Industrial & Manufacturing
›
Energy, Utilities & Sustainability
›
Utility Regulation & Rate Cases
Integrated Resource Planning
Long-cycle programs where regulation, capital, and grid reliability define the pace.
Black & Veatch
Burns & McDonnell
ICF
Guidehouse
Inside this journey
-
Pre-Discovery
Align the room on outcomes, decision process, and regulatory constraints before deeper discovery.
-
Stakeholder & Regulatory Alignment
Confirm decision roles, filing deadlines, commission expectations, and stakeholder constraints before deep planning.
Alignment Questions
Quick Orientation — Who’s in the room (and who matters)?
- What's your title and the primary team you'll represent for this IRP effort?
- Who else from your organization will be actively involved (names/titles), and who needs to be kept informed?
- How would you describe the actual decision authority for IRP choices—who signs off on scenarios, portfolios, and the filing?
- On a scale from 1–5, how available is the core internal team for weekly checkpoints during planning months?
- What's your preferred communication cadence and format for key decision points (e.g., weekly calls, biweekly workshops, monthly steering)?
Who's Really Calling the Shots — the formal AND informal power map
- If you had to name one person or body whose opinion would make or break the IRP, who is it and why?
- Which external actors (commission staff, board members, large customers, local officials) have historically punched above their weight in planning decisions?
- Where do informal influencers live—operations, finance, trading, or elsewhere—and what are their main concerns?
- What informal decision channels exist (e.g., one-on-one meetings with the CEO, closed-door advisory groups) and how often are they used?
- Have there been situations where a non-decision-maker effectively vetoed or altered an IRP outcome? Tell the story and why it mattered.
Deadlines, Hardlines, and What Breaks the Timeline
- What is the firm filing deadline for this IRP (date or regulatory cycle), and are there any upstream deadlines we should know about?
- If a single thing had to be protected to meet the filing deadline, what is it—team availability, data readiness, draft approval, or commission prep?
- Where have past IRP timelines broken down for you—review loops, modeling runtime, internal politics, or external discovery—and how long did those delays last?
- How flexible is the deadline if additional technical work is requested by commission staff post-filing?
- Which internal approvals have the longest lead times (e.g., board, finance, legal), and typically how many review cycles do they require?
What Will Make the Commission Nod — defining defensibility and acceptance
- If the commission were to publicly praise one thing about your IRP, what would you want it to be—transparency, robustness, cost-effectiveness, reliability, or equity?
- What specific commission expectations or precedents in your jurisdiction should shape how we model and document results?
- Which modeling platforms and documentation formats has your commission historically accepted—or explicitly criticized?
- How important is third-party validation or independent review to the commission in your last filing experience?
- Which performance metrics (e.g., expected cost, reliability indices, emissions, resource diversity) does commission staff emphasize in technical reviews?
Political Heat Map — whose pressure will shape choices?
- Which external stakeholders are most likely to submit interventions or mobilize public pressure on the IRP?
- Where do you expect the strongest public scrutiny—resource selection, retirement dates, cost allocation, or emissions targets?
- Have media or political actors previously created material changes to IRP outcomes? If so, what tactics were persuasive?
- Which stakeholder groups are open to tradeoffs (e.g., phased retirements, compensating programs) versus those with non-negotiable positions?
- How would you rate the likelihood of formal hearings, technical conferences, or contested proceedings in this docket?
Red Lines, Tradeoffs, and Unmovable Constraints
- What contractual or regulatory obligations constrain resource choices (PPAs, must-run plants, reliability contracts, RPS mandates)? List details.
- Which operational or physical constraints are non-negotiable (minimum generation, transmission limits, must-offer units, reserve margins)?
- Are there board or executive-level red lines (e.g., no new gas, preserve local jobs, pace of retirements) that must be honored?
- What budget or procurement constraints (capital limits, rate pressure, credit covenants) will narrow feasible portfolios?
- If a modeled least-cost portfolio violates any red lines, how should we treat it in the filing—exclude, show then explain, or present as sensitivity?
Evidence & History — what has landed (and what blew up) before
- How did your last IRP perform in the commission process—largely accepted, conditionally accepted, or heavily contested?
- What specific findings or pieces of evidence did the commission challenge previously (assumptions, data sources, model behavior, stakeholder process)?
- Which internal practices produced the most rework in prior filings (e.g., late data submissions, opaque documentation, inconsistent assumptions)?
- What pieces of analysis in prior IRPs gave you the most confidence internally—and why?
- If you could rewind the last IRP, what single change would have reduced post-filing friction the most?
