The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) must ensure its models consider President Donald Trump’s shifting energy priorities to ensure the council’s upcoming 20-year regional power plan stays relevant, board members contended during a March 11 meeting. 

The council is required under the Northwest Power Act “to develop a plan to ensure an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply for the region.” NWPCC publishes a plan every five years, according to the council’s website.  

The plan considers several factors, including federal policies that could impact resources. During the meeting on March 11, council members noted that Trump has rescinded certain clean energy initiatives imposed under former President Joe Biden. 

For example, NWPCC’s 2021 power plan included the social cost of carbon — a measure to estimate the economic impact of climate change — to inform resource decisions. Though states like Washington still require utilities to plan with the measure, other states stopped using it after Trump issued his executive order on Unleashing American Energy, which directed federal agencies to consider getting rid of the measure (See Federal Budgets, Procurements to Include Social Cost of GHGs and DOE Official to NASEO: ‘There is not an Energy Transition’.) 

Idaho-based utilities, for example, don’t use the measure anymore, according to board member Jeffery Allen. He contended the council’s regional power plan should not apply the social cost of carbon regionwide. 

“I want what we do to be relevant. I want the council to be relevant. I want the council to be interesting,” Allen said. “If we say we’re going to do social cost of carbon regionwide, and parts of it aren’t, it kind of dings our relevancy in certain portions of the region.” 

Jennifer Light, director of power planning at NWPCC, said, “We do have a methodology where we can apply to just a portion of the region where it’s required.” 

However, board member KC Golden, who represents Washington, said NWPCC risks its relevance if it fails to address “the objective reality of our physical circumstances on the planet … because it’s wrapped around the axle of political differences between the states.” 

“These costs are not hypothetical,” Golden added. “We’re seeing them in the rise in the [Columbia River Basin] Fish and Wildlife Program. We’re seeing them … with all the utilities who are going to their commissions … or their boards and trying to figure out how to recover these wildfire costs. People are bearing the costs.” 

The council also discussed how Trump could impact clean energy tax credits. Golden said other incentives, like production and investment tax credits, should be safe from rollbacks. 

“We are in uncharted water, so I’m not going to hazard a prediction, but I just will say that these two policies in particular had a long history of bipartisan support before this administration,” Golden said. “So, it strikes me as different from some of the other clean energy policy things that are clearly going to be rolled back.” 

Load Forecast

Council staff also gave a presentation on load forecast, noting that board members hopefully will see a final forecast “sometime in April.” 

Like other entities across the country, NWPCC is paying close attention to demand growth spurred by electric vehicles and data centers.  

Steve Simmons, senior energy forecasting analyst at the council, noted that fluctuations in markets can make forecasting difficult as industries grow and disappear. He pointed to the chip manufacturing industry in Oregon and Idaho, which has existed for a while and is going through a large growth spurt, saying that load is not always increasing. 

“These are big jumps that you may not be able to exactly predict based on some of the economic forecasts,” Simmons said. “Also, some industries may disappear again … or they may move to a different region, and that can actually decrement load.” 

Simmons also cautioned against over-forecasting, which is a risk as stakeholders want to ensure they meet the power demand posed by industries. He pointed to the tech bubble in the early 2000s. 

“Everyone was essentially over-forecasting because someone else had over-forecast,” he added. “You end up with a bubble and then supply completely overwhelmed demand, and again it deflated, which bubbles do, but it’s often a pretty painful process.”