12,956 25,262 36,858 48,260 59,510 70,641 81,684 92,633 102,524 112,308
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 3.9
Residential Achievable Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air handlers (heat) HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air conditioning HVAC 1.3 2.5 3.5 4.6 5.6 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.7 10.6
Air handlers (cool) HVAC 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
Ceiling fans HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dehumidifiers HVAC 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5
Water heating Water Heating 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.6
Clothes washers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Clothes dryers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lighting Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Refrigerators Appliance 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Second refrig. Appliance 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9
Separate freezers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Cooking Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Microwaves Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dishwashers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Most-used TVs Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second TVs Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pool pumps Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hot tub pumps Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hot tub heaters Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Other 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7
Total 2.4 4.7 6.8 8.9 10.9 13.0 15.0 17.0 18.8 20.7
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-5 Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

3.5 Program Potential

Program potential, the most realistic of the various potential estimates, is based on specific
assumptions of differing energy efficiency budget scenarios. Two scenarios were developed
based on total energy efficiency budgets of $1 million and $2 million, respectively. The incentive
levels for each of the measures was 35 percent of incremental cost to be consistent with the
previous filing. Of the measures that passed the TRC economic screening test, 18 measures
yielded a benefit-cost greater than one from the program perspective. The following tables present
the results of the economic screening for residential program portion of the total potential under
the $1 million budget scenario. Figure 3.1 compares graphically the benefit-cost ratios greater
than 1.0 of the top measures. Lighting, insulation, and water heat-related measures dominate the
field.
Figure 3.1
Residential Top (>1.0) Measures By Benefit-Cost Ratio (TRC)
18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0
Benefit-Cost Ratio

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Table 3.10
Residential Program Potential By Major End-Use Category ($1 Million Scenario)
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 928 1,857 2,785 3,714 4,642 5,571 6,499 7,428 8,356 9,285
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 2,224 4,448 6,672 8,896 11,120 13,344 15,568 17,792 20,017 22,241
Appliance 752 1,503 2,255 3,007 3,758 4,510 5,262 6,013 6,258 6,502
Lighting 48 96 144 192 239 287 335 383 431 479
Other 105 210 315 420 525 629 734 839 944 1,049
Total 4,057 8,114 12,171 16,228 20,285 24,342 28,399 32,456 36,005 39,555

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.2
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Appliance 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8
Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Total 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.6 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.3 5.9 6.5
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-6 Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 3.11
Residential Program Potential By End-Use (MWh) ($1 Million Scenario)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 521 1,041 1,562 2,082 2,603 3,124 3,644 4,165 4,686 5,206
Air handlers (heat) HVAC 33 66 98 131 164 197 230 262 295 328
Air conditioning HVAC 231 462 693 924 1,155 1,385 1,616 1,847 2,078 2,309
Air handlers (cool) HVAC 38 76 114 152 190 228 266 304 342 380
Ceiling fans HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dehumidifiers HVAC 106 212 318 424 530 637 743 849 955 1,061
Water heating Water Heating 2,224 4,448 6,672 8,896 11,120 13,344 15,568 17,792 20,017 22,241
Clothes washers Appliance 54 108 162 216 271 325 379 433 487 541
Clothes dryers Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lighting Lighting 48 96 144 192 239 287 335 383 431 479
Refrigerators Appliance 97 194 291 387 484 581 678 775 872 969
Second refrig. Appliance 507 1,015 1,522 2,030 2,537 3,045 3,552 4,060 4,060 4,060
Separate freezers Appliance 93 186 280 373 466 559 652 746 839 932
Cooking Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Microwaves Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dishwashers Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Most-used TVs Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Second TVs Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pool pumps Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hot tub pumps Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hot tub heaters Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Other 105 210 315 420 525 629 734 839 944 1,049
Total 4,057 8,114 12,171 16,228 20,285 24,342 28,399 32,456 36,005 39,555
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 3.12
Residential Program Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer) ($1 Million Scenario)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air handlers (heat) HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Air conditioning HVAC 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.3
Air handlers (cool) HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Ceiling fans HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dehumidifiers HVAC 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7
Water heating Water Heating 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Clothes washers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Clothes dryers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lighting Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Refrigerators Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Second refrig. Appliance 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
Separate freezers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Cooking Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Microwaves Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dishwashers Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Most-used TVs Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second TVs Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pool pumps Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hot tub pumps Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hot tub heaters Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Other 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Total 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.6 3.3 3.9 4.6 5.3 5.9 6.5
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-7 Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 3.13
Residential Program Potential By Major End-Use Category ($2 Million Scenario)
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 1,786 3,571 5,357 7,142 8,928 10,713 12,499 14,284 16,070 17,855
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 4,277 8,554 12,831 17,108 21,385 25,662 29,939 34,216 38,493 42,770
Appliance 1,446 2,891 4,337 5,782 7,228 8,673 10,119 11,564 12,034 12,503
Lighting 92 184 276 368 460 553 645 737 829 921
Other 202 403 605 807 1,009 1,210 1,412 1,614 1,816 2,017
Total 7,802 15,604 23,406 31,208 39,010 46,811 54,613 62,415 69,241 76,067

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.3 4.9 5.5 6.1
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.3
Appliance 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.5
Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6
Total 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.3 7.6 8.8 10.1 11.3 12.4
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 3-8 Residential Potential

 SECTION 4

NON-RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL
 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

4.0 Non-Residential Energy Efficiency Potential

4.1 Introduction
Section 4 presents the results from the various potential estimates for the non-residential
segment. The four potential categories presented are technical, economic, achievable and
program. Non-residential is assumed to consist of the commercial and industrial retail segments
and excludes accounts under direct serve agreements. The process and assumptions have been
described previously in sections 1 and 2.

4.2 Technical Potential

Technical potential represents an estimate of maximum energy efficiency potential. A total of the
73 non-residential measures passed the qualitative screening test and were modeled. The
following tables present the results of the technical potential analysis for the non-residential
energy efficiency measures.

Table 4.1
Non-Residential Technical Potential By Major End-Use Category
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 52,445 52,167 52,661 53,089 53,543 53,999 54,232 54,671 55,108 55,482
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 4,011 3,991 4,026 4,056 4,088 4,120 4,137 4,167 4,198 4,224
Lighting 58,293 58,003 58,516 58,962 59,433 59,907 60,149 60,606 61,060 61,449
Appliance 89,846 89,333 90,243 91,032 91,868 92,708 93,137 93,947 94,750 95,441
Other 23,775 23,658 23,866 24,045 24,236 24,427 24,525 24,710 24,893 25,050
Total 228,371 227,153 229,312 231,185 233,168 235,161 236,179 238,101 240,008 241,646

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 38.6 38.4 38.7 39.0 39.4 39.7 39.9 40.2 40.5 40.8
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Lighting 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0
Appliance 12.3 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.1 13.3 13.5 13.7
Other 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.6
Total 67.0 66.6 67.4 68.0 68.7 69.3 69.7 70.3 71.0 71.5
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 4.2
Non-Residential Technical Potential By End-Use (MWh)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 5,636 5,606 5,659 5,705 5,754 5,803 5,828 5,875 5,922 5,962
Space Cooling HVAC 27,387 27,241 27,499 27,723 27,960 28,198 28,319 28,549 28,777 28,972
Ventilation HVAC 19,423 19,320 19,503 19,662 19,830 19,998 20,085 20,247 20,409 20,548
Water Heating Water Heating 4,011 3,991 4,026 4,056 4,088 4,120 4,137 4,167 4,198 4,224
Lighting Lighting 58,293 58,003 58,516 58,962 59,433 59,907 60,149 60,606 61,060 61,449
Cooking Appliance 3,679 3,661 3,693 3,720 3,749 3,778 3,793 3,821 3,849 3,873
Refrigeration Appliance 84,052 83,634 84,374 85,017 85,696 86,380 86,729 87,388 88,041 88,603
Office Equipment Appliance 2,116 2,038 2,176 2,296 2,423 2,550 2,615 2,738 2,860 2,965
Other (incl. Process)Other 23,775 23,658 23,866 24,045 24,236 24,427 24,525 24,710 24,893 25,050
Total 228,371 227,153 229,312 231,185 233,168 235,161 236,179 238,101 240,008 241,646
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 4-1 Non-Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 4.3
Non-Residential Technical Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Space Cooling HVAC 27.4 27.2 27.5 27.7 28.0 28.2 28.3 28.5 28.8 29.0
Ventilation HVAC 11.2 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.7 11.8
Water Heating Water Heating 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Lighting Lighting 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0
Cooking Appliance 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Refrigeration Appliance 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.0
Office Equipment Appliance 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.0
Other (incl. Process)Other 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.6
Total 67.0 66.6 67.4 68.0 68.7 69.3 69.7 70.3 71.0 71.5
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

4.3 Economic Potential

A subset of technical potential, the economic potential represents those measures that pass the
Total Resource Cost test (TRC). Of the 73 non-residential measures that presented in the
technical potential screening, 45 measures yielded a benefit-cost greater than one, passing the
economic screening test and were used to estimate economic potential. The following tables
present the results of the economic potential estimates for the non-residential segment.

Table 4.4
Non-Residential Economic Potential By Major End-Use Category
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 35,934 35,743 36,082 36,375 36,686 36,999 37,158 37,459 37,758 38,015
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 3,971 3,952 3,986 4,016 4,047 4,079 4,095 4,126 4,156 4,182
Lighting 32,061 31,902 32,184 32,429 32,688 32,949 33,082 33,333 33,583 33,797
Appliance 67,756 67,420 68,016 68,534 69,082 69,633 69,914 70,445 70,972 71,425
Other 20,922 20,819 21,002 21,160 21,328 21,496 21,582 21,744 21,906 22,044
Total 160,645 159,836 161,270 162,514 163,831 165,155 165,831 167,108 168,375 169,463

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 24.9 24.7 25.0 25.2 25.4 25.6 25.7 25.9 26.1 26.3
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Lighting 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9
Appliance 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1
Other 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.5
Total 44.7 44.4 44.9 45.2 45.6 46.0 46.2 46.5 46.9 47.2
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 4-2 Non-Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 4.5
Non-Residential Economic Potential By End-Use (MWh)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 2,818 2,803 2,829 2,852 2,877 2,901 2,914 2,937 2,961 2,981
Space Cooling HVAC 13,693 13,621 13,749 13,861 13,980 14,099 14,160 14,274 14,388 14,486
Ventilation HVAC 19,423 19,320 19,503 19,662 19,830 19,998 20,085 20,247 20,409 20,548
Water Heating Water Heating 3,971 3,952 3,986 4,016 4,047 4,079 4,095 4,126 4,156 4,182
Lighting Lighting 32,061 31,902 32,184 32,429 32,688 32,949 33,082 33,333 33,583 33,797
Cooking Appliance 515 513 517 521 525 529 531 535 539 542
Refrigeration Appliance 67,241 66,907 67,499 68,013 68,557 69,104 69,383 69,910 70,433 70,882
Office Equipment Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (incl. Process)Other 20,922 20,819 21,002 21,160 21,328 21,496 21,582 21,744 21,906 22,044
Total 160,645 159,836 161,270 162,514 163,831 165,155 165,831 167,108 168,375 169,463
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 4.6
Non-Residential Economic Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Space Cooling HVAC 13.7 13.6 13.7 13.9 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5
Ventilation HVAC 11.2 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.7 11.8
Water Heating Water Heating 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Lighting Lighting 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9
Cooking Appliance 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Refrigeration Appliance 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9 8.0 8.0
Office Equipment Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other (incl. Process)Other 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.5
Total 44.7 44.4 44.9 45.2 45.6 46.0 46.2 46.5 46.9 47.2
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

4.4 Achievable Potential

Of the 45 measures that passed the TRC screening test, all measures yielded a benefit-cost
greater than one from the participant perspective under the aggressive incremental cost
assumption. The following tables present the results of the economic screening for the non-
residential achievable potential.
Table 4.7
Non-Residential Achievable Potential By Major End-Use Category
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 3,193 5,222 7,754 10,243 12,749 15,256 17,617 20,114 22,608 25,063
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 406 693 1,032 1,366 1,703 2,039 2,360 2,695 3,030 3,361
Lighting 3,032 5,092 7,572 10,017 12,475 14,934 17,272 19,723 22,172 24,587
Appliance 7,985 13,918 20,737 27,482 34,255 41,031 47,550 54,308 61,061 67,743
Other 2,289 3,950 5,882 7,791 9,709 11,627 13,468 15,381 17,293 19,183
Total 16,904 28,875 42,976 56,898 70,889 84,887 98,268 112,221 126,164 139,937

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 2.2 3.6 5.4 7.1 8.8 10.6 12.2 13.9 15.6 17.3
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
Lighting 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8
Appliance 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.7 5.4 6.2 6.9 7.7
Other 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.6 7.4
Total 4.4 7.4 11.0 14.5 18.0 21.6 25.0 28.5 32.1 35.6
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 4-3 Non-Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 4.8
Non-Residential Achievable Potential By End-Use (MWh)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 250 409 608 803 1,000 1,196 1,382 1,577 1,773 1,965
Space Cooling HVAC 1,217 1,990 2,955 3,903 4,858 5,813 6,713 7,665 8,615 9,550
Ventilation HVAC 1,726 2,823 4,191 5,536 6,891 8,246 9,523 10,872 12,220 13,547
Water Heating Water Heating 406 693 1,032 1,366 1,703 2,039 2,360 2,695 3,030 3,361
Lighting Lighting 3,032 5,092 7,572 10,017 12,475 14,934 17,272 19,723 22,172 24,587
Cooking Appliance 49 84 125 165 205 246 285 325 365 405
Refrigeration Appliance 7,935 13,834 20,612 27,317 34,049 40,785 47,266 53,983 60,695 67,338
Office Equipment Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (incl. Process)Other 2,289 3,950 5,882 7,791 9,709 11,627 13,468 15,381 17,293 19,183
Total 16,904 28,875 42,976 56,898 70,889 84,887 98,268 112,221 126,164 139,937
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 4.9
Non-Residential Achievable Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Space Cooling HVAC 1.2 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.9 5.8 6.7 7.7 8.6 9.6
Ventilation HVAC 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.7 5.5 6.3 7.0 7.8
Water Heating Water Heating 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
Lighting Lighting 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8
Cooking Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Refrigeration Appliance 0.9 1.6 2.3 3.1 3.9 4.6 5.4 6.1 6.9 7.6
Office Equipment Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other (incl. Process)Other 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.6 7.4
Total 4.4 7.4 11.0 14.5 18.0 21.6 25.0 28.5 32.1 35.6
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

4.5 Program Potential

As mentioned in section 3.5, two program scenarios were developed based on $1 million and $2
million total budgets (residential and non-residential combined). The selected incentive level for
each of the measures was 35 percent of incremental cost. Of the measures that passed the TRC
screening test, 45 measures yielded a benefit-cost greater than one under the program analysis.
The following tables present the results of the economic screening for the non-residential program
portion of potential under the $1 million budget scenario. The following chart compares graphically
the non-residential benefit-cost ratios greater than 1.0 of the top-20 measures. A broad mix of
measure-types make up the list.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 4-4 Non-Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Figure 4.1
Non-Residential Top 20 Measures By Benefit-Cost Ratio (TRC)

14.0

12.0

10.0
Benefit-Cost Ratio

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

Table 4.10
Non-Residential Program Potential By Major End-Use Category ($1 Million Scenario)
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 844 1,688 2,532 3,376 4,219 5,063 5,907 6,751 7,595 8,439
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 146 291 437 583 728 874 1,019 1,165 1,311 1,456
Lighting 954 1,908 2,862 3,816 4,771 5,725 6,679 7,633 8,587 9,541
Appliance 3,518 7,036 10,553 14,071 17,589 21,107 24,625 28,142 31,660 35,178
Other 907 1,814 2,721 3,627 4,534 5,441 6,348 7,255 8,162 9,068
Total 6,368 12,737 19,105 25,473 31,841 38,210 44,578 50,946 57,315 63,683

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.6 5.2 5.8
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Lighting 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Appliance 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Other 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.5
Total 1.5 2.9 4.4 5.8 7.3 8.7 10.2 11.6 13.1 14.5
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 4-5 Non-Residential Potential

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

Table 4.11
Non-Residential Program Potential By End-Use (MWh) ($1 Million Scenario)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 64 128 192 255 319 383 447 511 575 639
Space Cooling HVAC 310 621 931 1,242 1,552 1,862 2,173 2,483 2,794 3,104
Ventilation HVAC 470 939 1,409 1,878 2,348 2,818 3,287 3,757 4,227 4,696
Water Heating Water Heating 146 291 437 583 728 874 1,019 1,165 1,311 1,456
Lighting Lighting 954 1,908 2,862 3,816 4,771 5,725 6,679 7,633 8,587 9,541
Cooking Appliance 16 32 49 65 81 97 113 130 146 162
Refrigeration Appliance 3,502 7,003 10,505 14,006 17,508 21,010 24,511 28,013 31,514 35,016
Office Equipment Appliance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other (incl. Process)Other 907 1,814 2,721 3,627 4,534 5,441 6,348 7,255 8,162 9,068
Total 6,368 12,737 19,105 25,473 31,841 38,210 44,578 50,946 57,315 63,683
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 4.12
Non-Residential Program Potential By End-Use (MW - Summer) ($1 Million Scenario)
End-Use Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Space Heating HVAC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Space Cooling HVAC 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1
Ventilation HVAC 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.7
Water Heating Water Heating 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Lighting Lighting 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Cooking Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Refrigeration Appliance 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0
Office Equipment Appliance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other (incl. Process)Other 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.5
Total 1.5 2.9 4.4 5.8 7.3 8.7 10.2 11.6 13.1 14.5
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Table 4.13
Non-Residential Program Potential By Major End-Use Category ($2 Million Scenario)
Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 1,623 3,246 4,869 6,491 8,114 9,737 11,360 12,983 14,606 16,229
Energy (MWh)

Water Heating 280 560 840 1,120 1,400 1,680 1,961 2,241 2,521 2,801
Lighting 1,835 3,670 5,505 7,339 9,174 11,009 12,844 14,679 16,514 18,349
Appliance 6,765 13,530 20,295 27,060 33,825 40,590 47,355 54,120 60,885 67,650
Other 1,744 3,488 5,232 6,976 8,720 10,463 12,207 13,951 15,695 17,439
Total 12,247 24,493 36,740 48,987 61,233 73,480 85,727 97,974 110,220 122,467

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
HVAC 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.5 5.6 6.7 7.8 8.9 10.0 11.2
Demand (MW)

Water Heating 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Lighting 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1
Appliance 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.1 3.8 4.6 5.4 6.2 6.9 7.7
Other 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.0 6.7
Total 2.8 5.6 8.4 11.2 14.0 16.8 19.6 22.3 25.1 27.9
Note: MISO Summer Peak
Note: Cumulative Annual Impact

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 4-6 Non-Residential Potential

 SECTION 5

DEMAND RESPONSE
ANALYSIS
 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

5.0 Demand Response Analysis

5.1 Introduction
In recent years, more electric utilities around the country have implemented both load control
programs and innovative pricing techniques to achieve reductions in peak demand for power.
Currently about 50% of investor-owned utilities nationwide offer optional time-differentiated rates
for residential customers.8 At present, less than 2% residential customers have elected to use
them, but this is changing rapidly. Following several large-scale pilots, California is in the process
of implementing default TOU rates for all regulated electric utilities that will apply to more than 20
million customers.

A recent report by the Brattle Group reviewed existing demand response (DR) in the U.S. It
showed existing peak capacity could be reduced by 6.7 percent of current load under existing
structures and systems. The report also highlighted that traditional DR deployment has largely
stagnated and that new, more flexible and complex systems would be needed to expand the
penetration of DR.

The benefits of load management and more accurate and transparent wholesale price signals
can result in resource cost reductions by forestalling generation, transmission, and distribution
investment. This section describes a number of these measures and presents multi-perspective
model results for consideration.

5.2 Demand Response Considerations

There are several factors to consider in the evaluation of load control and time-differentiated
pricing. This section discusses some of these factors.

5.2.1 Demand Response Benefits and Costs

When properly designed and implemented, time-differentiated power pricing and load control can
provide certain benefits, including:
 Reductions in customers’ bills by shifting usage to lower cost periods or avoidance of high
cost periods.
 Reductions in power consumption during high-cost periods that may serve to avoid future
capital investment and operating costs required to meet peak demand.
 Closer alignment with actual cost causation principles by having retail electric rates
reflective of marginal generation costs (better price signals).

There are also potential costs and barriers associated with time-differentiated pricing and load
control. These can include:
 Metering Infrastructure:
o Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), which allows for measurement and data
collection of high frequency time stamped energy use, is not required for time-of-
use (TOU) rates because the period and pricing are fixed up-front. Meters would,
however, need to be set up and programmed for TOU metering.
o AMI interval metering is required for load management, real-time pricing, critical
peak pricing, and peak-time rebate programs.

8 Brattle Group, 2019

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 5-1 Demand Response Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

 The cost of devices that enable greater savings and usage control under the program. For
example, some utilities provide free smart thermostats to customers that enroll in TOU
programs to enable load shifting and increase program benefits.
 Inconvenience, loss of comfort, or even health and safety issues for consumers when
reducing air-conditioning or space heating usage on, respectively, very hot or cold days,
or shifting power consuming activities to inconvenient times of day.
 Increased customer exposure to volatile wholesale power prices.
 Higher bills for those customers with higher on-peak consumption that is difficult or
impossible to avoid.
 Administrative burdens associated with rate studies (to design the rates), load
management, metering, billing, and back office functions.

5.2.2 Demand Response Structural Considerations

Designing successful demand response programs involves substantial up-front analysis of key
system data. A review of Big Rivers’ system load shape during seasonal peak days over the past
five years reveals several insights into Big Rivers’ load profile and the implications for load
management:
 The summer afternoon/evening load shape is very flat from 2:00pm to 8:00pm. Any
shifting of load to off-peak periods would need a load control strategy lasting many hours
and could prove to be extremely difficult due to member acceptance and comfort issues.
 Big Rivers’ winter peak demand generally occurs during the morning hours, however the
difference between morning and evening peaks is so close that any load control would
likely need to cover both periods, making it difficult to find adequate time to shift load.

Figure 5.1
Big Rivers Average Peak Day Load Shape 2015-2019 (MW)
550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Summer Winter

There is one very important caveat to the discussion of load management as it pertains to demand
response. All the analysis and modeling is backward looking with perfect knowledge of the daily
load shape and makes the assumption that Big Rivers would be able to hit the peak hours 100
percent of the time. In actual practice, predicting any day’s hourly loads is far more difficult to
achieve and would likely require longer periods of control that still would have an error rate
attached that would make actual experience less accurate. This can have impacts on customer
acceptance and comfort.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 5-2 Demand Response Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

5.2.3 Dynamic Market Pricing Structural Considerations

To provide appropriate price signals to member utilities, and subsequently to end-users through
retail rate design, wholesale power rates should follow generation and transmission cost drivers.
For example, if the generating utility’s demand-related costs are driven by the necessity of
meeting system coincident peak demand, its demand charges should be based on some measure
of the member’s contribution to the system coincident peak. Since energy-related costs vary with
the time-of-day during which energy is consumed, wholesale energy rates should be time-
differentiated. TOU pilot programs around the U.S. and elsewhere can provide some lessons:
 Participants respond to on-peak/off-peak price differentials by reducing on-peak power
usage. The ratio of the on-peak price to the off-peak prices creates the incentive for load
reductions during on-peak periods and, not surprisingly, is the primary driver of customer
response to TOU rates. The bigger the on-peak to off-peak price ratio, the bigger the
response. A review of recent economic studies of various TOU programs around the
country indicates that customer response is minimal with on-peak to off-peak price ratios
of less than 2/1, resulting in on-peak usage reductions of only 1% to 8%. Ratios of between
5/1 and 10/1 can produce load shifts of between 10% to 25%. The highest response to
TOU rate is found among customers with larger homes, higher household income and
retirees.9
 Higher response rates depend on the availability of enabling technologies. Enabling
technologies include programmable thermostats, advanced thermostats, timer controls on
water heaters, “4-hour delay” buttons already on most dishwashers, washing machines
and dryers manufactured since 1995, and the “smart” appliances that are currently
beginning to appear on the market.
 Customer education is critical to TOU program success, ranging from providing
information on when peak, off-peak and super peak periods are in effect, advising
customers on ways to reduce usage during on-peak periods, providing reminders
seasonally or otherwise and, especially, making enabling technologies available through
participation in the program. Customers tend to participate in voluntary TOU rate programs
if they think they will save money.
 Rate design is critically important. If the TOU rate is designed properly, an average
residential customer who does not change their behavior should be revenue neutral (i.e.
they should pay the same). However, no individual within a customer class is “average”,
so to a limited extent there will be winners and losers among consumers that do not
change their previous usage patterns in response to time-differentiated price signals.
Those with high on-peak demands and little flexibility will likely pay higher rates under a
TOU structure.
 Underestimating the cost and effort associated with billing, customer information system
modifications, customer service representative training and other operational efforts
necessary to implement time-differentiated rates can affect success of these programs.