Data Reality Check — what’s usable now and what needs rescue
- Which of the following data artifacts are ready, partially ready, or missing: load forecast, unit heat rates, fuel contracts, outage schedules, PPA terms, emissions rates?
- How confident are you in the provenance and auditability of historical data we’ll rely on for modeling?
- Which data handoffs usually cause the most delay—internal data owners, external vendors, or commission-provided inputs?
- If we need to prioritize data clean-up, which three items should we fix first to reduce risk?
- Are there internal systems (e.g., ADMS, EMS, financial models) we must integrate with or avoid due to security/policy concerns?
What Success Looks Like — acceptance criteria, tradecraft, and the human element
- What tangible outcomes would make you call this engagement a success six months after filing?
- Which artifacts must be rock-solid for you—model inputs, sensitivity matrices, narrative justification, or stakeholder engagement notes?
- How do you prefer to visualize tradeoffs for executive review—clear ranked portfolios, decision dashboards, or story-first executive summaries?
- What are your biggest emotional concerns about this IRP (e.g., fear of political backlash, reputational risk, uncertainty about reliability)?
- Who will be the visible spokesperson(s) during commission proceedings, and what support will they need from us?
Next Moves — commitments, early risks, and what we should prioritize together
- Given everything above, what are the top three areas you want us to tackle first in the discovery and scoping phase?
- What internal decision date should we target for sign-off on assumptions and scenarios to protect the filing timeline?
- What would make you comfortable committing to an initial week-by-week engagement plan—sample deliverables, roles, and a short pilot analysis?
- Which early warning indicators should we track together so you never get surprised (e.g., data gaps, stakeholder opposition, model instability)?
- Would you like us to prepare a one-page stakeholder pressure map and a 30/60/90-day project milestone plan as our first deliverables?
-
Current State & Data Inventory
Document existing models, data sources, assumptions, operational constraints, and prior commission findings.
Current State
Getting Comfortable — A Quick Inventory
- Which capacity-expansion, production-cost, or forecasting tools did you rely on for your most recent IRP?
- Who within your organization currently owns day-to-day model runs and outputs?
- What year was your last full IRP modeling cycle completed, and was it accepted, conditionally accepted, or remanded?
- Briefly list one or two things you like about how your current models and data are organized (so we can preserve what’s working).
- Are there any immediate data or model deliverables you must have available before we can begin deeper scoping?
What's Really Under the Hood?
- If an external auditor tried to reproduce your last IRP from scratch, where would they most likely get stuck?
- Which models or modules are treated as 'black boxes'—meaning limited visibility into inputs, code, or logic?
- How consistently are assumptions (fuel price, load growth, technology cost) passed between your capacity-expansion and production-cost tools?
- What documentation exists today that explains key modeling choices and where it's stored?
- Who would be our go-to technical contact(s) to answer reproducibility questions during the engagement?
Where the Data Hides Its Mess
- Which single dataset, if found to be corrupted or stale, would cause the largest change to your portfolio recommendations?
- For each of these core datasets, indicate current status: available & validated, available but partially validated, raw/unvetted, or missing.
- How frequently are these datasets refreshed and who owns that cadence?
- Describe one concrete data-quality issue you’ve encountered and how it affected an analysis or decision.
- Do you have a formal data QA/QC process or tooling for model inputs (e.g., scripts, validation reports)?
Assumptions That Could Cost You
- Which assumption do you expect commission staff or intervenors to press hardest on?
- Which of these assumptions are explicitly documented with source data and rationale in your current files?
- For assumptions you suspect are weak or political flashpoints, how would you rate current sensitivity testing (breadth/depth)?
- Are there internal or regulatory constraints that force you to adopt particular prescriptive assumptions?
- If we were to prioritize three assumptions for deeper defensibility work, which would you pick and why?
Operations Isn't a Footnote — Tell Us the Hard Truth
- What operational constraint or behavior routinely frustrates your planners because it's hard to represent in models?
- Which operational parameters are currently modeled explicitly (e.g., ramp rates, start-up costs, min stable levels, reserve sharing)?
- How do you currently capture plant cycling costs, deratings, and maintenance windows in planning runs?
- How often do real-world operational events (force majeure, outages) force you to re-run key analyses?
- Who in operations should we include in model design conversations to avoid unrealistic outcomes?
Commission History and Battlegrounds — What Still Smarts?
- Which past commission finding or intervenor critique do you believe materially changed how you must defend modeling choices today?
- Which topics have historically triggered requests for re-runs or supplemental analysis from the commission?