The results presented below are generalized to gauge the relative effectiveness of these two
options. Before any program could be implemented, significant additional downstream analysis
would be required. This includes detailed load research studies to determine if implementation
would be successful.

9 Utility Dive 2019, Iowa Power Study 1993, Brattle Group 2019

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 5-3 Demand Response Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

5.3 Load Management and Control

This section presents the options for load management that were evaluated as part of this study.

5.3.1 Background
Load management includes the interruption of select appliances or portions of load, either for brief
or extended periods. While large commercial and industrial (C&I) end-users have the largest
curtailable loads and often provide the majority of peak load reduction potential (especially in
more urban areas), some utilities aggregate small but equally valuable loads in the residential
sector such as air conditioning and electric water heating for load management purposes. These
programs can be voluntary (if appropriately metered) or automatic and can rely on aggregate
power savings or utilize advanced metering and meter-reading devices. The following load control
measures were evaluated in the economic screening:

 Cycling of central air conditioning (25%)

 Cycling of central air conditioning (50%)
 Cycling of electric water heating (25%)
 Cycling of electric water heating (50%)
 Peak-Time Rebate (Residential)
 Direct Load Control (Non-Residential)

5.3.2 Central-Air Conditioner Cycling

Cycling of central air-conditioners attempts to “flatten” the peak, shifting load to hours outside the
peak window. Care needs to be exercised so that a secondary bounce-back peak does not occur.
For the purposes of this study, two options were evaluated. The first looked at four cycling groups
such that only 25 percent of air conditioners were controlled at any moment during the peak period
while the second evaluated two control groups (50% control). The control window was assumed
to an afternoon summer peak window of six hours. Table 5.1 presents the results. Neither option
passed the three perspectives shown below (Total Resource Cost, Utility and Participant).

Table 5.1
Central Air Conditioner Cycling Program Benefit-Cost Ratios
Program TRC Utility Participant
Air Conditioner Cycling (25%) 0.5 0.2 2.2
Air Conditioner Cycling (50%) 1.0 0.5 2.2

5.3.3 Electric Storage Water Heater Cycling

Like air-conditioners, a cycling program was developed for water heating assuming the same set
of criteria. Table 5.2 presents the results of the water heater cycling options modeled. Neither
option passed all three perspective analyses in the table below.
Table 5.2
Electric Storage Water Heater Cycling Program Benefit-Cost Ratios
Program TRC Utility Participant
Water Heater Cycling (25%) 0.1 0.0 2.2
Water Heater Cycling (50%) 0.2 0.1 2.2

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 5-4 Demand Response Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

5.3.4 Peak-Time Rebate (Residential)

Peak-time rebates (PTR) are an interesting option for load control in that they rely on voluntary
choice by members to control energy use in exchange for a direct bill credit. As such, they do not
require expensive equipment to implement. The assumptions for the PTR program modeled
include 10 control events per year including approximately 20 hours of event control and an
incentive of $1 per kWh reduced. Rebates are calculated using statistical modeling to determine
the amount of energy saved during peak periods. Table 5.3 presents the results and shows that
this type of program could result in cost-effective reductions.

Table 5.3
Peak-Time Rebate (PTR) Program Benefit-Cost Ratios
Program TRC Utility Participant
Residential PTR 8.1 1.0 5.8

5.3.5 Direct Load Control (Non-Residential)

Direct load control of non-residential facilities (in part or whole) is most often paired with backup
generation equipment to avoid loss of production for the commercial and industrial entities. The
assumptions utilized here include 350 kW of control over the 100 hours each year with the highest
MISO market price. Two separate options were evaluated. One where the ownership of the
backup equipment rests with the end-user and the other where Big Rivers would own the
equipment.10 The differential between the market price and system average market rate was split
between the end-user and Big Rivers as an incentive.

Table 5.4
Direct Load Control (DLC) Program Benefit-Cost Ratios
Program TRC Utility Participant
DLC (Customer Ownership) 0.8 18.7 0.3
DLC (Utility Ownership) 0.8 0.7 1.3

5.4 Dynamic Pricing and Rate Options

Time-differentiated rates have been increasingly proposed and implemented in recent years.
Time-differentiated rates allow utilities to charge customers not only based on how much energy
they consume, but when they consume it, and are therefore more closely related to cost
incurrence than flat rates.

5.4.1 Background
Time-differentiated rate structures include time-of-use (TOU), critical peak pricing (CPP), and
real-time pricing (RTP). The most common form of time-differentiated electric rates in practice is
TOU rates which divide electric usage into two or three blocks according to the time of day in
which it is consumed, applying higher rates to historically high cost times. Time-differentiated
periods can include on-peak, super peak, shoulder and off-peak, with defined durations and
seasonality. Most systems peak on hot summer days, but some systems peak during the winter
heating season.

10DLC without backup generation was not modeled due to the inherent issues with interrupting economic
production in non-residential commercial customers.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 5-5 Demand Response Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

CPP rates are designed to shave system peaks during periods when wholesale power prices are
very high, typically due to extreme outdoor temperature. RTP rates pass through actual hourly
wholesale prices allowing consumers to respond according to their preferences, usually with a
look-back period or true-up mechanism.

TOU rates are static but typically subject to periodic power cost adjustment mechanisms. RTP,
and CPP rates are dynamic because they reflect actual market power prices and involve
notification protocols which alert customers to high cost periods to which they may respond by
reducing demand. TOU rates can be implemented using meters with at least as many registers
as there are pricing periods. Dynamic pricing, where retail prices vary with real-time system
conditions, requires interval meters to implement and communication systems for end-users to
monitor prices.

For the purposes of this study, two different time-of-use style rates were evaluated: a time of use
rate reflective of Big Rivers’ wholesale market (MISO) and a time-of-use rate designed to deter
plug-in electric vehicle use during peak periods. A third option looking specifically at plug-in
electric vehicles was also evaluated.

 Market-Based Time-of-Use (TOU)

 Market-Based Critical Peak (CPP)
 Plug-In Electric Vehicle TOU

5.4.2 Market-Based TOU

As discussed in section 5.2.3, the differential between on-peak and off-peak price is a critical
component to achieving the desired effects of pushing energy use out of the peak window. One
of the biggest detriments to implementing this for Big Rivers is the fact that MISO market prices
(specifically Zone 6) are very low and the differential between the two periods is small
(approximately 1.1 cents per kWh). Despite that fact, two programs were modeled. The first is a
standard static TOU rate based on the market price differential between on and off-peak periods.
The second was a CPP super-peak based on the highest priced 100 hours where the peak period
is approximately six times higher.

The results for both programs show that these programs pass the economic tests despite the
lower differentials. This is because all three Big Rivers cooperatives have already implemented
AMI-AMR infrastructure, removing a key up-front cost from the analysis. The bigger question,
especially for the TOU option is whether the low-price differential would achieve the results
assumed here. Research suggests that greater peak to non-peak price ratios are required for
meaningful peak kW reduction.11 Table 5.5 presents the results of the time-of-use pricing program
options.
Table 5.5
Time-of-Use Program Benefit-Cost Ratios
Program TRC Utility Participant
Residential TOU 2.9 4.8 4.0
Residential CPP 7.3 12.2 13.3
Non-Residential TOU 3.4 20.5 17.6
Non-Residential CPP 1.3 6.8 6.5

11 “An Emerging Push…”, Utility Dive, 2019.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 5-6 Demand Response Analysis

 Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC

5.4.3 Plug-In Electric Vehicle TOU

Plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) represent an interesting challenge to utilities. As the vehicle market
changes and more plug-in electric vehicles are purchased, the potential capacity and energy
impact on utilities could be dramatic once a critical threshold is reached. Current market
penetration is low, but sales continue to grow as a percentage of vehicle purchases. A typical
level 2 charger can average 4-12 kW in demand (sometimes more). While there is some data to
support a diversified kW estimate, the reality of how vehicles will be re-charged in rural areas is
still very much unknown and will be based on driving patterns, commute times and battery range.

A review of EV programs around the country shows that there is split between the “punitive”
pricing TOU and simply using 5:1 ratio TOUs that apply to all customers.12 The analysis in Table
5.6 presents the results based on a $0.50 per kWh peak price to incentivize end-users to charge
outside of the peak window.

Table 5.6
Electric Vehicle Time-of-Use Program Benefit-Cost Ratios
Program TRC Utility Participant
Plug-In EV TOU 0.6 1.2 5.9

5.5 Summary
While both load control and time-differentiated pricing are worthwhile objectives, they require
additional studies and extensive analysis beyond the scope of this study before implementation
could occur. Based on the results presented here, we recommend further evaluation with
movement in the direction of wholesale pricing based on cost causation to support cost-effective
load management incentives.

With the possible exception of the PTR program, based on the information about Big Rivers’ peak
day load shapes and results obtained from the TRC tests, it is not recommended that Big Rivers
pursue an integrated load management program at this time. Big Rivers may wish to re-evaluate
load management in the future as its load shape and avoided costs change.

12It is assumed the same 5:1 TOU ratio of pricing netting a 10% reduction would apply. Further analysis
would be needed to determine if this would be enough to avoid the impending peak increases under a full
market transformation scenario.

Big Rivers Electric Corporation 5-7 Demand Response Analysis

 APPENDIX A

APPLIANCE STANDARDS
CHANGE LIST
Big Rivers Electric Corporation A-1 Appliance Standards Change List
Big Rivers Electric Corporation A-2 Non-Residential Potential
 APPENDIX B

DEMAND-SIDE
MEASURE LIST
Big Rivers Electric Corporation B-1 Demand-Side Measure List
Big Rivers Electric Corporation B-2 Demand-Side Measure List
Big Rivers Electric Corporation B-3 Demand-Side Measure List
Big Rivers Electric Corporation B-4 Demand-Side Measure List
 APPENDIX C

MULTI-PERSPECTIVE
MODEL RESULTS
Big Rivers Electric Corporation
Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation Summary - Residential
April 2020
Total Simple
Annual Summer Winter Resource Lifetime Payback
Class Measure Measure Code kWh Peak kW Peak kW Participant Program Cost RIM $/kWh (yrs)
Water Heat Hot Water Pipe Wrap WH Pipe Wrap 242 0.03 0.03 47.7 39.4 15.9 0.3 $0.008 1.9
Water Heat Low Flow Faucet Aerator Replacement LF Faucet 77 0.01 0.01 32.8 26.7 10.7 0.3 $0.010 2.2
Appliance Clothes Washer Clothes Washer 279 0.04 0.04 10.7 2.9 3.4 0.4 $0.038 0.0
Water Heat Shower Start Showerhead Showerstart 394 0.02 0.02 8.4 6.5 2.6 0.3 $0.008 0.6
Shell Sidewall Insulation Retrofit Sidewall Insulation 1297 0.16 0.30 6.9 6.2 2.5 0.4 $0.004 1.8
Appliance Refrigerator Removal and Recycling Refrig. Removal 1027 0.13 0.13 6.1 1.5 1.8 0.3 $0.002 0.0
Shell Exterior Windows Upgrade Windows 363 0.06 0.12 4.7 4.3 1.7 0.4 $0.007 2.6
Appliance Freezer Removal and Recycling Freezer Removal 894 0.15 0.15 5.4 1.4 1.6 0.4 $0.057 0.0
Water Heat Low Flow Showerhead Replacement LF Showerhead 186 0.01 0.01 5.0 3.8 1.5 0.3 $0.001 0.2
Shell Attic Insulation Retrofit Attic Insulation 5187 0.32 1.28 4.4 3.6 1.5 0.4 $0.007 2.9
HVAC High Efficiency Air Source Heat Pump ASHP 1554 0.30 0.55 4.2 3.5 1.4 0.4 $0.008 2.2
Lighting LED Lighting Fixture Replacement LED Fixture 44 0.01 0.00 4.3 3.4 1.4 0.3 $0.007 1.8
Lighting LED Night Light LED Nightlight 22 0.00 0.00 4.7 3.3 1.3 0.3 $0.009 2.1
Lighting LED Lighting Retrofit LED Lighting 5 0.00 0.01 4.6 3.3 1.3 0.3 $0.008 1.4
Shell Wall Insulation Retrofit Wall Insulation 2596 0.04 0.67 3.7 2.9 1.2 0.4 $0.009 3.5
Lighting LED Flood LED Flood 54 0.00 0.01 3.9 2.7 1.1 0.3 $0.026 4.0
Water Heat Heat Pump Water Heater HPWH>55 3366 0.34 0.87 3.5 2.8 1.1 0.3 $0.009 2.1
Water Heat Heat Pump Water Heater HPWH<55 2732 0.27 0.71 3.4 2.8 1.0 0.3 $0.010 2.2
HVAC Room AC Recycling Room AC Recyc. 113 0.11 0.00 2.0 2.1 0.8 0.4 $0.022 0.7
Appliance Smart Strip Smart Strip 59 0.01 0.01 3.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 $0.000 0.0
Appliance Clothes Dryer Clothes Dryer 160 0.03 0.03 3.4 0.7 0.8 0.4 $0.025 3.9
Water Heat Water Heater Wrap WH Tank Wrap 99 0.01 0.01 2.6 1.9 0.8 0.3 $0.015 2.4
Water Heat Thermostatic Restriction Valve Therm. Restr. 78 0.01 0.01 2.5 1.8 0.7 0.3 $0.004 0.7
HVAC Dehumidifier Recycling Dehumid. Recyc. 139 0.04 0.00 2.3 1.8 0.7 0.5 $0.001 0.2
Appliance Dishwasher Dishwasher 84 0.03 0.03 2.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 $0.009 0.0
HVAC Air Conditioner / Heat Pump Tune Up HVAC Tune Up 1637 0.28 0.44 2.1 1.6 0.7 0.3 $0.035 5.4
HVAC Advanced Programmable Thermostat Adv. Thermostat 286 0.15 0.15 1.7 1.5 0.6 0.3 $0.054 15.4
HVAC Central Air Conditioning System Central AC 171 0.15 0.00 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.5 $0.031 8.8
Shell Air Sealing Retrofit Air Sealing 577 0.09 0.46 1.6 1.1 0.5 0.3 $0.024 5.8
Lighting Ceiling Fan Ceiling Fan 135 0.00 0.00 1.7 1.0 0.4 0.3 $0.039 0.0
HVAC Duct Sealing Retrofit Duct Sealing 1107 0.07 0.50 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 $0.018 2.2
HVAC Ground Source Heat Pump GSHP 5125 0.32 1.35 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.5 $0.086 12.1
HVAC Standard Programmable Thermostat Prog. Thermostat 70 0.00 0.00 1.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 $0.029 8.1
HVAC ECM Furnace Fan ECM Fan 248 0.20 0.20 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 $0.027 8.6
HVAC Mini-Split System AC Mini-Split AC 1853 0.06 0.39 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.5 $0.022 2.7
Water Heat Gravity Film Heat Exchanger (GFX) GFX 208 0.02 0.02 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 $0.001 0.1

Big Rivers Electric Corporation C-1 Multi-Perspective Model Results

Big Rivers Electric Corporation
Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation Summary - C&I
April 2020
Total Simple
Annual Summer Winter Resource Lifetime Payback
Class Measure Measure Code kWh Peak kW Peak kW Participant Program Cost RIM $/kWh (yrs)
Lighting Lighting Power Density Reduction Dens. Red. Parking Garage 8,760 1.00 1.00 28.0 32.5 13.1 0.5 $0.001 0.2
HVAC Insulate HVAC Pipes (boiler/AC) HVAC Pipe Ins. 113 0.04 0.04 20.6 28.6 11.5 0.6 $0.001 0.5
Shell Window Replacement Upgrade Window Repl. 363 0.06 0.00 16.3 21.5 8.7 0.5 $0.001 0.7
Water Heat Faucet Aerators Faucet Aerators 279 0.03 0.03 17.7 20.5 8.2 0.5 $0.001 0.3
HVAC Insulate Ductwork Duct Ins. 32 0.01 0.01 13.8 19.8 8.0 0.6 $0.002 0.9
Lighting Lighting Power Density Reduction Dens. Red. Interior 4,319 1.00 1.00 14.0 17.4 7.0 0.5 $0.002 0.4
Appliance Commercial Dishwashers Dish Washer 11,863 1.81 1.81 13.2 15.7 6.3 0.5 $0.002 0.6
Lighting Lighting Power Density Reduction Dens. Red. Exterior 2669 1.00 1.00 10.5 14.4 5.8 0.5 $0.002 0.7
RefrigerationOccupancy Sensors in Commercial Refrig Refrig. Occ. Sensor 195 0.02 0.02 9.0 10.0 4.0 0.4 $0.003 0.9
Lighting LED Lighting Controls LED Wall Controls 575 0.03 0.05 7.1 7.7 3.1 0.4 $0.004 0.6
HVAC VFDs for HVAC Applications HVAC VFD Tier 2 1490 0.22 0.22 6.6 7.5 3.0 0.5 $0.004 1.2
Lighting LED Lighting Controls LED Fixture Dimmable 575 0.16 0.16 6.1 7.5 3.0 0.5 $0.004 0.8
HVAC Hi-Eff Air Source Heat Pump ASHP 7143 3.57 3.57 5.0 3.9 2.9 0.5 $0.009 1.6
Appliance Air Compressor Efficiency Air Comp. 624 0.09 0.09 5.8 6.8 2.7 0.5 $0.005 0.1
HVAC Commercial ECM Blower Motors for HVAC ECM Motor 240 0.22 0.22 4.0 6.7 2.7 0.7 $0.007 1.5
HVAC High Efficiency Water-Cooled Chillers - HVAC Reciprocating 12789 6.44 0.00 4.5 6.6 2.7 0.6 $0.005 2.3
Appliance High Efficiency Motors Motors 7,387 0.41 0.41 6.0 6.4 2.6 0.4 $0.004 1.3
Lighting LED Lighting Controls LED Remote Dimmable 575 0.16 0.16 4.7 5.8 2.3 0.5 $0.006 1.0
HVAC VFDs for HVAC Applications HVAC VFD Tier 1 1,122 0.16 0.16 5.0 5.7 2.3 0.4 $0.005 1.6
Water Heat Heat Pump Water Heaters HP Water Heat 21,156 4.20 4.20 4.8 5.6 2.2 0.5 $0.005 1.7
RefrigerationRefrigerator Low-Heat and No-Heat Doors Low-Heat Doors 6,719 0.69 0.69 5.0 5.4 2.2 0.4 $0.005 1.3
Lighting LED Exit Sign Retrofit LED Exit 83 0.10 0.10 2.8 5.3 2.1 0.8 $0.009 3.2
Water Heat Low-Flow Showerheads LF Shower 250 0.02 0.02 4.7 5.0 2.0 0.4 $0.006 1.2
HVAC HVAC Split and Unitary Systems HVAC SplitSys 2,967 1.48 1.48 3.5 2.4 2.0 0.5 $0.014 3.0
Lighting LED Lighting Controls LED Ceiling Controls 575 0.03 0.05 4.7 4.9 2.0 0.4 $0.006 1.0
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 8T8 - 1000W HID 2005 0.46 0.46 3.9 4.5 1.8 0.5 $0.007 1.7
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 8T8 - 1000W HID 2,005 0.46 0.46 3.9 4.5 1.8 0.5 $0.007 1.7
Water Heat Hot Water Pipe Wrap WH Pipe Wrap 14 0.01 0.01 2.9 4.4 1.8 0.6 $0.009 3.8
RefrigerationRefrigerator Automatic Door Closers Refrig. Closers 1,625 0.22 0.22 3.9 4.3 1.7 0.4 $0.007 1.2
HVAC Window Air Conditioning for C&I Window AC 52 0.06 0.00 2.2 4.2 1.7 0.7 $0.011 5.0
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 4T5-250W HID 882 0.20 0.20 3.5 4.1 1.6 0.5 $0.007 1.9
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 6T8 - 400W HID 961 0.22 0.22 3.3 3.7 1.5 0.5 $0.008 2.1
Cooking Commercial Ovens & Fryers Ovens 1879 0.43 0.43 3.1 3.5 1.4 0.4 $0.008 2.2
Appliance Commercial Advanced Power Strips Adv. Power Strip 354 0.04 0.04 3.1 3.3 1.3 0.4 $0.009 1.7
Appliance High Efficiency Pumps Hi-E Pumps >=5hp 201 0.05 0.05 2.8 3.3 1.3 0.5 $0.009 3.0
Cooking Steam Cookers 6-pan 15170 3.46 3.46 2.9 3.2 1.3 0.4 $0.009 2.4
Cooking Steam Cookers 5-pan 13139 3.16 3.16 2.6 2.8 1.1 0.4 $0.011 2.8
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 4T8 - 250W HID 616 0.14 0.14 2.6 2.8 1.1 0.4 $0.011 2.8
Appliance Variable Frequency Drives VFD >=5hp 1,082 0.23 0.23 2.5 2.8 1.1 0.4 $0.010 3.4
Cooking Steam Cookers 4-pan 12159 2.85 2.85 2.4 2.6 1.0 0.4 $0.011 3.0
Lighting LED Lighting Controls LED Fixture Controls 575 0.03 0.05 2.6 2.6 1.0 0.4 $0.011 1.9
HVAC Guest Room Energy Management HVAC Sensors 1,114 0.00 0.00 2.6 2.6 1.0 0.4 $0.011 2.0
Appliance Commercial Vending Machine Controls Vending Controls 800 0.04 0.04 2.6 2.5 1.0 0.4 $0.011 2.4
HVAC Rooftop Unit Controls RTU Control 1,275 0.92 0.92 1.8 2.4 1.0 0.5 $0.017 3.7
Cooking Steam Cookers 3-pan 11188 2.55 2.55 2.2 2.4 1.0 0.4 $0.012 3.3
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes Grow Light 4 0.00 0.00 2.2 2.3 0.9 0.4 $0.013 3.1
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 3T5-250W HID 449 0.10 0.10 2.1 2.2 0.9 0.4 $0.013 3.5

Big Rivers Electric Corporation C-2 Multi-Perspective Model Results

Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 8T8 - 400W HID 649 0.15 0.15 2.1 2.2 0.9 0.4 $0.013 3.5
HVAC High Efficiency Water-Cooled Chillers - HVAC Chiller-Water 19184 9.66 0.00 1.7 2.1 0.8 0.5 $0.017 7.2
HVAC High-Efficiency Fans (High and Low Speed) Fans 10018 0.00 0.00 1.7 1.9 0.8 0.4 $0.017 3.8
Appliance High Efficiency Pumps Hi-E Pumps <=5hp 201 0.05 0.05 1.8 1.9 0.8 0.4 $0.016 5.1
Appliance Variable Frequency Drives VFD <=5hp 1,082 0.23 0.23 1.8 1.9 0.8 0.4 $0.015 5.0
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 6T5-1000W HID 1,456 0.33 0.33 1.8 1.8 0.7 0.4 $0.016 4.2
RefrigerationEvaporator Fan Motor Efficiency, Walk-In Cooler/Freezer
Evap. Fan Motor 1,462 0.15 0.15 1.9 1.8 0.7 0.4 $0.015 4.8
Appliance Commercial High-Efficiency Clothes Washers Clothes Washer 884 0.02 0.02 1.9 1.7 0.7 0.4 $0.016 2.5
HVAC High Efficiency Air-Cooled Chillers - HVAC Chiller-Air 10743 0.00 0.00 1.3 1.7 0.7 0.5 $0.024 10.4
HVAC Commercial Air Conditioner Tune-Up AC Tune-Up 521 0.31 0.00 1.3 1.5 0.6 0.4 $0.027 3.0
Appliance High Efficiency Hand Dryer Hand Dryer 965 0.11 0.11 1.6 1.5 0.6 0.4 $0.019 4.1
Lighting LED Lighting Controls LED Switch Controls 575 0.14 0.14 1.4 1.3 0.5 0.4 $0.024 4.2
Lighting Low Bay HID Retrofit HID LB Retrofit 2,669 1.00 1.00 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.4 $0.024 9.6
RefrigerationEnergy Star Refrigerator Solid Doors Refrig. Solid Door 1486 0.17 0.17 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.3 $0.023 6.1
RefrigerationEnergy Star Refrigerator Glass Doors Refrig. Glass Door 1,486 0.17 0.17 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.3 $0.023 6.1
Lighting C&I Lighting Occupance Sensors LED Wall Sensors 288 0.01 0.01 1.4 1.1 0.5 0.3 $0.023 5.1
RefrigerationRefrigerator Replace Old Gaskets Refrig. Gasket 98 0.01 0.01 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.3 $0.030 2.6
Lighting LED Case Lighting - with Motion Sensors LED Case Lights 951 0.10 0.10 1.2 1.1 0.4 0.3 $0.028 4.9
Lighting LED Lighting Controls LED Central Controls 192 0.00 0.00 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 $0.027 4.7
Cooking Commercial Ovens & Fryers Comb. Oven 18,432 4.20 4.20 1.1 1.0 0.4 0.3 $0.031 8.1
Lighting High Bay HID Retrofit 6T5-400W HID 374 0.09 0.09 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.3 $0.031 8.2
RefrigerationCooler Night Curtains, Open Coolers Night Curtains 903 0.00 0.00 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.3 $0.031 3.4
RefrigerationStrip Curtains for Walk-In Freezers and Coolers Strip Curtains 315 0.04 0.04 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 $0.040 3.5
HVAC Economizer Economizer 1,073 0.25 0.25 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.3 $0.037 12.3
HVAC High Efficiency Water-Cooled Chillers - HVAC Centrifugal 17861 8.99 0.00 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 $0.045 19.6
HVAC High-Efficiency Chiller for AC AC Chiller 1913 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 $0.032 14.0
Lighting C&I Lighting Occupance Sensors LED Ceiling Sensors 288 0.01 0.01 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.3 $0.037 8.2
Lighting C&I Lighting Occupance Sensors LED Fixture Sensors 288 0.01 0.01 1.0 0.7 0.3 0.3 $0.037 8.2
Cooking Commercial Ovens & Fryers Griddle 2,594 0.59 0.59 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 $0.047 12.2
Shell Commercial Window Film Window Film 645 0.43 0.00 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 $0.062 13.7
Cooking Commercial Ovens & Fryers Fryers 1,166 0.20 0.20 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 $0.049 12.9
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes LED Gen. Interior 70 0.01 0.01 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 $0.048 18.9
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes 2x4LED - T5 70 0.01 0.01 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 $0.048 18.9
Water Heat Water Heater Tank Wrap WH Tank Wrap 79 0.01 0.01 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.3 $0.059 6.5
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes 2x4LED - T8 54 0.01 0.01 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 $0.058 22.9
Lighting Light Tube Daylight Tube 344 0.06 0.06 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 $0.067 20.5
Lighting Replace T12 Lights & Magnetic Ballast Ballast Retrofit 54 0.01 0.01 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 $0.088 29.0
Shell Cool Roof Cool Roof 222 0.15 0.00 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 $0.121 39.7
HVAC Ground Source Heat Pump GSHP 21,736 0.00 0.00 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 $0.077 34.4
RefrigerationEnergy Star Ice Machine Ice Machine 501 0.05 0.05 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 $0.093 17.2
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes 4LED - T5 26 0.00 0.00 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 $0.096 37.8
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes 4LED - T8 19 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 $0.118 46.4
Shell Roof Insulation Roof Insulation 36 0.24 0.00 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 $0.760 332.7
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes 2LED - T8 16 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 $0.169 66.5
Commercial Chilled Water Reset Controls Chilled Water Reset 130 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 $0.221 44.9
HVAC Chilled Water Reset Controls Rotary Screw 130 0.00 0.00 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 $0.211 46.1
Commercial LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes 2LED - T5 10 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 $0.165 146.7
Lighting LEDs Replace Fluorescent Tubes 2LED - T5 10 0.00 0.00 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 $0.300 118.0
Commercial Window Glazing Window Glazing 260 0.07 0.00 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 $0.553 155.4
Shell Window Glazing Window Glazing 260 0.07 0.00 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 $0.424 185.7

Big Rivers Electric Corporation C-34 Demand-Side Measure List

Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to Staff's 2017 IRP Recommendations
Staff Recommendations 2020 IRP
Section / Number Recommendation Reference

IRP -
Load Forecasting Continue to explore ways to enhance residential and small C&I load forecasts and provide Section 3.7;
Recommendation 1 discussions of any refinements to forecasting methodology. Appendix A -
Section 7.5

Continue to provide comparisons of actual to forecasted results for the residential and small IRP -
Load Forecasting C&I classes along with discussions of reasons Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2;
Recommendation 2 for any differences between forecasted and Appendix A -
actual results. Sections 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 8
Continue to provide comparisons between actual and forecasted summer and winter peak demands IRP -
Load Forecasting
using a variety of normalization periods. Provide a discussion of the reasons for any significant Sections 3.4, 3.6; Appendix A -
Recommendation 3
differences between actual and forecasted peak demands. Sections 6, 8
IRP -
Continue to explore new markets, including economic development efforts within its service
Load Forecasting Section 2.7, 3.3.8;
territory, to replace the loss of smelter loads and provide a discussion of BREC's efforts and how its
Recommendation 4 Appendix A -
efforts are reflected in the load forecast.
Sections 2.7; 3.2, 3.3

Demand-Side Management
Continue to work with Member Systems and community action agencies to look for ways to IRP -
and Energy Efficiency
enhance the low-income weatherization program. Section 2.10
Recommendation 1
Demand-Side Management Continue to monitor new technologies and best practices that may lower BREC's DSM IRP -
and Energy Efficiency program costs and or enhance program benefits. Provide updates on consideration of existing Section 4.9;
Recommendation 2 and potential DSM programs in BREC's service territory. Appendix B

Supply-Side IRP -
BREC's next IRP should continue to include scenarios where one or more existing
Resource Assessment Section 1.22,
coal-fired units are retired, converted to use alternate fuels, or sold.
Recommendation 1 Chapters 5, 8

C-1
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to Staff's 2017 IRP Recommendations
Staff Recommendations 2020 IRP
Section / Number Recommendation Reference

Renewable Generation and Consideration of renewable generation to meet its customers' goals in its modeling and provide
IRP -
Distributed Generation a discussion of its assessment of renewable power in its next IRP, especially when consider-
Chapters 5, 8
Recommendation 1 ing the future impact of GHG/carbon regulation and related costs per ton of CO2
Renewable Generation and
IRP -
Distributed Generation A discussion of its consideration of and costs associated with distributed generation in its next IRP.
Section 5.5
Recommendation 2
Renewable Generation and
Information from its member-owner cooperatives on their customers' net metering statistics and IRP -
Distributed Generation
activities in its next IRP. Section 5.5.1
Recommendation 3
Renewable Generation and IRP -
Distributed Generation Current and accurate cost assumptions in its modeling for renewable resources. Chapter 8
Recommendation 4 (Table 8.4)

Generation
IRP -
Efficiency Specific generation efficiency improvements and activities undertaken.
Sections 5.1, 5.2
Recommendation 1
Generation
Endeavors to increase generation and transmission efficiency should include the impact of IRP -
Efficiency
the efforts instituted to comply with environmental regulations. Sections 5.5, 6.1, 6.3
Recommendation 2

Compliance IRP -
Planning Compliance actions relating to current and pending environmental regulations. Section 5.6.1, 5.6.2,
Recommendation 1 5.6.3, 5.6.5

Compliance Address more fully the Sierra Club's comments regarding the Coleman Station and Reid Unit 1
IRP -
Planning regarding the cost assumptions and the SWEA's comments regarding renewables in the modeling
Sections 1.2.2, 2.9, 5.6
Recommendation 2 for supply-side resources.

C-2
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

General Provisions. This administrative regulation shall apply to electric

utilities under commission jurisdiction except a distribution company with
807 KAR 5:058 § 1(1) Noted
less than $10,000,000 annual revenue or a distribution cooperative organized
under KRS Chapter 279.

Each electric utility shall file triennially with the commission an integrated
resource plan. The plan shall include historical and projected demand, resource,
807 KAR 5:058 § 1(2) and financial data, and other operating performance and system information, Noted
and shall discuss the facts, assumptions, and conclusions, upon which the plan
is based and the actions it proposes.

Big Rivers has elected to follow the electronic filing

procedures, and will electronically file the IRP with
Each electric utility shall file ten (10) bound copies and one (1) unbound, the Commission. One hardcopy of the IRP will be
807 KAR 5:058 § 1(3)
reproducible copy of its integrated resource plan with the commission provided to the Commission once the current state
of emergency is lifted pursuant to the Commission's
Orders in Case No. 2020-00085

Filing Schedule. Each electric utility shall file its integrated resource plan
according to a staggered schedule which provides for the filing of integrated
807 KAR 5:058 § 2(1)(a) Noted
resource plans one (1) every six (6) months beginning nine (9) months from
the effective date of this administrative regulation.
The schedule shall provide at such time as all electric utilities have filed
807 KAR 5:058 § 2(1)(b) Noted
integrated resource plans, the sequence shall repeat.
The schedule shall remain in effect until changed by the commission on its
own motion or on motion of one (1) or more electric utilities for good cause IRP -
807 KAR 5:058 § 2(1)(c)
shown. Good cause may include a change in a utility's financial or resource Section 2.10
conditions.

C-3
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

If any filing date falls on a weekend or holiday, the plan shall be submitted
807 KAR 5:058 § 2(1)(d) Noted
on the first business day following the scheduled filing date.
Immediately upon filing of an integrated resource plan, each utility shall
provide notice to intervenors in its last integrated resource plan review
807 KAR 5:058 § 2(2) Big Rivers will provide notice as required
proceeding, that its plan has been filed and is available from the utility
upon request.
Upon receipt of a utility's integrated resource plan, the commission shall establish
807 KAR 5:058 § 2(3) a review schedule which may include interrogatories, comments, informal Noted
conferences, and staff reports.

Waiver. A utility may file a motion requesting a waiver of specific provisions

of this administrative regulation. Any request shall be made no later than
ninety (90) days prior to the date established for filing the integrated resource
plan. The commission shall rule on the request within thirty (30) days. The
807 KAR 5:058 § 3 Noted
motion shall clearly identify the provision from which the utility seeks a waiver
and provide justification for the requested relief which shall include an estimate
of costs and benefits of compliance with the specific provision. Notice shall be
given in the manner provided in Section 2(2) of this administrative regulation.

Format. The integrated resource plan shall be clearly and concisely organized
807 KAR 5:058 § 4(1) so that it is evident to the commission that the utility has complied with See Appendix C Cross-Reference Listing
reporting requirements described in subsequent sections.
Each plan filed shall identify the individuals responsible for its preparation,
807 KAR 5:058 § 4(2) who shall be available to respond to inquiries during the commission's review IRP Section 1.1
of the plan.

C-4
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )
Plan Summary. The plan shall contain a summary which discusses the utility's
projected load growth and the resources planned to meet that growth. The
807 KAR 5:058 § 5(1) IRP Chapter 1
summary shall include at a minimum: Description of the utility, its customers,
service territory, current facilities, and planning objectives
IRP Chapters 3, 4, 8;
Description of models, methods, data, and key assumptions used to develop the Appendix A - Load Forecast Study;
807 KAR 5:058 § 5(2)
results contained in the plan Appendix F - Techncial Appendix;
Appendix G - Model Output
Summary of forecasts of energy and peak demand, and key economic and IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 5(3)
demographic assumptions or projections underlying these forecasts Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
Summary of the utility's planned resource acquisitions including improvements in
operating efficiency of existing facilities, demand-side programs, nonutility
807 KAR 5:058 § 5(4) IRP Sections 6.3 8.2, 8.3, Chapter 9
sources of generation, new power plants, transmission improvements, bulk power
purchases and sales, and interconnections with other utilities
807 KAR 5:058 § 5(5) Steps to be taken during the next three (3) years to implement the plan IRP Chapter 9
Discussion of key issues or uncertainties that could affect successful
807 KAR 5:058 § 5(6) IRP Sections 8.2, 8.3, Chapter 9
implementation of the plan.
Significant Changes. All integrated resource plans, shall have a summary of
significant changes since the plan most recently filed. This summary shall
807 KAR 5:058 § 6 describe, in narrative and tabular form, changes in load forecasts, resource plans, IRP Chapter 2
assumptions, or methodologies from the previous plan. Where appropriate, the
utility may also use graphic displays to illustrate changes.
Load Forecasts. The plan shall include historical and forecasted information
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1) regarding loads. The information shall be provided for the total system and, IRP Chapter 3; Appendix A
where available, disaggregated by the following customer classes:
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1)(a) (a) Residential heating; n/a

C-5
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1)(b) (b) Residential non-heating; n/a

IRP Section 3.3.1;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1)(c) (c) Total residential (total of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection); Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
Section 2.1, Chapter 8
IRP Section 3.3.2, 3.3.3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1)(d) (d) Commercial; Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
Section 2.2, Chapter 8
IRP Section 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1)(e) (e) Industrial; Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
Section 2.2, Chapter 8
IRP Section 3.3.8;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1)(f) (f) Sales for resale; Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
Section 2.7, 3.2
IRP Sections 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1)(g) (g) Utility use and other.
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 2
The utility shall also provide data at any greater level of disaggregation
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(1) Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 2
available.
The utility shall provide the following historical information for the base
year, which shall be the most recent calendar year for which actual energy IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)
sales and system peak demand data are available, and the four (4) years preceding Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapters 2 and 3
the base year:
Average annual number of customers by class as defined in subsection (1) of this IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(a)
section; Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 2

C-6
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

Recorded and weather-normalized annual energy sales and generation for

IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(b) the system, and sales disaggregated by class as defined in subsection (1) of this
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapters 6 and 8
section
Recorded and weather-normalized coincident peak demand in summer and winter IRP Section 1.2.6, Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(c)
for the system Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 6
Total energy sales and coincident peak demand to retail and wholesale IRP Sections 3.1, 3.3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(d)
customers for which the utility has firm, contractual commitments Appendix A - Load Forecst Study Chapters 2, 3
Total energy sales and coincident peak demand to retail and wholesale
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(e) customers for which service is provided under an interruptible or curtail- IRP Sections 3.3.9, 4.6
able contract or tariff or under some other nonfirm basis
IRP Chapter 3 Section 3.1, 3.2;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(f) Annual energy losses for the system
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
Identification and description of existing demand-side programs and an estimate
IRP Section 2.9, 4.6,
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(g) of their impact on utility sales and coincident peak demands including utility or
Appendix B - DSM Potential Study
government sponsored conservation and load management programs
Any other data or exhibits, such as load duration curves or average energy usage
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(2)(h) IRP Chapter 3
per customer, which illustrate historical changes in load or load characteristics.

C-7
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

For each of the fifteen (15) years succeeding the base year, the utility shall
provide a base load forecast it considers most likely to occur and, to the extent
available, alternate forecasts representing lower and upper ranges of expected
future growth of the load on its system. Forecasts shall not include load impacts
IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(3) of additional, future demand-side programs or customer generation included as
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
part of planned resource acquisitions estimated separately and reported in Section
8(4) of this administrative regulation. Forecasts shall include the utility's
estimates of existing and continuing demand-side programs as described in
subsection (5) of this section.

Annual energy sales and generation for the system and sales disaggregated IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(4)(a)
by class as defined in subsection (1) of this section Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
IRP Section 3.3.2;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(4)(b) Summer and winter coincident peak demand for the system
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Section 3.1
If available for the first two (2) years of the forecast, monthly forecasts of energy
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(4)(c) sales and generation for the system and disaggregated by class as Appendix A - Load Forecst Study Chapter 9
defined in subsection (1) of this section and system peak demand
The impact of existing and continuing demand-side programs on both
IRP Section 3.5;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(4)(d) energy sales and system peak demands, including utility and government
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 4
sponsored conservation and load management programs
Any other data or exhibits which illustrate projected changes in load or load IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(4)(e)
characteristics Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
The additional following data shall be provided for the integrated system,
when the utility is part of a multistate integrated utility system, and for the Not applicable as Big Rivers is not part of a multistate
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(5)(a)
selling company, when the utility purchases fifty (50) percent of its energy integrated utility system
from another company: .....

C-8
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

The additional following data shall be provided for the integrated system,
when the utility is part of a multistate integrated utility system, and for the Not applicable as Big Rivers is not part of a multistate
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(5)(b)
selling company, when the utility purchases fifty (50) percent of its energy integrated utility system
from another company: .....
A utility shall file all updates of load forecasts with the commission when
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(6) Noted
they are adopted by the utility.
The plan shall include a complete description and discussion of all data sets IRP Section 3.7;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(a)
used in producing the forecasts Appendix A - Load Forecst Study Chapter 7
The plan shall include a complete description and discussion of key
IRP Section 3.7;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(b) assumptions and judgments used in producing forecasts and determining
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 7
their reasonableness

The plan shall include a complete description and discussion of the general
methodological approach taken to load forecasting (for example, econometric,
IRP Chapter 3;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(c) or structural) and the model design, model specification, and estimation of
Appendix A - Load Forecast Study
key model parameters (for example, price elasticities of demand or average
energy usage per type of appliance)
The plan shall include a complete description and discussion of the utility's IRP Section 3.6;
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(d)
treatment and assessment of load forecast uncertainty Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapters 5, 8
The extent to which the utility's load forecasting methods and models explicitly
address and incorporate the following factors:
1. Changes in prices of electricity and prices of competing fuels; Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 7
2. Changes in population and economic conditions in the utility's service
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(e) Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 7
territory and general region;
3. Development and potential market penetration of new appliances, Appendix A - Load Forecast Study Chapter 7;
equipment, and technologies that use electricity or competing fuels; and Appendix B - DSM Potential Stidy

C-9
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(e) Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )
4. Continuation of existing company and government sponsored
IRP Section 4.9
conservation and load management or other demand-side programs
Research and development efforts underway or planned to improve per-formance,
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(f) IRP Section 3.8
efficiency, or capabilities of the utility's load forecasting methods
Description of and schedule for efforts underway or planned to develop
end-use load and market data for analyzing demand-side resource options IRP Section 3.8;
including load research and market research studies, customer appliance
saturation studies, and conservation and load management program pilot
807 KAR 5:058 § 7(7)(g)
or demonstration projects.

Technical discussions, descriptions, and supporting documentation shall be Appendix B - DSM Potential Study
contained in a technical appendix

Resource Assessment and Acquisition Plan. The plan shall include the
utility's resource assessment and acquisition plan for providing an adequate
and reliable supply of electricity to meet forecasted electricity requirements
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(1) IRP Chapters 8 and 9
at the lowest possible cost. The plan shall consider the potential impacts of
selected, key uncertainties and shall include assessment of potentially cost-
effective resource options available to the utility.

The utility shall describe and discuss all options considered for inclusion
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(2)(a) in the plan including Improvements to and more efficient utilization of IRP Chapter 8 - Table 8.1, Sections 6.1, 6.3
existing utility generation, transmission, and distribution facilities
The utility shall describe and discuss all options considered for inclusion
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(2)(b) in the plan including Conservation and load management or other IRP Section 4.9, Chapter 8, Appendix B
demand-side programs not already in place

C-10
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

The utility shall describe and discuss all options considered for inclusion
in the plan including: expansion of generating facilities, including assessment
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(2)(c) IRP Sections 8.1, 8.2, Chapter 9
of economic opportunities for coordination with other utilities in constructing and
operating new units

The utility shall describe and discuss all options considered for inclusion in
the plan including: assessment of nonutility generation, including generating
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(2)(d) IRP Chapters 5, 8, 9
capacity provided by cogeneration, technologies relying on renewable
resources, and other nonutility sources

The following information regarding the utility's existing and planned

resources shall be provided. A utility which operates as part of a multistate
integrated system shall submit the following information for its operations
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(3) within Kentucky and for the multistate utility system of which it is a part. A Noted
utility which purchases fifty (50) percent or more of its energy needs from
another company shall submit the following information for its operations
within Kentucky and for the company from which it purchases its energy needs

A map of existing and planned generating facilities, transmission facilities

with a voltage rating of sixty-nine (69) kilovolts or greater, indicating their
IRP Section 1.2.5, 6.2;
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(3)(a) type and capacity, and locations and capacities of all interconnections with
Appendix E - Transmission System Map
other utilities. The utility shall discuss any known, significant conditions
which restrict transfer capabilities with other utilities

C-11
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

A list of all existing and planned electric generating facilities which the utility
plans to have in service in the base year or during any of the fifteen (15) years
of the forecast period, including for each facility:
1. Plant name; IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.2
2. Unit number(s); IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.2
3. Existing or proposed location; IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.2
4. Status (existing, planned, under construction, etc.); IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.2
5. Actual or projected commercial operation date; IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.2
6. Type of facility; IRP Section 5.2 , 8.2
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(3)(b) 7. Net dependable capability, summer and winter; IRP Section 5.2, 8.2
8. Entitlement if jointly owned or unit purchase; IRP Section 8.2.2
9. Primary and secondary fuel types, by unit; IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.2
10. Fuel storage capacity; IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.2
11. Scheduled upgrades, deratings, and retirement dates; IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.3
12. Actual and projected cost and operating information for the base year (for IRP Sections 1.2.4, 5.4
existing units) or first full year of operations (for new units) and the basis IRP Chapter 8 - Tables 8.9, 8.10, 8.11
for projecting the information to each of the fifteen (15) forecast years (for
example, cost escalation rates). All cost data shall be expressed in nominal
and real base year dollars. .....

Description of purchases, sales, or exchanges of electricity during the base

807 KAR 5:058 § 8(3)(c) year or which the utility expects to enter during any of the fifteen (15) IRP Chapters 8, 9
forecast years of the plan.

C-12
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

Description of existing and projected amounts of electric energy and

generating capacity from cogeneration, self-generation, technologies relying
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(3)(d) on renewable resources, and other nonutility sources available for purchase IRP Chapters 8, 9
by the utility during the base year or during any of the fifteen (15) forecast
years of the plan.

For each existing and new conservation and load management or other demand-
side programs included in the plan:
1. Targeted classes and end-uses;
2. Expected duration of the program;
3. Projected energy changes by season, and summer and winter peak
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(3)(e) Appendix B - DSM Potential Study
demand changes;
4. Projected cost, including any incentive payments and program
administrative costs; and
5. Projected cost savings, including savings in utility's generation,
transmission and distribution costs.

C-13
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

On total resource capacity available at the winter and summer peak:

1. Forecast peak load;
2. Capacity from existing resources before consideration of retirements;
3. Capacity from planned utility-owned generating plant capacity additions;
4. Capacity available from firm purchases from other utilities;
5. Capacity available from firm purchases from nonutility sources of
generation;
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(4)(a) IRP Chapter 8 - Table 8.11
6. Reductions or increases in peak demand from new conservation and
load management or other demand-side programs;
7. Committed capacity sales to wholesale customers coincident with peak;
8. Planned retirements;
9. Reserve requirements;
10. Capacity excess or deficit;
11. Capacity or reserve margin.