- Are there prior filings or rebuttals you’d like us to prioritize reviewing to understand recurring attack vectors?
- Which types of evidence (operational logs, historical dispatch, vendor quotes, third-party studies) have been most persuasive in past proceedings?
- Have previous commission rulings imposed specific remedial actions or analyses you must include this cycle?
Ownership, Access, and the Path Forward
- If one governance habit changed today (sign-off, timing, documentation), what would prevent last-minute model panic before filing?
- Who has final sign-off authority for assumptions and model results that go into the IRP filing?
- What access can external consultants expect to receive to model environments and data (choose all that apply)?
- What internal review gates or milestone meetings must we align to (e.g., executive review, stakeholder advisory, legal sign-off)?
- Thinking about timing and resources, what is the single biggest risk to getting a defensible, on-time filing?
-
-
Outcome Discovery
Define IRP success signals, risk tolerances (reliability, cost, emissions), and what commission defensibility requires.
Discovery Questions
Start Here: Tell Us Why This IRP Matters Now
- In one line, what triggered this IRP (build a case for us)?
- What is the filing deadline or critical milestone we must design around?
- Who inside the utility will feel the most time pressure on this program—planning, regulatory, operations, or executive leadership?
- How worried are you, right now, that the current schedule or scope will cause corners to be cut?
- If we solved one logistical headache for you in this IRP process, what would it be?
If The Commission Could Reject One Thing, What Would It Be?
- What’s the single weakness in past filings you most fear will be attacked this time?
- Which stakeholders or intervenors have historically driven the toughest technical challenges?
- Can you point to a prior decision or argument where the commission specifically required extra analysis or rejected an assumption? Tell us what happened.
- How much public and stakeholder scrutiny do you expect (low/medium/high)—and what form will it take (technical discovery, public hearings, media)?
- Which outcome from this IRP would leave you feeling defensible even if a vocal intervenor opposed it?
What Would Success Sound Like in a Hearing?
- If the commission could only give you three signals that the IRP succeeded, what are they?
- What tolerance do you have for reliability risk? (e.g., LOLE targets, reserve margin ranges)
- What are acceptable cost outcomes to you—average expected cost, upper-percentile cost, or cost volatility limits?
- How strong must emissions outcomes be to be defensible—absolute targets, percent reductions, or relative to a regional benchmark?
- Who internally needs to sign off on the narrative we present to commissioners and why?
Where Are Our Assumptions Most Fragile?
- If one assumption changed dramatically, which would cause the biggest swing in recommended resources?
- Which of those fragile assumptions are supported by strong internal or third-party data, and which are mainly judgment calls?
- Tell us about a recent ‘surprise’ forecast or market move—how did you discover it and how long did it affect planning?
- Which scenario types do you want us to prioritize (e.g., low/high load, high gas price, early carbon, accelerated retirements)?
- How comfortable are you with probabilistic (risk-weighted) results versus deterministic scenario comparisons?
How Much Risk Can the Utility Carry — and Who Decides?
- If forced to choose right now, would your leadership prioritize lowest expected cost, strongest reliability, or lowest emissions—rank them in order?
- Who has final authority to accept trade-offs (e.g., CEO, Board, Regulatory VP, Risk Committee)?
- What quantitative thresholds would you accept for trade-offs (examples: acceptable % increase in bill for X% emissions reduction)? Please give targets or ranges.
- How should we show trade-offs to commissioners so they're comfortable—cost curves, heat maps, percentile bands, or narrative scenarios?
- Who on your team will be the arbiter when model outputs push against policy goals?
What Would Make Our Modeling Unassailable?
- What level of model transparency does the commission expect or demand in your jurisdiction (full model access, documented inputs, or summarized outputs)?
- Which validation checks are non-negotiable to you? (choose all that apply)
- What data sources are immediately available to support validation (NERC, actual dispatch, fuel contracts, AMI, meter data, other)?
- Where do you anticipate data or model gaps that we must prioritize closing?
- Would you prefer the consulting team to provide full reproducible model workpapers or executive-level evidence packages tailored for commissioners?
How Will Stakeholders React — and How Do We Bring Them Along?
- If an influential intervenor publicly criticized the IRP, what issue would they most likely highlight first?
- Who should sit on the stakeholder advisory group to neutralize likely attackers (roles or organizations)?
- What engagement cadence do you prefer for advisory review and why?
- Which types of deliverables most effectively build trust with stakeholders—detailed technical memos, interactive dashboards, plain-language summaries, or joint model sessions?