On planned annual generation:

1. Total forecast firm energy requirements;
2. Energy from existing and planned utility generating resources
disaggregated by primary fuel type;
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(4)(b) IRP Chpater 8 - Tables 8.9, 8.10, and 8.11
3. Energy from firm purchases from other utilities;
4. Energy from firm purchases from nonutility sources of generation; and
5. Reductions or increases in energy from new conservation and load
management or other demandside programs;

C-14
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

For each of the fifteen (15) years covered by the plan, the utility shall pro-
vide estimates of total energy input in primary fuels by fuel type and total
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(4)(c) generation by primary fuel type required to meet load. Primary fuels shall IRP Chapter 8, Table 8.11
be organized by standard categories (coal, gas, etc.) and quantified on the
basis of physical units (for example, barrels or tons) as well as in MMBtu.

The resource assessment and acquisition plan shall include a description

807 KAR 5:058 § 8(5)(a) and discussion of: General methodological approach, models, data sets, IRP Chapters 8 and 9
and information used by the company;
The resource assessment and acquisition plan shall include a description
and discussion of: key assumption and judgments used in the assessment
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(5)(b) IRP Chapters 8 and 9
and how uncertainties in those assumptions and judgments were
incorporated into analyses

The resource assessment and acquisition plan shall include a description

and discussion of: Criteria (for example, present value of revenue require-
ments, capital requirements, environmental impacts, flexibility, diversity)
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(5)(c) IRP Chapters 8 and 9
used to screen each resource alternative including demand-side programs,
and criteria used to select the final mix of resources presented in the
acquisition plan

The resource assessment and acquisition plan shall include a description

and discussion of: Criteria used in determining the appropriate level of
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(5)(d) IRP Sections 7.6, 8.2
reliability and the required reserve or capacity margin, and discussion of
how these determinations have influenced selection of options

C-15
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

The resource assessment and acquisition plan shall include a description

and discussion of: Existing and projected research efforts and programs
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(5)(e) IRP Section 3.8
which are directed at developing data for future assessments and refine-
ments of analyses

The resource assessment and acquisition plan shall include a description

and discussion of: Actions to be undertaken during the fifteen (15) years
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(5)(f) IRP Section 5.6.1, 5.6.2 Table 5.6.1
covered by the plan to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act amend-
ments of 1990, and how these actions affect the utility's resource assessment

The resource assessment and acquisition plan shall include a description

and discussion of: Consideration given by the utility to market forces and
IRP Chapters 8, 9;
807 KAR 5:058 § 8(5)(g) competition in the development of the plan. Technical discussion, descrip-
Appendix G - Technical Appendix
tions and supporting documentation shall be contained in a technical
appendix

Financial Information. The integrated resource plan shall, at a minimum,

807 KAR 5:058 § 9(1) include and discuss the following financial information: Present (base year) IRP Chapter 8, Table 8.9
value of revenue requirements stated in dollar terms
The integrated resource plan shall, at a minimum, include and discuss the
807 KAR 5:058 § 9(2) following financial information: Discount rate used in present value IRP Chapter 8
calculations
The integrated resource plan shall, at a minimum, include and discuss the
807 KAR 5:058 § 9(3) following financial information: Nominal and real revenue requirements IRP Chapter 8, Table 8.9
by year
The integrated resource plan shall, at a minimum, include and discuss
807 KAR 5:058 § 9(4) the following financial information: Average system rates (revenues per IRP Chapter 8, Table 8.15
kilowatt hour) by year

C-16
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix C
Cross-Reference to 807 KAR 5:058
Intergrated Resource Plan Regulation 2020 IRP Reference
Citation Regulation (Where Applicable )

Notice. Each utility which files an integrated resource plan shall publish, in
a form prescribed by the commission, notice of its filing in a newspaper of
807 KAR 5:058 §10 Big Rivers will publish notice as required
general circulation in the utility's service area. The notice shall be published
not more than thirty (30) days after the filing date of the report

Upon receipt of a utility's integrated resource plan, the commission shall

develop a procedural schedule which allows for submission of written
807 KAR 5:058 § 11(1) interrogatories to the utility by staff and intervenors, written comments Noted
by staff and intervenors, and responses to interrogatories and comments
by the utility.
The commission may convene conferences to discuss the filed plan and
807 KAR 5:058 § 11(2) Noted
all other matters relative to review of the plan.
Based upon its review of a utility's plan and all related information, the
807 KAR 5:058 § 11(3) commission staff shall issue a report summarizing its review and offering Noted
suggestions and recommendations to the utility for subsequent filings
A utility shall respond to the staff's comments and recommendations in its
807 KAR 5:058 § 11(4) Noted
next integrated resource plan filing

C-17
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix D
Big Rivers' Responses to Staff's Recommendations on Big Rivers 2017 IRP
Staff Recommendations 2020 IRP
Big Rivers' Response
Section / Number Recommendation Reference

Big Rivers contracted with Clearspring Energy Advisors

for the 2020 Long Term Load Forecast, as compared to
Continue to explore ways to enhance residential IRP -
recent forecasts prepared by GDS Associates, Inc.
Load Forecasting and small C&I load forecasts and provide Section 3.7;
Clearspring's method used some different approaches
Recommendation 1 discussions of any refinements to forecasting Appendix A -
from GDS, as highlighted in Section 7.5 of Appendix A,
methodology. Section 7.5
including a 15 year weather normal for the base case load
forecasts compared to GDS' 20 year weather normal.

Continue to provide comparisons of actual to

IRP - Appendix A Load Forecast Report Chapter 8 Tracking
forecasted results for the residential and small
Load Forecasting Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2; Analysis highlights Comparisons to the 2017 Forecasts
C&I classes along with discussions of reasons
Recommendation 2 Appendix A - by Class, as well as comparison of previous forecasts to
for any differences between forecasted and
Sections 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 8 actual loads.
actual results.

Continue to provide comparisons between actual

and forecasted summer and winter peak demands IRP - IRP Section 3.4 includes a table comparing historical
Load Forecasting using a variety of normalization periods. Provide a Sections 3.4, 3.6; actual and weather-normalized Winter/Summer demand
Recommendation 3 discussion of the reasons for any significant Appendix A - and energy. Section 3.6 discusses various normalization
differences between actual and forecasted peak Sections 6, 8 periods.
demands.

D-1
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix D
Big Rivers' Responses to Staff's Recommendations on Big Rivers 2017 IRP
Staff Recommendations 2020 IRP
Big Rivers' Response
Section / Number Recommendation Reference

IRP Section 2.7 discusses short and intermediate-term

Continue to explore new markets, including
IRP - sales, and participating with local partners in economic
economic development efforts within its service
Load Forecasting Section 2.7, 3.3.8; development efforts. This has so far resulted in significant
territory, to replace the loss of smelter loads and
Recommendation 4 Appendix A - member load growth with the addition of a Direct Serve
provide a discussion of BREC's efforts and how its
Sections 2.7; 3.2, 3.3 consumer as discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.4.
efforts are reflected in the load forecast.
Section 3.3.8 discusses Non-Member Sales achieved.

In Case No. 2019-00193 Big Rivers filed to implement

Demand-Side
Continue to work with Member Systems and DSM-14 Low-Income Weatherization Support program,
Management and IRP -
community action agencies to look for ways to which has been approved as a pilot and was launched in
Energy Efficiency Section 2.9
enhance the low-income weatherization program. early 2020. As of filing this IRP, the COVID outbreak has
Recommendation 1
disrupted work on the program.

IRP Section 4.9 outlines the conclusions of the 2020 DSM

Continue to monitor new technologies and best Potential Study, including that Big Rivers will continue to
Demand-Side
practices that may lower BREC's DSM program IRP - monitor the cost-effectiveness of DR, work with Member-
Management and
costs and or enhance program benefits. Provide Section 4.9; Owners to evaluate EE in both residential and
Energy Efficiency
updates on consideration of existing and potential Appendix B non-residential sectors, maintain education for Member-Owners
Recommendation 2
DSM programs in BREC's service territory. staff, as well as monitor opportunities for new technologies and
demand response.

IRP Section 1.2.2 and Chapter 2 discuss retirement of Coleman

BREC's next IRP should continue to include
Supply-Side IRP - and Reid 1 and three solar power purchase agreements totaling
scenarios where one or more existing coal-fired
Resource Assessment Section 1.22, 260 MW. Chapter 8 discusses the treatment of Existing and
units are retired, converted to use alternate fuels, or
Recommendation 1 Chapters 5, 8 New or Potential Big Rivers Assets included in this IRP
sold.
analysis

D-2
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix D
Big Rivers' Responses to Staff's Recommendations on Big Rivers 2017 IRP
Staff Recommendations 2020 IRP
Big Rivers' Response
Section / Number Recommendation Reference

Consideration of renewable generation to meet

Renewable Sections 5.6 and 5.7 discuss Big Rivers' Environmental
its customers' goals in its modeling and provide
Generation and Compliance Plans. Chapter 8 discusses the treatment of
a discussion of its assessment of renewable IRP -
Distributed Existing and New or Potential Big Rivers Assets included
power in its next IRP, especially when consider- Chapters 5, 8
Generation in this IRP analysis, including the proposed 260 MW solar
ing the future impact of GHG/carbon regulation
Recommendation 1 PPAs.
and related costs per ton of CO2

Section 5.5 says the Big Rivers works with MISO on

Renewable generation interconnections, including proposed projects
Generation and A discussion of its consideration of and costs on the sub-transmission system. MISO transmission plan-
IRP -
Distributed associated with distributed generation in its next ning allows distributed generation as alternatives to
Section 5.5
Generation IRP. planned transmission projects. And, Big Rivers works
Recommendation 2 with direct-serve consumers who wish to build generation
for co-generation purposes.

Renewable
Generation and Information from its member-owner cooperatives Net-metered distributed generation installations among
IRP -
Distributed on their customers' net metering statistics and retail members of the Member-Owners has risen to more
Section 5.5.1
Generation activities in its next IRP. than 2.5 MW since 2016.
Recommendation 3

Renewable
Generation and IRP -
Current and accurate cost assumptions in its
Distributed Chapter 8 Solar resources were included at current PPA prices.
modeling for renewable resources.
Generation (Table 8.4)
Recommendation 4

D-3
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix D
Big Rivers' Responses to Staff's Recommendations on Big Rivers 2017 IRP
Staff Recommendations 2020 IRP
Big Rivers' Response
Section / Number Recommendation Reference

As wholesale power market prices have dropped over the

past few years, Big Rivers has been able to significantly
lower the historical minimum generation limits on its
generators in order to minimize losses in the MISO power
market during off-peak hours, thereby keeping the units
Generation running and available for the peak hours in the market.
Specific generation efficiency improvements IRP -
Efficiency For the Big Rivers base load units, the heat rate has im-
and activities undertaken. Sections 5.1, 5.2
Recommendation 1 proved 137 BTU/kWh or 1.2% in the 11-year period from
2009 to 2019. Investments in high performance human
machine interfaces, operations training simulators, re-
ducing controllable losses, maintenance, instrument tuning, and
coal pulverizer tuning, all help keep Big Rivers units operating
efficiently.

As a member of MISO , Big Rivers participates in coordi-

nated short-and long-term planning, that supports develop-
Endeavors to increase generation and trans-
Generation ment of infrastructure sufficiently robust to meet local and
mission efficiency should include the impact of IRP -
Efficiency regional standards. Big Rivers has analyzed all relevant
the efforts instituted to comply with environ- Sections 5.5, 6.1, 6.3
Recommendation 2 environmental compliance provisions and outlined plans to
mental regulations.
achieve compliance, and will comply with MISO coordi-
nated planning process.

Compliance IRP - Big Rivers has closely analyzed all relevant environmental
Compliance actions relating to current and
Planning Section 5.6.1, 5.6.2, compliance provisions and has outlined plans to achieve
pending environmental regulations.
Recommendation 1 5.6.3, 5.6.5 compliance within the time allowed by the regulations.

D-4
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix D
Big Rivers' Responses to Staff's Recommendations on Big Rivers 2017 IRP
Staff Recommendations 2020 IRP
Big Rivers' Response
Section / Number Recommendation Reference

Address more fully the Sierra Club's comments

Compliance regarding the Coleman Station and Reid Unit 1
IRP - Coleman Station and Reid 1 retiring in 2020, renewables
Planning regarding the cost assumptions and the SWEA's
Sections 1.2.2, 2.9, 5.6 including hydropower and solar included in this analysis.
Recommendation 2 comments regarding renewables in the modeling
for supply-side resources.

D-5
In the Matter of:

ELECTRONIC )
Case No.
2020 INTEGRATED RESOUCE PLAN )
2020-00299
OF BIG RIVERS ELECTRIC CORPORATION )

CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
Big Rivers Transmission System Map
FILED: September 21, 2020

INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
In the Matter of:

ELECTRONIC )
Case No.
2020 INTEGRATED RESOUCE PLAN )
2020-00299
OF BIG RIVERS ELECTRIC CORPORATION )

CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
ACES Forward price Curve Methodology
FILED: September 21, 2020

INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
In the Matter of:

ELECTRONIC )
Case No.
2020 INTEGRATED RESOUCE PLAN )
2020-00299
OF BIG RIVERS ELECTRIC CORPORATION )

CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix F
JD Energy Long-term Coal and Petcoke Price Forecast: 2019-2050
FILED: September 21, 2020

INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
In the Matter of:

ELECTRONIC )
Case No.
2020 INTEGRATED RESOUCE PLAN )
2020-00299
OF BIG RIVERS ELECTRIC CORPORATION )

CONFIDENTIAL
Appendix E
J D. Energy Coal Forecast Tables
FILED: September 21, 2020

INFORMATION SUBMITTED WITH

MOTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
 EIA Capital Cost Estimates
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies
Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (February 2020)
Plant Characteristics Plant Costs (2019$)
Overnight Location Total Non-Fuel
Plant Type Capacity Heat Rate Capital Cost - Variation
Delta Cost
Difference
Location
Fixed
O&M
Variable
Base Project (Kentucky) Project Cost Cost
MW BTU/kWh $/kW Ratio $/kW $/kW $/kW-yr $/MWh
Ultra Supercritical Coal with 30% CCS 650 9,751 $ 4,558 1.01 $ 35 $ 4,593 $ 54.30 $ 7.08
Coal
Ultra Supercritical Coal with 90% CCS 650 12,507 $ 5,876 1.01 $ 63 $ 5,939 $ 59.54 $ 10.98
Combined Cycle - single shaft 418 6,431 $ 1,084 0.99 $ (8) $ 1,076 $ 14.10 $ 2.55
Combined Cycle - multi shaft 1,083 6,370 $ 958 0.99 $ (7) $ 951 $ 12.20 $ 1.87
Natural Combined Cycle - 90% CCS 377 7,124 $ 2,481 1.00 $ (4) $ 2,477 $ 27.60 $ 5.84
Gas/Oil Combustion Turbine - aeroderivative 105 9,124 $ 1,175 0.99 $ (7) $ 1,168 $ 16.30 $ 4.70
Combustion Turbine - industrial frame 237 9,905 $ 713 0.99 $ (4) $ 709 $ 7.00 $ 4.50
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine 21 8,295 $ 1,810 1.01 $ 13 $ 1,823 $ 35.16 $ 5.69
Advanced Nuclear 2,156 10,608 $ 6,041 1.03 $ 204 $ 6,245 $ 121.64 $ 2.37
Uranium
Small Modular Reactor 600 10,046 $ 6,191 1.01 $ 85 $ 6,276 $ 95.00 $ 3.00
Biomass Biomass 50 13,300 $ 4,097 1.00 $ (2) $ 4,095 $ 125.72 $ 4.83
Wind Onshore Wind - Great Plains 200 N/A $ 1,265 1.01 $ 19 $ 1,284 $ 26.34 $ -
Solar Thermal 115 N/A $ 7,221 1.04 $ 256 $ 7,477 $ 85.40 $ -
Solar Solar - Photovoltaic - Tracking 150 N/A $ 1,313 0.99 $ (8) $ 1,305 $ 15.25 $ -
Solar - Photovoltaic - Tracking + Battery Storage 150 N/A $ 1,755 1.00 $ 5 $ 1,760 $ 31.27 $ -
Battery Storage (50 MW/100 MWh) 50 N/A $ 845 1.02 $ 17 $ 862 $ 12.90
Storage
Battery Storage (50 MW/200 MWh) 50 N/A $ 1,389 1.02 $ 28 $ 1,417 $ 24.80

Case No. 2020-00299

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Energy Information Administration
F-1 Capital Cost Estimates
 EIA Capital Cost Estimates
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies
Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (January 2019)
Plant Characteristics Plant Costs (2018$)
Overnight Location Total Non-Fuel
Plant Type Capacity Heat Rate Capital Cost - Variation
Delta Cost
Difference
Location
Fixed
O&M
Variable
Base Project (SRCE) Project Cost Cost
MW BTU/kWh $/kW % $/kW $/kW $/kW-yr $/MWh
Ultra Supercritical Coal with 30% CCS 650 9,750 $ 5,169 -9% $ (445) $ 4,724 $ 72.12 $ 7.31
Coal
Ultra Supercritical Coal with 90% CCS 650 11,650 $ 5,716 -9% $ (492) $ 5,224 $ 83.75 $ 9.89
Combined Cycle (CC) 702 6,600 $ 999 -8% $ (83) $ 916 $ 11.33 $ 3.61
Advanced Combined Cycle (ACC) 1,100 6,300 $ 794 -3% $ (20) $ 774 $ 10.30 $ 2.06
Natural Advanced Combined Cycle (ACC) with CCS 340 7,525 $ 2,205 -7% $ (160) $ 2,045 $ 34.43 $ 7.34
Gas/Oil Combustion Turbine (CT) 100 9,840 $ 1,126 -4% $ (50) $ 1,076 $ 18.03 $ 3.61
Advanced Combustion Turbine 237 9,800 $ 691 -3% $ (22) $ 669 $ 7.01 $ 11.02
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine 85 8,500 $ 1,371 -8% $ (116) $ 1,255 $ 7.11 $ 6.03
Uranium Advanced Nuclear (AN) 2,234 10,461 $ 6,034 -3% $ (199) $ 5,835 $ 103.31 $ 2.37
Biomass Biomass (BBFB) 50 13,500 $ 3,900 -7% $ (258) $ 3,642 $ 114.39 $ 5.70
Wind Onshore Wind (WN) 100 $ 1,624 39% $ 632 $ 2,256 $ 48.42 $ -
Solar Thermal 100 $ 4,291 N/A N/A $ 72.84 $ -
Solar Solar - Photovoltaic - Tracking (PV) 150 $ 1,969 -29% $ (577) $ 1,392 $ 22.46 $ -
Solar - Photovoltaic - Tracking 150 $ 1,783 -27% $ (478) $ 1,305 $ 22.46 $ -
Storage Battery Storage (BES) 30 $ 1,950 -2% $ (30) $ 1,920 $ 36.32 $ 7.26

Case No. 2020-00299

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Energy Information Administration
F-2 Capital Cost Estimates
 2016 EIA Capital Cost Estimates
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Capital Cost Estimates
Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants (November 2016)
Plant Characteristics Plant Costs (2016$)
Overnight Location Total Non-Fuel
Plant Type Capacity Heat Rate Capital Cost - Variation
Delta Cost
Difference
Location
Fixed
O&M
Variable
Base Project (Kentucky) Project Cost Cost
MW BTU/kWh $/kW % $/kW $/kW $/kW-yr $/MWh
Ultra Supercritical Coal 650 8,800 $ 3,636 -7% $ (271) $ 3,365 $ 42.10 $ 4.60
Ultra Supercritical Coal with CCS 650 9,750 $ 5,084 -7% $ (345) $ 4,739 $ 70.00 $ 7.10
Coal Pulverized Coal Conversion to Natural Gas (CTNG) 300 10,300 $ 226 -9% $ (21) $ 205 $ 22.00 $ 1.30
Pulverized Coal Greenfield with 10-15 percent 300 8,960 $ 4,620 -10% $ (449) $ 4,171 $ 50.90 $ 5.00
Pulverized Coal Conversion to 10% Biomass 300 10,360 $ 537 -10% $ (53) $ 483 $ 50.90 $ 5.00
Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) 702 6,600 $ 978 -7% $ (67) $ 911 $ 11.00 $ 3.50
Advanced Natural Gas Combined Cycle (ANGCC) 429 6,300 $ 1,104 2% $ 26 $ 1,130 $ 10.00 $ 2.00
Natural
Combustion Turbine (CT) 100 10,000 $ 1,101 -5% $ (53) $ 1,048 $ 17.50 $ 3.50
Gas
Advanced Combustion Turbine 237 9,800 $ 678 -4% $ (26) $ 652 $ 6.80 $ 10.70
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine 85 8,500 $ 1,342 -6% $ (85) $ 1,257 $ 6.90 $ 5.85
Uranium Advanced Nuclear (AN) 2,234 N/A $ 5,945 -3% $ (149) $ 5,796 $ 100.28 $ 2.30
Biomass Biomass (BBFB) 50 13,500 $ 4,985 -10% $ (876) $ 4,109 $ 110.00 $ 4.20
Wind Onshore Wind (WN) 100 N/A $ 1,877 -4% $ (68) $ 1,809 $ 39.70 $ -
Solar - Photovoltaic - Fixed (PV) 20 N/A $ 2,671 -10% $ (272) $ 2,399 $ 23.40 $ -
Solar Solar - Photovoltaic - Tracking (PV) 20 N/A $ 2,644 -11% $ (280) $ 2,364 $ 23.90 $ -
Solar - Photovoltaic - Tracking 150 N/A $ 2,534 -9% $ (236) $ 2,298 $ 21.80 $ -
Storage Battery Storage (BES) 4 N/A $ 2,813 -3% $ (89) $ 2,724 $ 40.00 $ 8.00

Case No. 2020-00299

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Energy Information Administration
F-3 Capital Cost Estimates
 2024 -2043 ST Plan Portfolio Results - Base Case
Average
Cost to Serve Load Average Reserve
Energy
Generation Portfolio $M Capacity Margin Comment
Position
NPV, 2024$ Ranking MWh MW %
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 7 887,309 243.1 29.4% No Solar Added
+ Solar 6 1,450,055 427.4 51.8% Current Position
+ Solar, Green Idled 5 (500,458) (11.8) -1.4% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 4 606,067 72.2 8.7% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 3 1,180,621 57.2 6.9% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 2 1,687,738 65.2 7.9% Proposed Option
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 1 173,877 73.7 8.9% Least cost (Base case)

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Exhibit Summary
G-1 Production Cost Model
 Big Rivers' Member Load
Year Energy, MWh NCP, MW
2024 4,409,889 815
2025 4,415,339 817
2026 4,425,681 819
2027 4,427,519 819
2028 4,436,200 820
2029 4,439,269 821
2030 4,443,020 822
2031 4,448,003 823
2032 4,462,278 825
2033 4,462,294 826
2034 4,466,493 827
2035 4,470,695 828
2036 4,477,410 829
2037 4,479,154 830
2038 4,482,805 831
2039 4,482,692 832
2040 4,486,504 833
2041 4,482,635 834
2042 4,483,054 835
2043 4,482,822 836

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Load Exhibit Summary
G-2 Production Cost Model
 Solar Profile and Cost
Generation Cost Cost
Year NCF, %
MWh $M $/MWh
2024 591,843 25.9%
2025 587,693 25.8%
2026 584,724 25.7%
2027 581,756 25.5%
2028 579,946 25.4%
2029 575,820 25.3%
2030 572,852 25.2%
2031 569,884 25.0%
2032 568,050 24.9%
2033 563,947 24.8%
2034 560,979 24.6%
2035 558,011 24.5%
2036 556,154 24.4%
2037 552,075 24.2%
2038 549,107 24.1%
2039 546,139 24.0%
2040 544,257 23.8%
2041 540,202 23.7%
2042 537,234 23.6%
2043 534,266 23.5%

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Solar Profile and Cost Exhibit
G-3 Production Cost Model
 Native Load 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Energy, MWh 4,409,889 4,415,339 4,425,681 4,427,519 4,436,200 4,439,269 4,443,020
Energy Cost, $M $
Peak Load NCP - MW 815.0 817.0 819.0 819.0 820.0 821.0 822.0
Capacity Requirement (MISO PRMR), MW 880.9 883.8 886.0 886.0 887.1 888.2 889.2
Capacity Cost, $M $
Total Cost, $M
Total Cost, $/MWh
Total Cost, $/MW-Day Capacity

Total Load Cost, $M Average Load Cost, $M/Yr Load Cost, N

Native Load Cost Summary
2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033
Load Cost

Generation, MWh
Generation Portfolio 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 4,582,934 4,698,784 3,981,576 4,513,075 3,946,400 3,976,869 3,891,843
+ Solar 5,174,777 5,286,476 4,566,301 5,094,831 4,526,347 4,552,689 4,464,695
+ Solar, Green Idled 3,909,273 4,128,242 3,558,355 4,102,130 3,811,073 3,957,013 3,742,559
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 6,254,152 6,473,598 5,931,481 6,522,126 6,140,140 6,251,123 6,100,941
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 4,627,774 4,848,782 4,286,545 4,844,810 4,527,473 4,662,904 4,465,500
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 5,084,150 5,299,518 4,742,101 5,303,766 4,974,340 5,106,341 4,922,060
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 5,717,943 5,942,802 5,395,015 5,980,650 5,613,673 5,729,254 5,564,055

Energy Position, MWh

Generation Portfolio 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 173,045 283,445 (444,105) 85,556 (489,800) (462,400) (551,177)
+ Solar 764,888 871,137 140,620 667,312 90,147 113,420 21,675
+ Solar, Green Idled (500,616) (287,097) (867,326) (325,389) (625,127) (482,256) (700,461)
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 1,844,263 2,058,259 1,505,800 2,094,607 1,703,940 1,811,854 1,657,921
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 217,885 433,443 (139,136) 417,291 91,273 223,635 22,480
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 674,261 884,179 316,420 876,247 538,140 667,072 479,040
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 1,308,054 1,527,463 969,334 1,553,131 1,177,473 1,289,985 1,121,035

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-4 Production Cost Model
 Native Load 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Energy, MWh 4,448,003 4,462,278 4,462,294 4,466,493 4,470,695 4,477,410 4,479,154
Energy Cost, $M $
Peak Load NCP - MW 823.0 825.0 826.0 827.0 828.0 829.0 830.0
Capacity Requirement (MISO PRMR), MW 890.3 892.5 893.6 894.6 895.7 896.8 897.9
Capacity Cost, $M $
Total Cost, $M
Total Cost, $/MWh
Total Cost, $/MW-Day Capacity

Load Cost, NPV 2024$, $M Load Cost , Avg. NPV 2024$, $M/Yr
Native Load Cost Summary
2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043
Load Cost

Generation, MWh
Generation Portfolio 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 4,348,347 3,808,380 4,841,662 4,538,109 5,362,566 5,658,842 6,327,462
+ Solar 4,918,231 4,376,430 5,405,610 5,099,088 5,920,577 6,214,995 6,879,537
+ Solar, Green Idled 4,099,774 3,743,713 4,125,158 3,618,842 4,025,238 3,968,970 4,154,284
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 6,397,543 5,995,684 6,437,573 5,833,180 6,247,332 6,249,181 6,317,429
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 4,805,610 4,434,878 4,834,636 4,300,506 4,708,469 4,667,245 4,819,836
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 5,252,872 4,880,354 5,285,616 4,736,850 5,147,870 5,119,632 5,253,324
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 5,871,854 5,473,412 5,907,762 5,321,095 5,732,017 5,719,209 5,809,990

Energy Position, MWh

Generation Portfolio 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) (99,656) (653,898) 379,368 71,616 891,871 1,181,432 1,848,308
+ Solar 470,228 (85,848) 943,316 632,595 1,449,882 1,737,585 2,400,383
+ Solar, Green Idled (348,229) (718,565) (337,136) (847,651) (445,457) (508,440) (324,870)
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 1,949,540 1,533,406 1,975,279 1,366,687 1,776,637 1,771,771 1,838,275
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 357,607 (27,400) 372,342 (165,987) 237,774 189,835 340,682
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 804,869 418,076 823,322 270,357 677,175 642,222 774,170
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 1,423,851 1,011,134 1,445,468 854,602 1,261,322 1,241,799 1,330,836

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-5 Production Cost Model
 Native Load 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Energy, MWh 4,482,805 4,482,692 4,486,504 4,482,635 4,483,054 4,482,822
Energy Cost, $M
Peak Load NCP - MW 831.0 832.0 833.0 834.0 835.0 836.0
Capacity Requirement (MISO PRMR), MW 899.0 900.1 901.2 902.3 903.4 904.5
Capacity Cost, $M
Total Cost, $M
Total Cost, $/MWh
Total Cost, $/MW-Day Capacity

Native Load Cost Summary

Load Cost

Generation, MWh
Generation Portfolio 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 6,711,663 7,009,214 7,079,914 7,279,108 6,864,325 7,488,854
+ Solar 7,260,769 7,555,353 7,624,171 7,819,310 7,401,559 8,023,120
+ Solar, Green Idled 4,066,064 4,148,089 3,996,444 4,093,884 3,670,922 4,234,572
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 6,210,431 6,218,205 6,065,547 5,979,238 5,447,757 5,845,850
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 4,725,771 4,787,390 4,634,677 4,681,920 4,229,237 4,747,339
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 5,158,019 5,206,603 5,056,080 5,070,167 4,598,127 5,087,317
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 5,704,882 5,727,958 5,573,229 5,525,654 5,016,832 5,448,898

Energy Position, MWh

Generation Portfolio 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 Average
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 2,228,858 2,526,522 2,593,410 2,796,473 2,381,271 3,006,032 887,309
+ Solar 2,777,964 3,072,661 3,137,667 3,336,675 2,918,505 3,540,298 1,450,055
+ Solar, Green Idled (416,741) (334,603) (490,060) (388,751) (812,132) (248,250) (500,458)
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 1,727,626 1,735,513 1,579,043 1,496,603 964,703 1,363,028 1,687,738
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 242,966 304,698 148,173 199,285 (253,817) 264,517 173,877
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 675,214 723,911 569,576 587,532 115,073 604,495 606,067
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 1,222,077 1,245,266 1,086,725 1,043,019 533,778 966,076 1,180,621

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-6 Production Cost Model
 Firm Capacity, MW
Generation Portfolio 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069
+ Solar 1,266 1,265 1,263 1,262 1,261 1,259 1,258
+ Solar, Green Idled 827 825 824 823 821 820 819
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 904 902 901 900 898 897 896
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 912 911 910 908 907 906 904
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 911 909 908 907 905 904 903
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 896 894 893 892 890 889 888

Reserve Capacity Position, MW

Generation Portfolio 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 254 252 250 250 249 248 247
+ Solar 451 448 444 443 441 438 436
+ Solar, Green Idled 12 8 5 4 1 (1) (3)
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 89 85 82 81 78 76 74
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 97 94 91 89 87 85 82
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 96 92 89 88 85 83 81
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 81 77 74 73 70 68 66

Reserve Capacity Margin, %

Generation Portfolio 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 31.2% 30.9% 30.5% 30.5% 30.4% 30.2% 30.1%
+ Solar 55.3% 54.8% 54.2% 54.1% 53.7% 53.4% 53.0%
+ Solar, Green Idled 1.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.2% -0.1% -0.4%
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 10.9% 10.4% 10.0% 9.9% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0%
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 11.9% 11.5% 11.1% 10.9% 10.6% 10.3% 10.0%
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 11.7% 11.3% 10.9% 10.7% 10.4% 10.1% 9.8%
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 9.9% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 8.6% 8.3% 8.0%

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-7 Production Cost Model
 Firm Capacity, MW
Generation Portfolio 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069
+ Solar 1,257 1,255 1,254 1,253 1,252 1,250 1,249
+ Solar, Green Idled 818 816 815 814 812 811 810
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 895 893 892 891 889 888 887
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 903 902 900 899 898 897 895
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 902 900 899 898 896 895 894
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 887 885 884 883 881 880 879

Reserve Capacity Position, MW

Generation Portfolio 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 246 244 243 242 241 240 239
+ Solar 434 430 428 426 424 421 419
+ Solar, Green Idled (5) (9) (11) (13) (16) (18) (20)
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 72 68 66 64 61 59 57
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 80 77 74 72 70 68 65
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 79 75 73 71 68 66 64
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 64 60 58 56 53 51 49

Reserve Capacity Margin, %

Generation Portfolio 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 29.9% 29.6% 29.4% 29.3% 29.1% 29.0% 28.8%
+ Solar 52.7% 52.2% 51.8% 51.5% 51.2% 50.8% 50.5%
+ Solar, Green Idled -0.7% -1.1% -1.3% -1.6% -1.9% -2.2% -2.4%
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 8.7% 8.3% 8.0% 7.7% 7.4% 7.1% 6.8%
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 9.7% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.9%
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 9.5% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 8.3% 8.0% 7.7%
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 7.7% 7.3% 7.0% 6.7% 6.4% 6.2% 5.9%

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-8 Production Cost Model
 Firm Capacity, MW
Generation Portfolio 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069 1,069
+ Solar 1,248 1,246 1,245 1,244 1,242 1,241
+ Solar, Green Idled 808 807 806 805 803 802
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 885 884 883 882 880 879
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 894 893 891 890 889 887
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 892 891 890 889 887 886
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 877 876 875 874 872 871

Reserve Capacity Position, MW

Generation Portfolio 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 Average
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 238 237 236 235 234 233 243
+ Solar 417 414 412 410 407 405 427
+ Solar, Green Idled (23) (25) (27) (29) (32) (34) (12)
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 54 52 50 48 45 43 65
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 63 61 58 56 54 51 74
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 61 59 57 55 52 50 72
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 46 44 42 40 37 35 57

Reserve Capacity Margin, %

Generation Portfolio 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 Average
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green) 28.7% 28.5% 28.4% 28.2% 28.0% 27.9% 29.4%
+ Solar 50.1% 49.8% 49.5% 49.1% 48.8% 48.5% 51.8%
+ Solar, Green Idled -2.7% -3.0% -3.3% -3.5% -3.8% -4.1% -1.4%
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree 6.5% 6.3% 6.0% 5.7% 5.4% 5.1% 7.9%
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 7.6% 7.3% 7.0% 6.7% 6.4% 6.1% 8.9%
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree 7.4% 7.1% 6.8% 6.5% 6.3% 6.0% 8.7%
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 5.6% 5.3% 5.0% 4.7% 4.5% 4.2% 6.9%

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-9 Production Cost Model
 Net Cost (Revenue), $M
Generation Portfolio 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled 1
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Cost to Serve Load, $M

Generation Portfolio 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree 1 9
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Cost to Serve Load Total Cost to Serve Load, $M Average Cost to Serve Load, $M/Yr Cost to Serve Loa
Generation Portfolio 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-10 Production Cost Model
 Net Cost (Revenue), $M
Generation Portfolio 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Cost to Serve Load, $M

Generation Portfolio 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree 0

Cost to Serve Load Cost to Serve Load, NPV 2024$, $M Cost to Serve Load, Avg. NPV 2024$, $M/Yr
Generation Portfolio 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-11 Production Cost Model
 Net Cost (Revenue), $M
Generation Portfolio 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Cost to Serve Load, $M

Generation Portfolio 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Cost to Serve Load

Generation Portfolio
Status Quo (Wilson, RCT, SEPA, Green)
+ Solar
+ Solar, Green Idled
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT idled, Exit SEPA, + 330 NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled, + 90 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green and Reid CT Idled, + 150 MW NGCC Sebree
+ Solar, Green Idled and Exit SEPA, + 260 MW NGCC Sebree

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-12 Production Cost Model
 2024 - 2043 Unit/Station Summary Base
Green NG Green NG
Wilson Green - Coal SEPA Reid CT
(Firm) (No Firm)
Generation, Avg Annual MWh 3,110,617 1,950,513 992,239 229,848 267,000 17,367
Capacity Factor, % 86% 49% 27% 6% 17% 3%
Firm Capacity, MW 393.5 439.2 400.6 400.6 178.0 58.5
Total Generation Variable Cost, $/MWh - Nominal
Gross Margin, $M - Nominal/Yr
Gross Margin, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr

Total Fixed and Capital Cost, $M - Nominal/Yr. $

Total Fixed and Capital Cost, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr.
Capacity Revenue, $M - Nominal/Yr.
Capacity Revenue, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr.
Net Fixed and Capital Cost less Capacity Revenue, $M - Nominal/Yr.
Net Fixed and Capital Cost less Capacity Revenue, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr.
Cost (Revenue), $M - Nominal/Yr
Cost (Revenue), $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr

Cost (Revenue), $/MWh - Nominal

Cost (Revenue), $/MWh - NPV 2024$
Cost (Revenue), $/kW-Year - Nominal
Cost (Revenue), $/kW-Year - NPV 2024$

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Unit Summary
G-13 Production Cost Model
 2024 - 2043 Unit/Station Summary Base
Solar NGCC NGCC NGCC NGCC
Generation, Avg Annual MWh 562,747 674,335 1,123,892 1,948,079 2,472,562
Capacity Factor, % 25% 86% 86% 86% 86%
Firm Capacity, MW 184.3 85.5 142.5 247.0 `
Total Generation Variable Cost, $/MWh - Nominal
Gross Margin, $M - Nominal/Yr
Gross Margin, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr

Total Fixed and Capital Cost, $M - Nominal/Yr.

Total Fixed and Capital Cost, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr.
Capacity Revenue, $M - Nominal/Yr.
Capacity Revenue, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr.
Net Fixed and Capital Cost less Capacity Revenue, $M - Nominal/Yr.
Net Fixed and Capital Cost less Capacity Revenue, $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr.
Cost (Revenue), $M - Nominal/Yr
Cost (Revenue), $M - NPV 2024$ Avg./Yr

Cost (Revenue), $/MWh - Nominal

Cost (Revenue), $/MWh - NPV 2024$
Cost (Revenue), $/kW-Year - Nominal
Cost (Revenue), $/kW-Year - NPV 2024$

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Unit Summary
G-14 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $M 8
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr 6
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M 8
Total MISO Revenue, $M 9
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-15 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
2 Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-16 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-17 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Operating Performance -KPIs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997
Net Generation, GWh 4,628 4,849 4,287 4,845 4,527 4,663 4,465
Cost to Serve Load (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Cost to Serve Load, $M $
Nominal
Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh 2
Real Cost to Serve Load, $M $
2024$ Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh
Load Market Cost, $M
Nominal Generation Market Revenue, $M
Net Market, $M
Load Market Cost, $M
Real
Generation Market Revenue, $M
2024$
Net Market, $M
Load, GWh 4,410 4,415 4,426 4,428 4,436 4,439 4,443

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-18 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Operating Performance -KPIs 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 996 995 993 992 991 989 988
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 996 995 993 992 991 989 988
Net Generation, GWh 4,806 4,435 4,835 4,301 4,708 4,667 4,820
Cost to Serve Load (Annual inflation) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Cost to Serve Load, $M $ 162.83 $ 175.25 $ 168.25 $ 195.99 $ 176.06 $ 187.80 $ 181.81
Nominal
Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh 3.661 3.927 3.770 4.388 3.938 4.194 4.059
Real Cost to Serve Load, $M $ 142.16 $ 149.98 $ 141.19 $ 161.18 $ 142.00 $ 148.48 $ 140.94
2024$ Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh 3.196 3.361 3.164 3.609 3.176 3.316 3.146
Load Market Cost, $M $ 170.95 $ 172.10 $ 181.39 $ 187.60 $ 194.79 $ 202.55 $ 211.96
Nominal Generation Market Revenue, $M $ 183.48 $ 173.77 $ 194.31 $ 183.87 $ 203.37 $ 210.13 $ 224.67
Net Market, $M $ (12.54) $ (1.68) $ (12.92) $ 3.73 $ (8.58) $ (7.58) $ (12.72)
Load Market Cost, $M $ 148.82 $ 146.88 $ 151.78 $ 153.90 $ 156.66 $ 159.71 $ 163.85
Real
Generation Market Revenue, $M $ 159.33 $ 147.91 $ 162.19 $ 150.44 $ 163.16 $ 165.29 $ 173.29
2024$
Net Market, $M $ (10.51) $ (1.03) $ (10.41) $ 3.46 $ (6.50) $ (5.58) $ (9.44)
Load, GWh 4,448 4,462 4,462 4,466 4,471 4,477 4,479

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-19 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Operating Performance -KPIs 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 987 986 984 983 982 980
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 987 986 984 983 982 980
Net Generation, GWh 4,726 4,787 4,635 4,682 4,229 4,747
Cost to Serve Load (Annual inflation) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Cost to Serve Load, $M
Nominal
Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh
Real Cost to Serve Load, $M
2024$ Cost to Serve Load, cents/KWh
Load Market Cost, $M
Nominal Generation Market Revenue, $M
Net Market, $M
Load Market Cost, $M
Real
Generation Market Revenue, $M
2024$
Net Market, $M )
Load, GWh 4,483 4,483 4,487 4,483 4,483 4,483

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-20 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Wilson - Coal
2 Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh 2.1
Production Cost -(2024$) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $000
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr 7
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh 2
Market Revenue 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M 4
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
Net Generation, GWh 3,028 3,244 2,677 3,217 2,933 3,087 2,877

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-21 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
2 Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Wilson - Coal
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh 3
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh 2
Production Cost -(2024$) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
Net Generation, GWh 3,240 2,893 3,272 2,773 3,184 3,133 3,325

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-22 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Wilson - Coal
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 412 412 412 412 412 412
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 412 412 412 412 412 412
Net Generation, GWh 3,242 3,328 3,181 3,283 2,863 3,431

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-23 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Reid CT - Natural Gas
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M 0
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh 3.
Production Cost -(2024$) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $000
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M $
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M 1
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Net Generation, GWh 23 30 30 36 31 27 25

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-24 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Reid CT - Natural Gas
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $000
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Net Generation, GWh 23 15 22 18 16 13 10

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-25 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Reid CT - Natural Gas
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 65 65 65 65 65 65
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 65 65 65 65 65 65
Net Generation, GWh 8 7 4 4 3 2

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-26 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
NGCC Sebree - Natural Gas
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M $
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $000 6
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M $
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh 4
Market Revenue 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Net Generation, GWh 719 721 728 743 716 706 723

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-27 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
NGCC Sebree - Natural Gas
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M 2
Operating Performance -KPIs 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Net Generation, GWh 706 691 709 682 683 698 666

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-28 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
NGCC Sebree - Natural Gas
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 90 90 90 90 90 90
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 90 90 90 90 90 90
Net Generation, GWh 660 639 638 588 558 513

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-29 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
SEPA - Hydro
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
- - - - - - -
Production Cost -(2024$) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M $ 11
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr 9
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh - - - - - - -
Market Revenue 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Net Generation, GWh 267 267 267 267 267 267 267

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-30 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
SEPA - Hydro
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh - - - - - - -
Production Cost -(2024$) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Net Generation, GWh 267 267 267 267 267 267 267

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-31 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
SEPA - Hydro
2 Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh -
Market Revenue 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
Nominal MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
2024$
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 178 178 178 178 178 178
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 178 178 178 178 178 178
Net Generation, GWh 267 267 267 267 267 267

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-32 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Solar - Renewable
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M $
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr $
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M $ 1
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Total Production Cost, $000 $ 1 0
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000 $
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M $
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 260 259 257 256 255 254 252
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 260 259 257 256 255 254 252
Net Generation, GWh 592 588 585 582 580 576 573

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-33 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Solar - Renewable
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Market Revenue 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M $
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 251 250 248 247 246 244 243
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 251 250 248 247 246 244 243
Net Generation, GWh 570 568 564 561 558 556 552

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-34 Production Cost Model
 Base Case
Base Case Annual Inflation Rate
Solar - Renewable
Production Cost (Annual inflation) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $M $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Nominal)
Total Variable Cost, $M
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh
Production Cost -(2024$) 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Total Production Cost, $000 $
Total Production Cost, cents/kWh
Production
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. New Capital), $M
Cost
Total Fixed O&M Cost, (Incl. New Capital) $/kW-yr
(Real)
Total Variable Cost, $000
Total Variable Cost, cents/kWh 0
Market Revenue 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
REC Revenue, $M
Nominal
MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
MISO Pool (Energy) Revenue, $M
Real REC Revenue, $M
2024$ MISO Capacity Revenue, $M
Total MISO Revenue, $M
Operating Performance -KPIs 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Net Capacity (Summer), MW 242 241 239 238 237 235
KPIs Net Capacity (Winter), MW 242 241 239 238 237 235
Net Generation, GWh 549 546 544 540 537 534

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Cost
G-35 Production Cost Model
 System - Base Case
Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 4,628 4,849 4,287 4,845 4,527 4,663 4,465 4,806 4,435 4,835
- Coal 3,028 3,244 2,677 3,217 2,933 3,087 2,877 3,240 2,893 3,272
- Hydro 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267
- Natural Gas 741 750 758 779 747 733 748 729 706 731
- Solar 592 588 585 582 580 576 573 570 568 564
Winter Capacity, MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997 996 995 993
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 260 259 257 256 255 254 252 251 250 248
Summer Capacity, MW 1,005 1,004 1,002 1,001 1,000 999 997 996 995 993
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 260 259 257 256 255 254 252 251 250 248
Firm Capacity, MW 912 911 910 908 907 906 904 903 902 900
- Coal 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144
- Solar 197 195 194 193 191 190 189 188 186 185
Net Capacity Factor, % 52.4% 55.0% 48.7% 55.1% 51.6% 53.2% 51.0% 54.9% 50.8% 55.4%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu
- Coal
- Natural Gas
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh
- Coal
- Natural Gas

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Performance
G-36 Production Cost Model
 System - Base Case
Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 4,301 4,708 4,667 4,820 4,726 4,787 4,635 4,682 4,229 4,747
- Coal 2,773 3,184 3,133 3,325 3,242 3,328 3,181 3,283 2,863 3,431
- Hydro 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267
- Natural Gas 700 699 711 676 667 646 642 592 562 515
- Solar 561 558 556 552 549 546 544 540 537 534
Winter Capacity, MW 992 991 989 988 987 986 984 983 982 980
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 247 246 244 243 242 241 239 238 237 235
Summer Capacity, MW 992 991 989 988 987 986 984 983 982 980
- Coal 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
- Solar 247 246 244 243 242 241 239 238 237 235
Firm Capacity, MW 899 898 897 895 894 893 891 890 889 887
- Coal 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
- Hydro 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
- Natural Gas 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 144
- Solar 184 182 181 180 178 177 176 175 173 172
Net Capacity Factor, % 49.4% 54.1% 53.7% 55.5% 54.5% 55.3% 53.6% 54.2% 49.0% 55.1%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu 3
- Coal
- Natural Gas
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh
- Coal
- Natural Gas 20

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Performance
G-37 Production Cost Model
 System - Base Case
Wilson - Coal
Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 3,028 3,244 2,677 3,217 2,933 3,087 2,877 3,240 2,893 3,272
Winter Capacity, MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
Summer Capacity, MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
Firm Capacity, MW 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
Net Capacity Factor, % 83.7% 89.9% 74.2% 89.1% 81.1% 85.5% 79.7% 89.8% 79.9% 90.7%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu 3
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh

Reid CT - NG
Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 23 30 30 36 31 27 25 23 15 22
Winter Capacity, MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Summer Capacity, MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Firm Capacity, MW 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59
Net Capacity Factor, % 4.0% 5.2% 5.3% 6.4% 5.4% 4.8% 4.5% 4.1% 2.7% 3.9%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu 2
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh

NGCC Sebree - NG
Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 719 721 728 743 716 706 723 706 691 709
Winter Capacity, MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Summer Capacity, MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Firm Capacity, MW 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Net Capacity Factor, % 90.9% 91.4% 92.4% 94.2% 90.6% 89.5% 91.7% 89.5% 87.4% 90.0%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu 4
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Performance
G-38 Production Cost Model
 System - Base Case
Wilson - Coal
Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 2,773 3,184 3,133 3,325 3,242 3,328 3,181 3,283 2,863 3,431
Winter Capacity, MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
Summer Capacity, MW 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412 412
Firm Capacity, MW 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 393
Net Capacity Factor, % 76.8% 88.2% 86.6% 92.1% 89.8% 92.2% 87.9% 91.0% 79.3% 95.1%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh

Reid CT - NG
Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 18 16 13 10 8 7 4 4 3 2
Winter Capacity, MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Summer Capacity, MW 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65
Firm Capacity, MW 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 59
Net Capacity Factor, % 3.2% 2.8% 2.3% 1.8% 1.3% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh

NGCC Sebree - NG
Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 682 683 698 666 660 639 638 588 558 513
Winter Capacity, MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Summer Capacity, MW 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Firm Capacity, MW 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Net Capacity Factor, % 86.5% 86.7% 88.3% 84.4% 83.7% 81.1% 80.7% 74.6% 70.8% 65.0%
Fuel Usage (Thermal Units), GBtu
Heat Rate (Thermal Units), BTU/kWh 0

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Performance
G-39 Production Cost Model
 System - Base Case
SEPA - Hydro
Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267
Winter Capacity, MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Summer Capacity, MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Firm Capacity, MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Net Capacity Factor, % 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1%

Solar PPA Henderson

Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 361 358 356 355 353 351 349 347 346 344
Winter Capacity, MW 160 159 158 158 157 156 155 154 154 153
Summer Capacity, MW 160 159 158 158 157 156 155 154 154 153
Firm Capacity, MW 116 115 115 114 113 112 111 111 110 109
Net Capacity Factor, % 25.7% 25.6% 25.4% 25.3% 25.1% 25.0% 24.9% 24.8% 24.6% 24.5%

Solar PPA McCracken

Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 140 139 138 138 137 136 135 135 134 133
Winter Capacity, MW 60 60 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 57
Summer Capacity, MW 60 60 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 57
Firm Capacity, MW 49 49 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 47
Net Capacity Factor, % 26.6% 26.4% 26.3% 26.2% 26.0% 25.9% 25.8% 25.6% 25.5% 25.4%

Solar PPA Meade

Performance 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Generation - GWh 91 91 90 90 89 89 88 88 88 87
Winter Capacity, MW 40 40 40 39 39 39 39 39 38 38
Summer Capacity, MW 40 40 40 39 39 39 39 39 38 38
Firm Capacity, MW 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 29
Net Capacity Factor, % 26.0% 25.8% 25.7% 25.6% 25.4% 25.3% 25.2% 25.1% 24.9% 24.8%
Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan
Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Performance
G-40 Production Cost Model
 System - Base Case
SEPA - Hydro
Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267
Winter Capacity, MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Summer Capacity, MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Firm Capacity, MW 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178
Net Capacity Factor, % 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1% 17.1%

Solar PPA Henderson

Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 342 340 339 336 335 333 332 329 327 326
Winter Capacity, MW 152 151 150 150 149 148 147 146 146 145
Summer Capacity, MW 152 151 150 150 149 148 147 146 146 145
Firm Capacity, MW 108 107 107 106 105 104 103 103 102 101
Net Capacity Factor, % 24.4% 24.3% 24.1% 24.0% 23.9% 23.7% 23.6% 23.5% 23.4% 23.2%

Solar PPA McCracken

Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 133 132 132 131 130 129 129 128 127 126
Winter Capacity, MW 57 57 56 56 56 56 55 55 55 54
Summer Capacity, MW 57 57 56 56 56 56 55 55 55 54
Firm Capacity, MW 46 46 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44
Net Capacity Factor, % 25.2% 25.1% 25.0% 24.8% 24.7% 24.6% 24.4% 24.3% 24.2% 24.0%

Solar PPA Meade

Performance 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Generation - GWh 86 86 86 85 85 84 84 83 83 82
Winter Capacity, MW 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 37 36 36
Summer Capacity, MW 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 37 36 36
Firm Capacity, MW 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 28 27
Net Capacity Factor, % 24.7% 24.5% 24.4% 24.3% 24.2% 24.0% 23.9% 23.8% 23.6% 23.5%
Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan
Big Rivers 2020 IRP Base Case Performance
G-41 Production Cost Model
 Big Rivers Native Load Cost, MISO
Energy MISO Cost Capacity MISO Cost Total MISO Cost
Year
MWh $M $/MWh PRMR $M $/MW-Day MWh $M $/MWh
2021 3,330,269 666.7 $ 3,330,269 $
2022 4,384,110 882.6 7 4,384,110
2023 4,395,839 879.8 $ 7 4,395,839
2024 4,409,889 880.9 7 4,409,889
2025 4,415,339 883.8 4,415,339
2026 4,425,681 886.0 4,425,681
2027 4,427,519 886.0 4,427,519
2028 4,436,200 887.1 4,436,200 1
2029 4,439,269 888.2 4,439,269
2030 4,443,020 889.2 4,443,020
2031 4,448,003 890.3 4,448,003
2032 4,462,278 892.5 4,462,278 7
2033 4,462,294 893.6 4,462,294
2034 4,466,493 894.6 4,466,493
2035 4,470,695 895.7 4,470,695
2036 4,477,410 87 896.8 4,477,410
2037 4,479,154 897.9 4,479,154
2038 4,482,805 899.0 4,482,805
2039 4,482,692 $ 900.1 4,482,692
2040 4,486,504 901.2 4,486,504 $
2041 4,482,635 902.3 $ 4,482,635 $
2042 4,483,054 903.4 4,483,054 $
2043 4,482,822 904.5 4,482,822 $ 0

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Load Cost
G-42 Production Cost Model
 Wilson Fixed O&M Costs - Coal-Fired,
Coleman Scrubber moved Spring 2022 ($M)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Non-Labor Routine $
Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Non-Labor (Landfill Dredging and other costs
not incl. in Non-Fuel VOM dispatch)
Plant Capital Costs
ECP Capital Costs (2020 projected spend $4.15M)
ECP Capital Costs (Total Spend in 2022$)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost
(Incl. Plant Capital and ECP Capital Annualized)

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-43 Production Cost Model
 Wilson Fixed O&M Costs - Coal-Fired,
Coleman Scrubber moved Spring 2022 ($M)
2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Non-Labor Routine $
Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Non-Labor (Landfill Dredging and other costs
not incl. in Non-Fuel VOM dispatch)
Plant Capital Costs
ECP Capital Costs (2020 projected spend $4.15M)
ECP Capital Costs (Total Spend in 2022$)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost
(Incl. Plant Capital and ECP Capital Annualized)

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-44 Production Cost Model
 Wilson Fixed O&M Costs - Coal-Fired,
Coleman Scrubber moved Spring 2022 ($M)
2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Non-Labor Routine $
Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Non-Labor (Landfill Dredging and other costs
not incl. in Non-Fuel VOM dispatch)
Plant Capital Costs 5.83
ECP Capital Costs (2020 projected spend $4.15M) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
ECP Capital Costs (Total Spend in 2022$)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost
(Incl. Plant Capital and ECP Capital Annualized)

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-45 Production Cost Model
 Green Fixed O&M Costs (Reduced Capactiy Factor,
Econ Commit) - Coal-Fired ($M)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Non-Labor Routine
G1 Non-Labor Outage $
G2 Non-Labor Outage $
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Non-Labor (Landfill Dredging and other costs
not incl. in Non-Fuel VOM for dispatch)
Plant Capital Costs
G1 Outage Capital Costs
G2 Outage Capital Costs
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G1 (Green Total in 2024$ /2)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G2 (Green Total in 2024$/2)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital - ECP Capital Annualized)
Difference for High Capacity Factor
Generation MWh adder 2,585,076 65.0%
Green Fixed Cost Adder Check (Green Generation X Adder) $ 13.39 $ 12.25 $ 10.66 $ 10.50 $ 7.57
Green Capacity Factor 31.7% 29.1% 25.3% 25.0% 17.9%

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-46 Production Cost Model
 Green Fixed O&M Costs (Reduced Capactiy Factor,
Econ Commit) - Coal-Fired ($M)
2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Non-Labor Routine
G1 Non-Labor Outage
G2 Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Non-Labor (Landfill Dredging and other costs
not incl. in Non-Fuel VOM for dispatch)
Plant Capital Costs
G1 Outage Capital Costs
G2 Outage Capital Costs $
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G1 (Green Total in 2024$ /2)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G2 (Green Total in 2024$/2)
Annualized to 2043 $
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital - ECP Capital Annualized)
Difference for High Capacity Factor
Generation MWh adder
Green Fixed Cost Adder Check (Green Generation X Adder)
Green Capacity Factor 15.0% 18.2% 20.6% 15.9% 32.2% 37.2% 47.7% 56.3%

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-47 Production Cost Model
 Green Fixed O&M Costs (Reduced Capactiy Factor,
Econ Commit) - Coal-Fired ($M)
2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Non-Labor Routine
G1 Non-Labor Outage
G2 Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Non-Labor (Landfill Dredging and other costs
not incl. in Non-Fuel VOM for dispatch)
Plant Capital Costs
G1 Outage Capital Costs
G2 Outage Capital Costs
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G1 (Green Total in 2024$ /2)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G2 (Green Total in 2024$/2)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital - ECP Capital Annualized)
Difference for High Capacity Factor
Generation MWh adder
Green Fixed Cost Adder Check (Green Generation X Adder)
Green Capacity Factor 68.5% 80.3% 85.7% 91.0% 93.7% 93.8% 95.3%

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-48 Production Cost Model
 Green Fixed O&M Costs
(Reduced Capacity Factor) - Gas-Fired ($M)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Non-Labor Routine
G1 Non-Labor Outage
G2 Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Plant Capital Costs
G1 Outage Capital Costs
G2 Outage Capital Costs
Gas Line (2019 Eco-Energy)
G1 Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
G2 Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G1 (Green Total in 2024$ /2)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G2 (Green Total in 2024$/2) $
Annualized to 2043 $
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital - ECP Capital Annualized)

Reid CT Fixed O&M Costs ($M)

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Non-Labor Routine
Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff (not included in Sebree)
Labor Support Staff
Plant Capital Costs
No Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure)
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital and ECP Capital)

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-49 Production Cost Model
 Green Fixed O&M Costs
(Reduced Capacity Factor) - Gas-Fired ($M)
2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Non-Labor Routine
G1 Non-Labor Outage
G2 Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Plant Capital Costs
G1 Outage Capital Costs
G2 Outage Capital Costs
Gas Line (2019 Eco-Energy)
G1 Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
G2 Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G1 (Green Total in 2024$ /2)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G2 (Green Total in 2024$/2)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital - ECP Capital Annualized)

Reid CT Fixed O&M Costs ($M)

2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Non-Labor Routine
Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff (not included in Sebree)
Labor Support Staff
Plant Capital Costs
No Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure)
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital and ECP Capital)

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-50 Production Cost Model
 Green Fixed O&M Costs
(Reduced Capacity Factor) - Gas-Fired ($M)
2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Non-Labor Routine
G1 Non-Labor Outage
G2 Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff
Labor Support Staff
Plant Capital Costs
G1 Outage Capital Costs
G2 Outage Capital Costs
Gas Line (2019 Eco-Energy)
G1 Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
G2 Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G1 (Green Total in 2024$ /2)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure) - G2 (Green Total in 2024$/2)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital - ECP Capital Annualized)

Reid CT Fixed O&M Costs ($M)

2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Non-Labor Routine
Non-Labor Outage
Labor Plant Staff (not included in Sebree)
Labor Support Staff
Plant Capital Costs
No Firm Gas ($0.1688/MMBtu)
ECP Capital Costs (No Pond Closure)
Total Fixed O&M Cost (Incl. Plant Capital and ECP Capital)

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-51 Production Cost Model
 NGCC - Coleman
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (592 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity $

NGCC - Sebree
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (592 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043 $ 48
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity

NGCT - Industrial Frame

2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (237 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-52 Production Cost Model
 NGCC - Coleman
2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (592 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity

NGCC - Sebree
2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (592 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043 $
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity

NGCT - Industrial Frame

2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (237 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043 $
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity 0.06

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-53 Production Cost Model
 NGCC - Coleman
2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM) $
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity) 5
Build Cost, $M (592 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity

NGCC - Sebree
2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (592 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity

NGCT - Industrial Frame

2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity) (Outage Maint in VOM)
Firm Gas Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity)
Gas Service Cost ($M) (237 MW Capacity)
Build Cost, $M (237 Net MW Capacity)
Annualized to 2043
Total Fixed O&M Cost ($M) (592 MW Capacity

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Fixed and Cap Cost
G-54 Production Cost Model
 Fuel Oil Start Fuel 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Delivered Price, $/MMBtu
Wilson Usage, MMBtu 9
Wilson Cost, $M
Green 1 Usage, MMBtu
Green 1 Cost, $M
Green 2 Usage, MMBtu
Green 2 Cost, $M $ .77

NG Price, $/MMBtu
Green NG Usage, MMBtu
Green NG Cost, $M 0.48

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Start Fuel Oil
G-55 Production Cost Model
 Fuel Oil Start Fuel 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Delivered Price, $/MMBtu
Wilson Usage, MMBtu
Wilson Cost, $M
Green 1 Usage, MMBtu
Green 1 Cost, $M
Green 2 Usage, MMBtu
Green 2 Cost, $M

NG Price, $/MMBtu $
Green NG Usage, MMBtu
Green NG Cost, $M

Case No. 2020-00299 Short Term Plan

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Start Fuel Oil
G-56 Production Cost Model
 2024 -2043 LT Plan Portfolio Results - Other Scenarios
Average
Average Reserve
Generation Portfolio (Max Capacity) for Least Cost Plan Energy
Scenario Capacity Margin
Position
Wilson Solar Reid CT SEPA NGCC PPA - Block NPV, 2024$ MWh MW %
Big Rivers Base Case (ST Plan) 412 260 65 178 90 - 173,877 73.7 8.9%
Preliminary LT Plan 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,397,356 76.0 9.2%
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 412 260 65 178 70 0 - 30 (2,138,244) 71.5 8.7%
LT Plan - No Capacity Price 412 260 - - - 290 - 330 (1,027,079) 67.9 8.2%
LT Plan - REC None 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - Solar Capacity ELCC 412 260 65 - 380 - 420 - 2,167,400 75.3 9.1%
LT Plan - No NGCC Option 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (723,091) 68.7 8.3%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Other Exhibit
G-1 Production Cost Model
 2024 -2043 LT Plan Portfolio Results - Multi-Variable Price Scenarios
Cost to Serve Average
Average Reserve
Generation Portfolio (Max Capacity) for Least Cost Plan Load Energy
Scenario Capacity Margin
$M Position
Wilson Solar Reid CT SEPA NGCC PPA - Block NPV, 2024$ MWh MW %
Big Rivers Base Case (ST Plan) 412 260 65 178 90 - 173,877 73.7 8.9%
Preliminary LT Plan 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,722,754 76.0 9.2%
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP -
412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,900,586 76.0 9.2%
Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP -
412 260 - 178 130 - 170 - 168,534 76.1 9.2%
Coal&NG 50% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,685,165 76.0 9.2%
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP -
412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,906,117 76.0 9.2%
Coal&NG 10% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP -
412 260 - 178 130 - 170 - 60,458 74.5 9.0%
Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 412 260 65 178 70 - 90 0 - 10 (133,646) 72.4 8.8%
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 178 60 0 - 40 (937,142) 69.2 8.4%
Coal&NG 10% Lower
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 - 260 - 300 - 1,449,759 75.4 9.1%
Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower All 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (845,039) 68.9 8.3%
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (1,625,698) 68.9 8.3%
Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP -
412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,473,128 74.8 9.1%
Coal&NG 50% Lower

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Multi-Variable Exhibit
G-2 Production Cost Model
 2024 -2043 LT Plan Portfolio Results - Single Variable Price Scenarios
Cost to Serve Average
Average Capacity
Generation Portfolio (Max Capacity) for Least Cost Plan Load Energy
Scenario Reserve Margin
$M Position
Wilson Solar Reid CT SEPA NGCC PPA - Block NPV, 2024$ MWh MW %
Big Rivers Base Case (ST Plan) 412 260 65 178 90 - 173,877 73.7 8.9%
Preliminary LT Plan 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,158,103 74.8 9.1%
Base 50% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,168,192 76.0 9.2%
Base 40% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,151,463 76.0 9.2%
Base 30% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,107,767 76.0 9.2%
Base 20% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 2,016,990 76.0 9.2%
Base 10% Higher LMP 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,909,052 76.0 9.2%
Base 10% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 70 - 80 0 - 20 (701,848) 71.1 8.6%
Base 20% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (1,948,726) 68.9 8.3%
Base 30% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (2,725,702) 68.9 8.3%
Base 40% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (3,296,519) 68.9 8.3%
Base 50% Lower LMP 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (3,551,426) 68.9 8.3%
Base 50% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - (979,590) 74.8 9.1%
Base 40% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - (633,256) 74.8 9.1%
Base 30% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - (215,249) 74.8 9.1%
Base 20% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 270,320 74.8 9.1%
Base 10% Higher Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 736,351 74.8 9.1%
Base 10% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,322,442 74.8 9.1%
Base 20% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,429,019 74.8 9.1%
Base 30% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,515,801 74.8 9.1%
Base 40% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,540,455 74.8 9.1%
Base 50% Lower Coal 412 260 65 - 250 - 290 - 1,544,179 74.8 9.1%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Single Variable Exhibit
G-3 Production Cost Model
 2024 -2043 LT Plan Portfolio Results - Single Variable Price Scenarios
Cost to Serve Average
Average Capacity
Generation Portfolio (Max Capacity) for Least Cost Plan Load Energy
Scenario Reserve Margin
$M Position
Wilson Solar Reid CT SEPA NGCC PPA - Block NPV, 2024$ MWh MW %
Base 50% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (759,982) 68.9 8.3%
Base 40% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (759,951) 68.9 8.3%
Base 30% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 - 60 - 100 (759,559) 68.9 8.3%
Base 20% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 70 0 - 30 (307,139) 69.8 8.5%
Base 10% Higher NG 412 260 65 178 70 - 90 0 - 10 (147,464) 72.4 8.8%
Base 10% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,747,807 76.0 9.2%
Base 20% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,781,692 76.0 9.2%
Base 30% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,793,578 76.0 9.2%
Base 40% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,795,308 76.0 9.2%
Base 50% Lower NG 412 260 - - 320 - 360 - 1,795,308 76.0 9.2%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Single Variable Exhibit
G-4 Production Cost Model
 Nominal, $M NPV 2024$, $M
Total Avg/Yr. Total Avg/Yr. 2024 2025 2026 2027
Load Cost 50% Higher LMP
Load Cost 40% Higher LMP
Load Cost 30% Higher LMP
Load Cost 20% Higher LMP
Load Cost 10% Higher LMP
Load MISO Cost, $M
Load Cost 10% Lower LMP
Load Cost 20% Lower LMP
Load Cost 30% Lower LMP
Load Cost 40% Lower LMP
Load Cost 50% Lower LMP
Cost to Serve Load (Load Cost - System Net Profit)
LT Plan - Base
Base 50% Higher LMP
Base 40% Higher LMP
Base 30% Higher LMP
Base 20% Higher LMP
Base 10% Higher LMP
Base 10% Lower LMP
Base 20% Lower LMP
Base 30% Lower LMP
Base 40% Lower LMP
Base 50% Lower LMP

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-5 Production Cost Model
 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Load Cost 50% Higher LMP
Load Cost 40% Higher LMP
Load Cost 30% Higher LMP
Load Cost 20% Higher LMP
Load Cost 10% Higher LMP
Load MISO Cost, $M
Load Cost 10% Lower LMP
Load Cost 20% Lower LMP
Load Cost 30% Lower LMP
Load Cost 40% Lower LMP
Load Cost 50% Lower LMP
Cost to Serve Load (Load Cost - System Net Profit)
LT Plan - Base
Base 50% Higher LMP
Base 40% Higher LMP
Base 30% Higher LMP
Base 20% Higher LMP
Base 10% Higher LMP
Base 10% Lower LMP
Base 20% Lower LMP
Base 30% Lower LMP
Base 40% Lower LMP
Base 50% Lower LMP

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-6 Production Cost Model
 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load Cost 50% Higher LMP
Load Cost 40% Higher LMP
Load Cost 30% Higher LMP
Load Cost 20% Higher LMP
Load Cost 10% Higher LMP
Load MISO Cost, $M
Load Cost 10% Lower LMP
Load Cost 20% Lower LMP
Load Cost 30% Lower LMP
Load Cost 40% Lower LMP
Load Cost 50% Lower LMP
Cost to Serve Load (Load Cost - System Net Profit)
LT Plan - Base
Base 50% Higher LMP
Base 40% Higher LMP
Base 30% Higher LMP
Base 20% Higher LMP
Base 10% Higher LMP
Base 10% Lower LMP
Base 20% Lower LMP
Base 30% Lower LMP
Base 40% Lower LMP
Base 50% Lower LMP

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-7 Production Cost Model
 Nominal, $M NPV 2024$, $M
Total Avg/Yr. Total Avg/Yr. 2024 2025 2026 2027
Base 50% Higher Coal
Base 40% Higher Coal
Base 30% Higher Coal
Base 20% Higher Coal
Base 10% Higher Coal
Base 10% Lower Coal
Base 20% Lower Coal
Base 30% Lower Coal
Base 40% Lower Coal
Base 50% Lower Coal
Base 50% Higher NG
Base 40% Higher NG
Base 30% Higher NG
Base 20% Higher NG
Base 10% Higher NG
Base 10% Lower NG
Base 20% Lower NG
Base 30% Lower NG
Base 40% Lower NG
Base 50% Lower NG

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-8 Production Cost Model
 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Load 50%
Base Cost Higher
50% Higher
Coal LMP
Base 40% Higher Coal
Base 30% Higher Coal
Base 20% Higher Coal
Base 10% Higher Coal
Base 10% Lower Coal
Base 20% Lower Coal
Base 30% Lower Coal
Base 40% Lower Coal
Base 50% Lower Coal
Base 50% Higher NG
Base 40% Higher NG
Base 30% Higher NG
Base 20% Higher NG
Base 10% Higher NG
Base 10% Lower NG
Base 20% Lower NG
Base 30% Lower NG
Base 40% Lower NG
Base 50% Lower NG

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-9 Production Cost Model
 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load 50%
Base Cost Higher
50% Higher
Coal LMP
Base 40% Higher Coal
Base 30% Higher Coal
Base 20% Higher Coal
Base 10% Higher Coal
Base 10% Lower Coal
Base 20% Lower Coal
Base 30% Lower Coal
Base 40% Lower Coal
Base 50% Lower Coal
Base 50% Higher NG
Base 40% Higher NG
Base 30% Higher NG
Base 20% Higher NG
Base 10% Higher NG
Base 10% Lower NG
Base 20% Lower NG
Base 30% Lower NG
Base 40% Lower NG
Base 50% Lower NG

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-10 Production Cost Model
 Nominal, $M NPV 2024$, $M
Total Avg/Yr. Total Avg/Yr. 2024 2025 2026 2027
LT Plan - 40% Higher All
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher All
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Lower All
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower All
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower
LT Plan - Carbon ACES
LT Plan - Carbon IHS
LT Plan - No Capacity Price
LT Plan - REC None
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-11 Production Cost Model
 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Load
LT Cost
Plan 50%Higher
- 40% HigherAllLMP
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher All
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Lower All
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower All
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower
LT Plan - Carbon ACES
LT Plan - Carbon IHS
LT Plan - No Capacity Price
LT Plan - REC None
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-12 Production Cost Model
 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load
LT Cost
Plan 50%Higher
- 40% HigherAllLMP
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher All
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher
LT Plan - 20% Lower All
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower All
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower
LT Plan - Carbon ACES
LT Plan - Carbon IHS
LT Plan - No Capacity Price
LT Plan - REC None
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-13 Production Cost Model
 Average 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Load Energy, GWh 4,455 4,410 4,415 4,426 4,428 4,436 4,439 4,443 4,448 4,462 4,462
Energy Position (System Generation - Load)
LT Plan - Base 1,158 976 1,192 776 1,143 935 853 808 1,095 920 1,305
Base 50% Higher LMP 2,168 2,027 2,188 1,724 2,167 2,062 2,219 1,983 2,302 2,108 2,293
Base 40% Higher LMP 2,151 2,003 2,173 1,699 2,149 2,031 2,168 1,943 2,287 2,088 2,281
Base 30% Higher LMP 2,108 1,955 2,120 1,649 2,077 1,952 2,063 1,873 2,218 2,008 2,233
Base 20% Higher LMP 2,017 1,847 1,992 1,514 1,921 1,827 1,915 1,716 2,059 1,836 2,132
Base 10% Higher LMP 1,909 1,703 1,851 1,397 1,831 1,734 1,828 1,612 1,943 1,737 1,946
Base 10% Lower LMP (702) (960) (911) (1,249) (1,060) (1,140) (1,297) (1,241) (1,015) (1,240) (751)
Base 20% Lower LMP (1,949) (2,430) (2,348) (2,509) (2,462) (2,593) (2,678) (2,600) (2,484) (2,646) (2,279)
Base 30% Lower LMP (2,726) (3,134) (3,106) (3,134) (3,133) (3,178) (3,250) (3,184) (3,166) (3,247) (3,093)
Base 40% Lower LMP (3,297) (3,405) (3,401) (3,435) (3,439) (3,476) (3,478) (3,460) (3,459) (3,498) (3,463)
Base 50% Lower LMP (3,551) (3,535) (3,545) (3,562) (3,568) (3,581) (3,588) (3,591) (3,597) (3,621) (3,609)
Base 50% Higher Coal (980) (1,437) (1,343) (1,387) (1,362) (1,324) (1,419) (1,374) (1,385) (1,402) (1,209)
Base 40% Higher Coal (633) (1,191) (1,089) (1,150) (1,138) (1,130) (1,225) (1,158) (1,146) (1,178) (945)
Base 30% Higher Coal (215) (871) (702) (816) (755) (811) (940) (849) (788) (880) (468)
Base 20% Higher Coal 270 (254) (132) (339) (204) (298) (409) (376) (212) (373) 72
Base 10% Higher Coal 736 370 543 186 411 286 113 183 389 186 762
Base 10% Lower Coal 1,322 1,116 1,364 901 1,354 1,250 1,305 1,098 1,335 1,173 1,414
Base 20% Lower Coal 1,429 1,290 1,538 1,069 1,489 1,358 1,409 1,233 1,497 1,307 1,609
Base 30% Lower Coal 1,516 1,393 1,662 1,188 1,648 1,517 1,614 1,391 1,646 1,472 1,706
Base 40% Lower Coal 1,540 1,433 1,697 1,225 1,683 1,559 1,684 1,450 1,677 1,507 1,731
Base 50% Lower Coal 1,544 1,433 1,697 1,231 1,691 1,572 1,700 1,458 1,685 1,517 1,731
Base 50% Higher NG (760) (818) (690) (1,107) (752) (1,036) (1,069) (1,119) (826) (1,035) (684)
Base 40% Higher NG (760) (818) (690) (1,106) (751) (1,036) (1,069) (1,119) (826) (1,035) (684)
Base 30% Higher NG (760) (817) (690) (1,106) (751) (1,035) (1,068) (1,118) (826) (1,035) (683)
Base 20% Higher NG (307) (285) (157) (571) (212) (503) (552) (600) (313) (534) (175)
Base 10% Higher NG (147) (254) (127) (540) (180) (389) (450) (495) (133) (354) 2
Base 10% Lower NG 1,748 1,566 1,686 1,274 1,629 1,432 1,375 1,331 1,703 1,482 1,842
Base 20% Lower NG 1,782 1,585 1,705 1,289 1,643 1,450 1,398 1,350 1,721 1,519 1,862
Base 30% Lower NG 1,794 1,585 1,705 1,289 1,644 1,450 1,410 1,360 1,736 1,534 1,879
Base 40% Lower NG 1,795 1,585 1,705 1,289 1,644 1,450 1,410 1,360 1,736 1,535 1,879
Base 50% Lower NG 1,795 1,585 1,705 1,289 1,644 1,450 1,410 1,360 1,736 1,535 1,879

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Energy Summary
G-14 Production Cost Model
 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load Energy, GWh 4,466 4,471 4,477 4,479 4,483 4,483 4,487 4,483 4,483 4,483
Energy Position (System Generation - Load)
LT Plan - Base 890 1,316 1,281 1,531 1,379 1,579 1,376 1,491 855 1,106
Base 50% Higher LMP 1,844 2,375 2,189 2,360 2,159 2,351 2,252 2,426 1,970 2,418
Base 40% Higher LMP 1,825 2,362 2,185 2,355 2,155 2,349 2,248 2,425 1,968 2,414
Base 30% Higher LMP 1,805 2,337 2,169 2,345 2,145 2,339 2,238 2,412 1,959 2,403
Base 20% Higher LMP 1,724 2,284 2,140 2,324 2,125 2,320 2,226 2,405 1,938 2,364
Base 10% Higher LMP 1,530 2,138 2,050 2,248 2,057 2,265 2,169 2,323 1,815 2,184
Base 10% Lower LMP (848) (325) (315) (105) (211) 63 (93) 65 (463) (48)
Base 20% Lower LMP (2,271) (1,891) (1,683) (1,270) (1,117) (753) (654) (410) (783) (323)
Base 30% Lower LMP (3,053) (2,916) (2,822) (2,433) (2,187) (1,750) (1,315) (962) (1,069) (461)
Base 40% Lower LMP (3,457) (3,400) (3,378) (3,327) (3,240) (3,030) (2,749) (2,241) (2,065) (1,470)
Base 50% Lower LMP (3,611) (3,601) (3,586) (3,533) (3,517) (3,481) (3,436) (3,363) (3,236) (2,969)
Base 50% Higher Coal (1,212) (1,136) (994) (794) (581) (169) 305 590 366 828
Base 40% Higher Coal (929) (763) (529) (176) 54 451 790 1,053 664 1,019
Base 30% Higher Coal (479) (187) 90 466 659 1,002 1,117 1,336 800 1,082
Base 20% Higher Coal 32 450 715 1,096 1,029 1,328 1,300 1,441 842 1,095
Base 10% Higher Coal 613 1,108 1,147 1,338 1,266 1,523 1,355 1,477 849 1,100
Base 10% Lower Coal 986 1,493 1,454 1,650 1,423 1,604 1,390 1,495 857 1,106
Base 20% Lower Coal 1,178 1,619 1,516 1,674 1,437 1,612 1,392 1,495 857 1,106
Base 30% Lower Coal 1,228 1,655 1,535 1,684 1,446 1,612 1,392 1,495 857 1,106
Base 40% Lower Coal 1,248 1,667 1,539 1,684 1,446 1,612 1,392 1,495 857 1,106
Base 50% Lower Coal 1,248 1,667 1,539 1,684 1,446 1,612 1,392 1,495 857 1,106
Base 50% Higher NG (1,074) (622) (722) (439) (553) (328) (501) (304) (759) (307)
Base 40% Higher NG (1,074) (622) (722) (439) (553) (328) (501) (304) (759) (307)
Base 30% Higher NG (1,074) (622) (722) (439) (553) (328) (501) (304) (759) (307)
Base 20% Higher NG (580) (142) (267) (31) (216) (38) (247) (105) (597) (178)
Base 10% Higher NG (394) 48 (65) 202 49 243 26 159 (378) 25
Base 10% Lower NG 1,440 1,965 1,880 2,128 2,011 2,243 2,156 2,319 1,815 2,186
Base 20% Lower NG 1,469 2,004 1,912 2,185 2,067 2,292 2,214 2,405 1,947 2,392
Base 30% Lower NG 1,488 2,023 1,928 2,202 2,086 2,313 2,230 2,421 1,964 2,414
Base 40% Lower NG 1,488 2,023 1,931 2,207 2,093 2,318 2,236 2,424 1,970 2,422
Base 50% Lower NG 1,488 2,023 1,931 2,207 2,093 2,318 2,236 2,424 1,970 2,422

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Energy Summary
G-15 Production Cost Model
 Average 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 1,723 1,580 1,720 1,313 1,679 1,483 1,394 1,371 1,743 1,513 1,819
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 1,901 1,689 1,838 1,388 1,820 1,720 1,800 1,599 1,934 1,728 1,939
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 169 (80) 0 (292) 7 (282) (420) (312) (29) (261) 232
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 1,685 1,562 1,706 1,279 1,639 1,441 1,346 1,325 1,703 1,444 1,804
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 1,906 1,697 1,852 1,393 1,826 1,724 1,822 1,605 1,943 1,737 1,947
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 60 (214) (129) (407) (111) (406) (557) (421) (187) (401) 116
LT Plan - 20% Lower All (134) (279) (132) (553) (184) (439) (502) (534) (168) (390) 27
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower (937) (1,170) (1,147) (1,445) (1,243) (1,426) (1,549) (1,514) (1,330) (1,501) (1,059)
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 1,450 1,187 1,424 981 1,403 1,317 1,388 1,178 1,423 1,275 1,508
LT Plan - 40% Lower All (845) (923) (820) (1,234) (874) (1,195) (1,258) (1,273) (987) (1,220) (755)
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower (1,626) (2,009) (1,975) (2,193) (2,059) (2,232) (2,295) (2,289) (2,118) (2,311) (1,897)
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 1,473 1,230 1,476 1,016 1,442 1,354 1,422 1,208 1,446 1,289 1,556
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 1,397 1,528 1,660 1,241 1,605 1,399 1,314 1,270 1,638 1,379 1,765
LT Plan - Carbon IHS (2,138) (227) (95) (509) (147) (436) (486) (2,862) (2,922) (3,046) (3,044)
LT Plan - No Capacity Price (1,027) (1,085) (958) (1,374) (1,019) (1,303) (1,336) (1,386) (1,093) (1,302) (951)
LT Plan - REC None 1,158 976 1,192 776 1,143 935 853 808 1,095 920 1,305
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 1,158 976 1,192 776 1,143 935 853 808 1,095 920 1,305
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 2,167 2,038 2,174 1,757 2,209 1,917 1,896 1,854 2,140 1,945 2,343

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Energy Summary
G-16 Production Cost Model
 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load Energy,
LT Plan - 40% GWh
Higher All 1,408 1,933 1,848 2,059 1,919 2,128 1,994 2,106 1,482 1,684
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 1,527 2,135 2,040 2,245 2,057 2,265 2,167 2,319 1,812 2,168
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 62 522 419 645 558 841 655 767 160 486
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 1,388 1,897 1,794 2,020 1,869 2,098 1,974 2,044 1,410 1,608
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 1,529 2,137 2,043 2,241 2,057 2,265 2,169 2,323 1,815 2,176
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher (17) 472 377 585 501 721 541 625 26 384
LT Plan - 20% Lower All (371) 66 (41) 220 106 326 140 301 (219) 179
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower (1,169) (609) (558) (303) (404) (117) (243) (82) (568) (140)
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 1,126 1,626 1,608 1,790 1,593 1,799 1,616 1,854 1,364 1,757
LT Plan - 40% Lower All (1,086) (643) (746) (486) (571) (328) (501) (310) (760) (306)
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower (1,894) (1,464) (1,269) (866) (891) (571) (575) (353) (772) (316)
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 1,179 1,663 1,620 1,799 1,601 1,806 1,627 1,781 1,308 1,722
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 1,332 1,777 1,577 1,685 1,356 1,198 1,011 418 (151) (697)
LT Plan - Carbon IHS (3,073) (3,071) (3,091) (3,088) (3,123) (3,128) (3,084) (3,057) (3,009) (2,917)
LT Plan - No Capacity Price (1,341) (889) (990) (706) (820) (595) (768) (572) (1,026) (574)
LT Plan - REC None 890 1,316 1,281 1,531 1,379 1,579 1,376 1,491 855 1,106
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 890 1,316 1,281 1,531 1,379 1,579 1,376 1,491 855 1,106
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 1,919 2,334 2,294 2,530 2,362 2,551 2,336 2,415 1,698 1,858

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Energy Summary
G-17 Production Cost Model
 Average 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Load Peak, MW 825 815 817 819 819 820 821 822 823 825 826
Reserve Capacity (System Firm Capacity - Load Peak)
LT Plan - Base 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 50% Higher LMP 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 40% Higher LMP 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 30% Higher LMP 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 20% Higher LMP 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 10% Higher LMP 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 10% Lower LMP 71 78 75 72 70 77 75 73 71 67 75
Base 20% Lower LMP 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
Base 30% Lower LMP 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
Base 40% Lower LMP 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
Base 50% Lower LMP 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
Base 50% Higher Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 40% Higher Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 30% Higher Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 20% Higher Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 10% Higher Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 10% Lower Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 20% Lower Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 30% Lower Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 40% Lower Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
Base 50% Lower Coal 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - MW
G-18 Production Cost Model
 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load Peak, MW 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836
Reserve Capacity (System Firm Capacity - Load Peak)
LT Plan - Base 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 50% Higher LMP 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 40% Higher LMP 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 30% Higher LMP 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 20% Higher LMP 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 10% Higher LMP 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 10% Lower LMP 73 70 68 66 63 71 69 67 64 62
Base 20% Lower LMP 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
Base 30% Lower LMP 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
Base 40% Lower LMP 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
Base 50% Lower LMP 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
Base 50% Higher Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 40% Higher Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 30% Higher Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 20% Higher Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 10% Higher Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 10% Lower Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 20% Lower Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 30% Lower Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 40% Lower Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
Base 50% Lower Coal 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - MW
G-19 Production Cost Model
 Average 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Base 50% Higher NG 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
Base 40% Higher NG 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
Base 30% Higher NG 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
Base 20% Higher NG 70 78 75 72 70 68 66 73 71 68 65
Base 10% Higher NG 72 78 75 72 70 77 75 73 80 77 74
Base 10% Lower NG 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 20% Lower NG 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 30% Lower NG 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 40% Lower NG 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
Base 50% Lower NG 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 76 77 73 80 78 76 74 81 79 75 73
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 75 77 73 80 78 76 74 81 79 75 73
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 72 78 75 72 70 77 75 73 80 77 74
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower 69 69 65 72 71 68 66 74 72 68 66
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
LT Plan - 40% Lower All 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 69 72 68 65 64 71 69 67 75 71 69
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 76 79 76 73 71 78 76 74 81 78 75
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 71 78 75 72 70 78 76 73 71 68 65
LT Plan - No Capacity Price 68 65 72 69 67 65 73 70 68 65 72
LT Plan - REC None 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 75 71 77 74 73 80 78 75 73 79 77
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 75 80 75 71 78 74 81 77 74 80 77

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - MW
G-20 Production Cost Model
 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load 50%
Base Peak,Higher
MW NG 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
Base 40% Higher NG 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
Base 30% Higher NG 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
Base 20% Higher NG 73 71 69 66 64 72 69 67 65 62
Base 10% Higher NG 72 70 68 65 73 71 68 66 64 61
Base 10% Lower NG 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 20% Lower NG 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 30% Lower NG 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 40% Lower NG 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
Base 50% Lower NG 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71 69
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 80 78 76 73 71 69 66 64 62 59
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 72 70 68 65 73 71 68 66 64 61
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower 74 71 69 67 64 72 70 68 65 63
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 78 75 73
LT Plan - 40% Lower All 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 67 74 72 70 67 65 63 71 68 66
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 73 80 78 76 73 71 78 76 74 71
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 73 81 69 66 64 72 69 67 65 62
LT Plan - No Capacity Price 70 68 66 63 71 69 66 64 62 59
LT Plan - REC None 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 75 72 80 77 75 73 70 68 66 63
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 75 72 79 77 75 72 70 68 65 63

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - MW
G-21 Production Cost Model
 Average 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Load Peak, MW 825 815 817 819 819 820 821 822 823 825 826
Reserve Capacity (% Load Peakk)
LT Plan - Base 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 50% Higher LMP 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 40% Higher LMP 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 30% Higher LMP 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 20% Higher LMP 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 10% Higher LMP 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 10% Lower LMP 8.6% 9.6% 9.2% 8.7% 8.6% 9.4% 9.2% 8.9% 8.6% 8.1% 9.1%
Base 20% Lower LMP 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
Base 30% Lower LMP 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
Base 40% Lower LMP 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
Base 50% Lower LMP 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
Base 50% Higher Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 40% Higher Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 30% Higher Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 20% Higher Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 10% Higher Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 10% Lower Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 20% Lower Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 30% Lower Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 40% Lower Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
Base 50% Lower Coal 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - %
G-22 Production Cost Model
 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load Peak, MW 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836
Reserve Capacity (% Load Peakk)
LT Plan - Base 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 50% Higher LMP 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 40% Higher LMP 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 30% Higher LMP 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 20% Higher LMP 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 10% Higher LMP 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 10% Lower LMP 8.8% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6% 8.5% 8.3% 8.0% 7.7% 7.4%
Base 20% Lower LMP 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 30% Lower LMP 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 40% Lower LMP 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 50% Lower LMP 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 50% Higher Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 40% Higher Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 30% Higher Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 20% Higher Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 10% Higher Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 10% Lower Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 20% Lower Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 30% Lower Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 40% Lower Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
Base 50% Lower Coal 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - %
G-23 Production Cost Model
 Average 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Base 50% Higher NG 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
Base 40% Higher NG 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
Base 30% Higher NG 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
Base 20% Higher NG 8.5% 9.6% 9.2% 8.7% 8.6% 8.3% 8.0% 8.9% 8.6% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 10% Higher NG 8.8% 9.6% 9.2% 8.7% 8.6% 9.4% 9.2% 8.9% 9.7% 9.3% 9.0%
Base 10% Lower NG 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 20% Lower NG 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 30% Lower NG 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 40% Lower NG 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
Base 50% Lower NG 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 9.2% 9.4% 9.0% 9.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.5% 9.1% 8.8%
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 9.0% 9.4% 9.0% 9.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.5% 9.1% 8.8%
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 8.8% 9.6% 9.2% 8.7% 8.6% 9.4% 9.2% 8.9% 9.7% 9.3% 9.0%
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower 8.4% 8.4% 8.0% 8.8% 8.6% 8.3% 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.3% 8.0%
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
LT Plan - 40% Lower All 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 8.3% 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 9.1% 8.6% 8.3%
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 9.2% 9.7% 9.3% 8.9% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.1%
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 8.7% 9.6% 9.2% 8.7% 8.6% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 8.6% 8.2% 7.9%
LT Plan - No Capacity Price 8.2% 8.0% 8.8% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 8.8% 8.6% 8.3% 7.8% 8.8%
LT Plan - REC None 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 9.1% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.9% 9.6% 9.3%
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 9.1% 9.8% 9.2% 8.6% 9.5% 9.1% 9.8% 9.4% 9.0% 9.7% 9.4%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - %
G-24 Production Cost Model
 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Load 50%
Base Peak,Higher
MW NG 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 40% Higher NG 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 30% Higher NG 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
Base 20% Higher NG 8.8% 8.6% 8.3% 8.0% 7.7% 8.6% 8.3% 8.0% 7.7% 7.5%
Base 10% Higher NG 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.9% 8.8% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6% 7.3%
Base 10% Lower NG 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 20% Lower NG 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 30% Lower NG 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 40% Lower NG 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
Base 50% Lower NG 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 8.2%
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.7% 7.4% 7.1%
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.9% 8.8% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6% 7.3%
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower 8.9% 8.6% 8.3% 8.0% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5%
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7%
LT Plan - 40% Lower All 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9%
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 8.8% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5% 9.4% 9.1% 8.8% 8.5%
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 8.8% 9.8% 8.3% 8.0% 7.7% 8.6% 8.3% 8.0% 7.7% 7.5%
LT Plan - No Capacity Price 8.5% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6% 8.5% 8.2% 8.0% 7.7% 7.4% 7.1%
LT Plan - REC None 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.6%
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 9.0% 8.7% 9.6% 9.3% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.6%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Reserve Capacity - %
G-25 Production Cost Model
 Capacity Additions
Sensitivity NGCC - Sebree PPA - Block Solar - PPA (260 MW) Total
2024 2043 2024 2043 2024 2043 2024 2043
Base Case Portfolio 90 90 - - 197 172 287 262
LT Plan - Base 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 50% Higher LMP 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 40% Higher LMP 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 30% Higher LMP 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 20% Higher LMP 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 10% Higher LMP 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 10% Lower LMP 70 80 - 20 197 172 267 272
Base 20% Lower LMP - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
Base 30% Lower LMP - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
Base 40% Lower LMP - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
Base 50% Lower LMP - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
Base 50% Higher Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 40% Higher Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 30% Higher Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 20% Higher Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 10% Higher Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 10% Lower Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 20% Lower Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 30% Lower Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 40% Lower Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
Base 50% Lower Coal 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Capacity Changes from Base
G-26 Production Cost Model
 Capacity Subtractions Net Capacity Changes
Sensitivity
Green 1 Green 2 Reid CT SEPA Total 2024 2043

Base Case Portfolio 231 223 - - 454 (167) (192)

LT Plan - Base 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 50% Higher LMP 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 40% Higher LMP 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 30% Higher LMP 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 20% Higher LMP 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 10% Higher LMP 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 10% Lower LMP 231 223 - 454 (187) (182)
Base 20% Lower LMP 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
Base 30% Lower LMP 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
Base 40% Lower LMP 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
Base 50% Lower LMP 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
Base 50% Higher Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 40% Higher Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 30% Higher Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 20% Higher Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 10% Higher Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 10% Lower Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 20% Lower Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 30% Lower Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 40% Lower Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
Base 50% Lower Coal 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Capacity Changes from Base
G-27 Production Cost Model
 Capacity Additions
Sensitivity NGCC - Sebree PPA - Block Solar - PPA (260 MW) Total
2024 2043 2024 2043 2024 2043 2024 2043
Base 50% Higher NG - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
Base 40% Higher NG - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
Base 30% Higher NG - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
Base 20% Higher NG 70 70 - 30 197 172 267 272
Base 10% Higher NG 70 90 - 10 197 172 267 272
Base 10% Lower NG 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 20% Lower NG 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 30% Lower NG 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 40% Lower NG 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
Base 50% Lower NG 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 130 170 - - 197 172 327 342
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 130 160 - - 197 172 327 332
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 70 90 - 10 197 172 267 272
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower 60 60 - 40 197 172 257 272
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 250 300 - - 197 172 447 472
LT Plan - 40% Lower All - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower - - 60 100 197 172 257 272
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 320 360 - - 197 172 517 532
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 70 70 - 30 197 172 267 272
LT Plan - No Capacity Price - - 290 330 197 172 487 502
LT Plan - REC None 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 250 290 - - 197 172 447 462
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 380 420 - - 82 48 462 468

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Capacity Changes from Base
G-28 Production Cost Model
 Capacity Subtractions Net Capacity Changes
Sensitivity
Green 1 Green 2 Reid CT SEPA Total 2024 2043

CaseHigher
Base 50% Portfolio
NG 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
Base 40% Higher NG 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
Base 30% Higher NG 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
Base 20% Higher NG 231 223 - 454 (187) (182)
Base 10% Higher NG 231 223 - 454 (187) (182)
Base 10% Lower NG 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 20% Lower NG 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 30% Lower NG 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 40% Lower NG 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
Base 50% Lower NG 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
LT Plan - 40% Higher All 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
LT Plan - 40% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 50% Higher 231 223 65 519 (192) (177)
LT Plan - 20% Higher All 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 10% Higher 231 223 65 178 697 (180) (165)
LT Plan - 20% Higher LMP - Coal&NG 30% Higher 231 223 65 519 (192) (187)
LT Plan - 20% Lower All 231 223 - 454 (187) (182)
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 10% Lower 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
LT Plan - 20% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (160)
LT Plan - 40% Lower All 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 30% Lower 231 223 - 454 (197) (182)
LT Plan - 40% Lower LMP - Coal&NG 50% Lower 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
LT Plan - Carbon ACES 231 223 65 178 697 (115) (165)
LT Plan - Carbon IHS 231 223 - 454 (187) (182)
LT Plan - No Capacity Price 231 223 65 178 697 (210) (195)
LT Plan - REC None 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
LT Plan - REC Ohio Solar 231 223 - 178 632 (185) (170)
LT Plan - Solar Capacity IHS 231 223 - 178 632 (170) (164)

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Capacity Changes from Base
G-29 Production Cost Model
 Big Rivers Native Load Cost, MISO
Energy MISO Cost Capacity MISO Cost Total MISO Cost
Year
MWh $M $/MWh Peak PRMR $M $/MW-Day MWh $M $/MWh
2024 4,409,889 815.0 880.9 4,409,889
2025 4,415,339 817.0 883.8 4,415,339
2026 4,425,681 819.0 886.0 4,425,681
2027 4,427,519 819.0 886.0 4,427,519
2028 4,436,200 820.0 887.1 4,436,200
2029 4,439,269 821.0 888.2 4,439,269
2030 4,443,020 822.0 889.2 4,443,020
2031 4,448,003 823.0 890.3 4,448,003
2032 4,462,278 825.0 892.5 4,462,278
2033 4,462,294 826.0 893.6 4,462,294
2034 4,466,493 827.0 894.6 4,466,493
2035 4,470,695 828.0 895.7 4,470,695
2036 4,477,410 829.0 896.8 4,477,410
2037 4,479,154 830.0 897.9 4,479,154
2038 4,482,805 831.0 899.0 4,482,805
2039 4,482,692 832.0 900.1 4,482,692
2040 4,486,504 833.0 901.2 4,486,504
2041 4,482,635 834.0 902.3 4,482,635
2042 4,483,054 835.0 903.4 4,483,054
2043 4,482,822 836.0 904.5 4,482,822

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (Yearly Sensitivities)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Load Cost
G-30 Production Cost Model
 Generation Portfolio Firm Capacity in LT Plan No NGCC Case, MW
Generation Resource 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Wilson 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5
SEPA 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0
Reid CT 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Green Units, NG - - - - - - - - - -
Total Solar Facilities 196.7 195.4 194.1 192.8 191.5 190.2 188.9 187.6 186.3 185.0
System 826.6 825.3 824.0 822.7 821.4 820.1 818.8 817.5 816.2 814.9

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Exhibit Summary
G-1 Production Cost Model
 Generation Portfolio Firm Capacity in LT Plan No NGCC Case, MW
Generation Resource 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Wilson 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5
SEPA 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0
Reid CT 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Green Units, NG - - - - - - - - - -
Total Solar Facilities 183.7 182.4 181.1 179.8 178.5 177.2 175.9 174.6 173.3 172.0
System 813.6 812.3 811.0 809.7 808.4 807.1 805.8 804.5 803.2 801.9

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Exhibit Summary
G-2 Production Cost Model
 Native Load 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Energy, MWh 4,409,889 4,415,339 4,425,681 4,427,519 4,436,200 4,439,269 4,443,020
Energy Cost, $M
Peak Load NCP - MW 815.0 817.0 819.0 819.0 820.0 821.0 822.0
Capacity Requirement, MW 880.9 883.8 886.0 886.0 887.1 888.2 889.2
Capacity Cost, $M
Total Cost, $M
Total Cost, $/MWh
Total Cost, $/MW-Day Capacity

Total Load Cost, $M Average Load Cost, $M/Yr Load Cost, NPV 2024$, $M
Native Load Cost Summary
2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033
Load Cost

Generation, MWh
Generation Resources 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Coal Generation 2,733,136 2,869,889 2,467,334 2,827,130 2,552,853 2,527,428 2,484,284
NG Generation 19,651 23,571 25,917 30,240 27,105 20,609 20,858
Solar Generation 591,843 587,693 584,724 581,756 579,946 575,820 572,852
Hydro Generation 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000
Total Generation 3,611,629 3,748,152 3,344,975 3,706,126 3,426,904 3,390,857 3,344,993
Energy Position (798,260) (667,187) (1,080,706) (721,393) (1,009,296) (1,048,412) (1,098,027)

Firm Capacity, MW 60 60 60 60 70 70 70
Generation Resources 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Coal Firm Capacity 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5
NG Firm Capacity 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Solar Firm Capacity 196.7 195.4 194.1 192.8 191.5 190.2 188.9
Hydro Firm Capacity 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0
Total Firm Capacity 886.6 885.3 884.0 882.7 891.4 890.1 888.8
Capacity Position - Reserve MW 71.6 68.3 65.0 63.7 71.4 69.1 66.8
Capacity Position - Reserve % 8.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.8% 8.7% 8.4% 8.1%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-3 Production Cost Model
 Native Load 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Energy, MWh 4,448,003 4,462,278 4,462,294 4,466,493 4,470,695 4,477,410 4,479,154
Energy Cost, $M
Peak Load NCP - MW 823.0 825.0 826.0 827.0 828.0 829.0 830.0
Capacity Requirement, MW 890.3 892.5 893.6 894.6 895.7 896.8 897.9
Capacity Cost, $M
Total Cost, $M
Total Cost, $/MWh
Total Cost, $/MW-Day Capacity

Load Cost, NPV 2024$, $M Load Cost , Avg. NPV 2024$, $M/Yr
Native Load Cost Summary
2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043
Load Cost

Generation, MWh
Generation Resources 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Coal Generation 2,784,755 2,592,145 2,947,703 2,564,024 3,023,207 2,931,524 3,221,210
NG Generation 19,209 13,536 18,736 15,898 13,154 11,095 8,201
Solar Generation 569,884 568,050 563,947 560,979 558,011 556,154 552,075
Hydro Generation 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000
Total Generation 3,640,848 3,440,731 3,797,386 3,407,902 3,861,372 3,765,772 4,048,485
Energy Position (807,155) (1,021,547) (664,908) (1,058,591) (609,323) (711,638) (430,669)

Firm Capacity, MW 80 80 80 80 90 90 90
Generation Resources 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Coal Firm Capacity 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5
NG Firm Capacity 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Solar Firm Capacity 187.6 186.3 185.0 183.7 182.4 181.1 179.8
Hydro Firm Capacity 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0
Total Firm Capacity 897.5 896.2 894.9 893.6 902.3 901.0 899.7
Capacity Position - Reserve MW 74.5 71.2 68.9 66.6 74.3 72.0 69.7
Capacity Position - Reserve % 9.1% 8.6% 8.3% 8.1% 9.0% 8.7% 8.4%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-4 Production Cost Model
 Native Load 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Energy, MWh 4,482,805 4,482,692 4,486,504 4,482,635 4,483,054 4,482,822
Energy Cost, $M
Peak Load NCP - MW 831.0 832.0 833.0 834.0 835.0 836.0
Capacity Requirement, MW 899.0 900.1 901.2 902.3 903.4 904.5
Capacity Cost, $M
Total Cost, $M
Total Cost, $/MWh
Total Cost, $/MW-Day Capacity

Native Load Cost Summary

Load Cost

Generation, MWh
Generation Resources 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 Average
Coal Generation 3,113,733 3,341,784 3,174,213 3,370,675 2,919,582 3,374,527 2,891,057
NG Generation 5,893 6,061 2,520 1,693 1,133 784 14,293
Solar Generation 549,107 546,139 544,257 540,202 537,234 534,266 562,747
Hydro Generation 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000 267,000
Total Generation 3,935,732 4,160,983 3,987,990 4,179,570 3,724,949 4,176,577 3,735,097
Energy Position (547,073) (321,709) (498,514) (303,065) (758,105) (306,245) (723,091)

Firm Capacity, MW 90 90 90 100 100 100

Generation Resources 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 Average
Coal Firm Capacity 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5 393.5
NG Firm Capacity 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Solar Firm Capacity 178.5 177.2 175.9 174.6 173.3 172.0 184.3
Hydro Firm Capacity 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0 178.0
Total Firm Capacity 898.4 897.1 895.8 904.5 903.2 901.9 894.8
Capacity Position - Reserve MW 67.4 65.1 62.8 70.5 68.2 65.9 68.7
Capacity Position - Reserve % 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 8.5% 8.2% 7.9% 8.3%

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-5 Production Cost Model
 Net Cost (Revenue), $M
Generation Resources 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
System Net Cost
Cost to Serve Load

Total Cost to Serve Load, $M Average Cost to Serve Load, $M/Yr Cost to Serve Load, NPV 2024$
Cost to Serve Load Summary
2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033
Load Cost

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-6 Production Cost Model
 Net Cost (Revenue), $M
Generation Resources 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
System Net Cost
Cost to Serve Load

Cost to Serve Load, NPV 2024$, $M Cost to Serve Load, Avg. NPV 2024$, $M/Yr
Cost to Serve Load Summary
2034-2043 2024-2043 2024-2033 2034-2043 2024-2043
Load Cost

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-7 Production Cost Model
 Net Cost (Revenue), $M
Generation Resources 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
System Net Cost
Cost to Serve Load

Cost to Serve Load Summary

Load Cost

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Cost to Serve Load
G-8 Production Cost Model
 Big Rivers Native Load Cost, MISO - Base Case
Energy MISO Cost Capacity MISO Cost Total MISO Cost
Year
MWh $M $/MWh Peak, MW PRMR $M $/MW-Day MWh $M $/MWh
2021 3,330,269 666.7 3,330,269
2022 4,384,110 882.6 4,384,110
2023 4,395,839 879.8 4,395,839
2024 4,409,889 815.0 880.9 4,409,889
2025 4,415,339 817.0 883.8 4,415,339
2026 4,425,681 819.0 886.0 4,425,681
2027 4,427,519 819.0 886.0 4,427,519
2028 4,436,200 820.0 887.1 4,436,200
2029 4,439,269 821.0 888.2 4,439,269
2030 4,443,020 822.0 889.2 4,443,020
2031 4,448,003 823.0 890.3 4,448,003
2032 4,462,278 825.0 892.5 4,462,278
2033 4,462,294 826.0 893.6 4,462,294
2034 4,466,493 827.0 894.6 4,466,493
2035 4,470,695 828.0 895.7 4,470,695
2036 4,477,410 829.0 896.8 4,477,410
2037 4,479,154 830.0 897.9 4,479,154
2038 4,482,805 831.0 899.0 4,482,805
2039 4,482,692 832.0 900.1 4,482,692
2040 4,486,504 833.0 901.2 4,486,504
2041 4,482,635 834.0 902.3 4,482,635
2042 4,483,054 835.0 903.4 4,483,054
2043 4,482,822 836.0 904.5 4,482,822

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Load Cost
G-9 Production Cost Model
 Fuel Oil Start Fuel 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Delivered Price, $/MMBtu
Wilson Usage, MMBtu
Wilson Cost, $M
Green 1 Usage, MMBtu
Green 1 Cost, $M
Green 2 Usage, MMBtu
Green 2 Cost, $M

NG Price, $/MMBtu
Green NG Usage, MMBtu
Green NG Cost, $M

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Start Fuel
G-10 Production Cost Model
 Fuel Oil Start Fuel 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
Delivered Price, $/MMBtu
Wilson Usage, MMBtu
Wilson Cost, $M
Green 1 Usage, MMBtu
Green 1 Cost, $M
Green 2 Usage, MMBtu
Green 2 Cost, $M

NG Price, $/MMBtu
Green NG Usage, MMBtu
Green NG Cost, $M

Case No. 2020-00299 Long Term Plan (No NGCC)

Big Rivers 2020 IRP Start Fuel
G-11 Production Cost Model
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Appendix H
Acronyms and Glossary

ACE Affordable Clean Energy Rule

ACES Alliance for Cooperative Energy Services
ACP Auction Clearing Prices
APA Asset Purchase Agreement
ARS Automatic Restoration and Sectionalizing
B&W Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.
BPM Business Practice Manual
BREC Big Rivers Electric Corporation
BTU British Thermal Unit
C&I Commercial and Industrial
CAA Clean Air Act
CAA Community Action Agencies
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CCR Coal Combustion Residuals
CDD Cooling Degree Day
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFO Chief Financial Officer
Clearspring Clearspring Energy Advisors, LLC
Commission Kentucky Public Service Commission
CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
CP Coincident Peak
CPP Clean Power Plan, or alternatively, Critical Peak Pricing
CROs Control Room Operators
CSAPR Cross State Air Pollution Rule
DOE U. S. Department of Energy
DR Demand Response
DSI Dry Sorbent Injection
DSM Demand-Side Management
ECP Environmental Compliance Plan
EE Energy Efficiency
EFORd Unit Forced Outage Rate
EHV Extra High Voltage
EIA U. S. Department of Energy Information Administration
EGU Electric Generating Units
ELCC Effective Load Carrying Capability
ELG Effluent Limitation Guidelines
EPA Environmental Protection Agency

H-1
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Appendix H
Acronyms and Glossary

ES Environmental Surcharge
FAC Fuel Adjustment Clause
FGD Flue Gas Desulphurization
GADS Generator Availability Data System
GCI General Commercial and Industrial
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GKS Generation Knowledge Service
GWH Gigawatt Hours
HDD Heating Degree Day
HMP&L Henderson Municipal Power and Light
HPRCC High Plaines Regional Climate Center
HRI Heat Rate Improvement
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
ICAP Installed Capacity
IHS IHS Markit
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
JPEC Jackson Purchase Energy Corporation
Kenergy Kenergy Corp.
KEMI Kentucky Employers’ Mutual Insurance
KIUC Kentucky Industrial Utility Customers
KU Kentucky Utilities Company
kV Kilovolt
kW Kilowatt
kWH Kilowatt Hour
KYMEA Kentucky Municipal Energy Agency
LFE Load Forecast Errors
LCI Large Commercial and Industrial
LIC Large Industrial Customer
LICX Large Industrial Customer Expansion
LMP Locational Marginal Price
LOLE Loss of Load Expectation
LRR Local Reliability Requirement
LRZ Local Resource Zone
LSE Load Serving Entity
MATS Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
MCRECC Meade County Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (also
Meade County RECC)

H-2
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Appendix H
Acronyms and Glossary

Members Collectively: JPEC, Kenergy, MCRECC

MECT Module E Capacity Tracking Tool
MISO Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
Mitigation Plan Load Concentration Analysis and Mitigation Plan
MMBtu One Million British Thermal Units
Moody’s Moody’s Investor Services
MRCC Midwest Regional Climate Center
MRSM Member Rate Stability Mechanism
MW Megawatt
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NG Natural Gas
NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle
NGCT Natural Gas Combustion Turbine
NCP Non Coincident Peak
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPV Net Present Value
Nucor Nucor Corporation
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturers
OMU Owensboro Municipal Utilities
OSHA United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
PCT Participant Cost Tests
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PRA Planning Resource Auction
PRM Planning Reserve Margin
PSC Kentucky Public Service Commission
PTR Peak Time Rebates
Reid CT Reid Station Combustion Turbine
REC Renewable Energy Certificate
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SEPA Southeastern Power Administration
SERC Southeast Electric Reliability Corporation
SERVM Strategic Energy and Risk Valuation Model
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

H-3
Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan

Appendix H
Acronyms and Glossary

SPP Southwest Power Pool

Station Two William L. Newman Station Two
TIER Times Interest Earned Ratio
TRC Total Resources Cost
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
UCAP Unforced Capacity
UCT Utility Cost Test
XEFORd Unit Forced Outage Rate

H-4
 Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix I
Figures and Tables Listing
Figure Figure Section
Number Name Reference
1.1 Big Rivers' Members Service Area Map 1.2.1 Service Territory and Member-Owners
1.2 Generation Facility Overview 1.2.2 Capacity Resources
1.3 Generation Facility Overview 1.2.2 Capacity Resources
1.4 SEPA Cumberland System Map 1.2.3 Big Rivers SEPA Cumberland Hydro Capacity Resource
1.5 Transmission System Map - Confidential 1.2.5 Transmission System
1.6 Class Energy kWH Sales Proportions for Member Load 1.2.6 Big Rivers' Member Load and Load Growth
3.1 Cooling Degree Day Normal Values 3.4 Weather Normalized Values
3.2 Heating Degree Day Normal Values 3.4 Weather Normalized Values
3.3 2019 Load Shape 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
3.4 Big Rivers Member Load Curve 2019 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
3.5 Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast - Total Consumers 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
3.6 Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast - Member Sales 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
3.7 Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast - Member Summer Peak 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
3.8 Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast - Member Winter Peak 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
3.9 Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast - Rural Summer Coincident Peak 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
3.10 Comparison to Actual and Previous Forecast - Rural Winter Coincident Peak 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
4.1 Electric Efficiency Potential Savings Summary (% of Retail Sales) 4.2 Market Potential Study - Energy Efficiency
5.1 System Net Heat Rate 5.1 Generation Operations Update
5.2 MISO Generator Interconnection Queue - Current Wind Projects 5.5 Consideration of Other Renewables and Distributed Generation
5.3 Cumulative Distributed Net-Metered Generation (kW) 5.5.1 Net Metering Statistics
7.1 MISO Local Resource Zone Map 7.2.3 2020 Loss of Load Expectation Study
7.2 Recent Planning Year MISO System Planning Reserve Margins 7.4 Comparison of PRM Targets across 10 years
8.1 PLEXOS LT Plan Optimization 8.1 In-House Production Cost Model (Plexos)
8.2 Delivered Coal Prices 8.2.1 Base Case Inputs/Constraints
8.3 Indiana Hub Around The Clock Monthly Pricing 8.2.1 Base Case Inputs/Constraints
8.4 Spot Henry Hub Natural Gas Prices - Monthly 8.2.1 Base Case Inputs/Constraints
8.5 Firm Capacity 8.2.2 Base Case Results
8.6 Generation 8.2.2 Base Case Results

I-1
 Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix I
Figures and Tables Listing
Table Table Section
Number Name Reference
1.1 2020 IRP Project Team 1.1 Overview
1.2 2020 Big Rivers Member CP Load Forecast 1.2.6 Big Rivers' Member Load and Load Growth
1.3 Big Rivers Total Member System Energy Summary 1.2.6 Big Rivers' Member Load and Load Growth
2.1 Big Rivers Electric Corporation Focused Management Audit Progress Report Summary 2.6 Focused Management Audit
3.1 Big Rivers Total System Energy Summary 3.1 Total System Load
3.2 Big Rivers Total System Non Coincident Peak (kW) Forecast 3.1 Total System Load
3.3 Big Rivers Total Member Energy Summary (MWH) 3.2 Member Load
3.4 Big Rivers Member Coincident Peak 3.2 Member Load
3.5 Residential Consumers and Energy Sales (MWH) 3.3.1 Residential Class
3.6 General C & I Class 3.3.2 General Commercial & Industrial Class
3.7 Large C & I Class 3.3.3 Large Commercial & Industrial Class
3.8 Big Rivers Direct Serve Class 3.3.4 Direct Serve Class
3.9 Street & Highway Class 3.3.5 Street & Highway Class
3.10 Irrigation Class 3.3.6 Irrigation Class
3.11 Rural Class Energy Summary 3.3.7 Rural System Energy Summary
3.12 Non-Member Sales as of 2020 3.3.8 Non-Member Sales
3.13 2000-2019 Voluntary Industrial Curtailment Results 3.3.9 Interruptible or Curtailable Load
3.14 Big Rivers Member System Weather Normalized 3.4 Weather Normalized Values
3.15 DSM Spending Scenarios (kW) 3.5 Impact of Existing and Future EE and DSM Programs
3.16 DSM Spending Scenarios (MWH) 3.5 Impact of Existing and Future EE and DSM Programs
3.17 Weather Scenarios (MWh) 3.6.1 Weather Scenarios
3.18 Total System Economic Scenarios 3.6.2 Economic Scenarios
4.1 Energy Efficiency Potential (Cumulative Annual) Energy Savings (MWh) 4.2 Market Potential Study - Energy Efficiency
4.2 Energy Efficiency Potential (Cumulative Annual) Demand Savings (MW) 4.2 Market Potential Study - Energy Efficiency
4.3 Program Potential Cost-Effectiveness (TRC Test) 4.2 Market Potential Study - Energy Efficiency
4.4 Program Potential Summary 4.2 Market Potential Study - Energy Efficiency
4.5 $1 Million Scenario - Residential Savings by End-Use 4.3 Residential Energy Efficiency Program Potential Scenarios
4.6 $1 Million Scenario - Non-Residential Savings by End-Use 4.4 Non-Residential (C&I) Energy Efficiency Program Potential Scenarios
4.7 Demand Response Programs Evaluation Results 4.7 Demand Response Programs Evaluated
5.1 System Net Heat Rate 5.1 Generation Operations Update

I-2
 Big Rivers 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
Appendix I
Figures and Tables Listing
Table Table Section
Number Name Reference
5.2 Key Performance Indicators per IEEE Standards 5.1 Generation Operations Update
5.3 Operating Characteristics of Existing Big Rivers Resources 5.2 Operating Characteristics of Existing Big Rivers Resources
5.4 Big Rivers Generation Portfolio 5.6 Environmental
6.1 Completed System Additions (2015-2020) 6.3 Transmission System Optimization and Expansion
6.2 Planned System Additions (2020-2034) Confidential 6.3 Transmission System Optimization and Expansion
7.1 Load Forecast Errors 7.2.6 MISO Load Data
7.2 MISO System Planning Reserve Margin 7.3 Planning Year 2020-2021 MISO Planning Reserve Margin Results
7.3 Future Planning Year MISO System Planning Reserve Margins 7.5 Future Years 2020 through 2029 Planning Reserve Margins
7.4 MISO System Planning Reserve Margins 2020 through 2029 7.5 Future Years 2020 through 2029 Planning Reserve Margins
7.5 Planning Year 2020-2021 LRC Local Reliability Requirements 7.5 Future Years 2020 through 2029 Planning Reserve Margins
8.1 Generation Resources Existing, New, and Potential 8.1.2 Model Generation Resource Options
8.2 Existing Resource Option Fixed O&M Cost Projections, $M 8.1.2 Model Generation Resource Options
8.3 SEPA Volume and Cost 8.1.2 Model Generation Resource Options
8.4 Solar Generation Profiles and Costs 8.1.2 Model Generation Resource Options
8.5 New Natural Gas Unit Cost Projections, $M 8.1.2 Model Generation Resource Options
8.6 MISO Zone 6 Capacity Prices 8.2.1 Base Case Inputs/Constraints
8.7 Member Load Included in Base Case 8.2.1 Base Case Inputs/Constraints
8.8 ST Plan Portfolio Results - Base Case 8.2.2 Base Case Results
8.9 Base Case Production Cost 8.2.2 Base Case Results
8.10 Generation and Capacity Reserve Margin 8.2.2 Base Case Results
8.11 Base Case Generation Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 8.2.2 Base Case Results
8.12 2024-2043 Preliminary LT Plan 8.2.3 Scenario Evaluation
8.13 Multi-Variable Price Scenarios for LT Plan 8.2.3 Scenario Evaluation
8.14 2024-2043 Preliminary LT Plan Multi-Variable Price Scenarios 8.2.3 Scenario Evaluation
8.15 LT Plan Other Scenarios 8.2.3 Scenario Evaluation
8.16 Projected Member-Owner Rates 8.3 Summary Scenarios

I-3