- Describe a stakeholder interaction in the past that left you uneasy—what would we do differently this time?
Quick Wins That Build Commission Confidence
- Which small, targeted analysis would most reduce the chance of a major challenge (pick up to two)?
- Which of those quick wins can your team realistically sign off on within 4–6 weeks?
- What internal resource (data, SME, past study) could we leverage immediately to accelerate delivery of a quick win?
- Who needs to approve running a targeted quick analysis—and what will convince them it's worth the effort?
- How soon would you like to see the first evidence package that you could share with commissioners or staff?
-
IRP Solution Experience
Use the utility’s load, resource mix, and representative scenarios to show how modeling choices affect cost, reliability, and commission defensibility.
Experience Meetings
- Solution Experience Kickoff — Current State & Preconditions
- Consequence Quantification & Scenario Prioritization Workshop
- Modeling Choices Walkthrough — Diagnosis → Proof → Validation
- Sensitivity & Reliability Stress Test Session
- Commission Defensibility Alignment & Acceptance Criteria
- Agree mitigation strategies that are practical and defensible to the commission.
- Introductions & Objectives
- Ensure scenario choices map to the utility's political and regulatory sensitivities to maximize commission defensibility.
- Utility to approve the final scenario list and provide any jurisdictional constraints or mandated cases.
- Modeling team to run and deliver baseline NPV, production cost, and reliability outputs for agreed scenarios prior to the walkthrough.
- Prepare a short evidence list (datasets, assumptions, model version) that will accompany each run for transparency.
- Brief Framing: Current State, Consequence, Future State
- Prove that at least one alternative modeling choice materially advances the agreed future state versus baseline.
- Tie every model output shown back to an explicit consequence and confirm the customer's interpretation.
- Capture validation notes and any contested assumptions to resolve before the filing package is prepared.
- Agree the minimum evidence package required to support the demonstrated claims in a commission filing.
- Modeling team to deliver annotated run decks (charts, tables) for each proof case, with direct tie-lines to the customer's consequence statements.
- Utility SME to confirm or correct operational constraint assumptions called out during the walkthrough.
- Draft list of exhibits and model output files to include in the filing evidence binder.
- Reconfirm Sensitivities to Test
- Reveal where the preferred portfolio is vulnerable under credible uncertainties and quantify the operational and cost consequences.
- Provide latest hourly/daily load shapes, peak forecasts, and any known adjustments (losses, EE, DG) for baseline runs.
- Document acceptance thresholds that, if exceeded, trigger alternate portfolios or additional study.
- Modeling team to produce a sensitivity matrix summarizing cost, reliability, and emissions outcomes for each tested uncertainty.
- Prepare narrative text and exhibit mockups that directly link sensitivity results to the recommended mitigation actions.
- Utility to confirm which mitigations are operationally and politically feasible within the filing timeframe.
- Recap Proven Outcomes from Walkthroughs
- Produce a mapped evidence package that links each expected commission question to a specific model output or sensitivity.
- Lock acceptance criteria (metrics and thresholds) that define 'filing-ready' results.
- Confirm approvals, owners, and timeline to transition into Modeling & Execution with no outstanding defensibility gaps.
- Produce final evidence binder outline (exhibit list, model inputs, run files, sensitivity tables) for review.
- Modeling team to re-run any contested cases with agreed assumption adjustments and deliver revised exhibits.
- Regulatory lead to prepare a one-page Q&A linking each major claim to the supporting exhibits for use in discovery and technical conferences.
- Governance owner to confirm stakeholder sign-offs and dates needed to meet the filing schedule.
- Produce a single-sentence current state that all parties agree describes the core planning problem.
- Document the explicit, quantified consequence(s) of the current state for the IRP.
- Agree the one-sentence future-state outcome that the solution experience must prove.
- Confirm data readiness and assign owners for any missing inputs required for live/recorded model runs.
- Deliver current resource list with forced outage rates, heat rates, operating restrictions, and retirement candidates.
- Share prior IRP findings, commission staff feedback, and any mandated scenario requirements.
- Assign a utility SME to be available during modeling walkthroughs for instant validation.
- Recap Preconditions (Current, Consequence, Future)
- Establish the precise decision metrics that will be used to judge portfolios and model outputs.
- Finalize the representative scenario set and the tolerances/acceptance triggers for each metric.
- One-Sentence Current State
- Define Decision Metrics
- Map Evidence to Anticipated Commission Questions
- Run Sensitivity 1 — Fuel Price Spike
- Overview of Modeling Choices to be Shown
- Prioritize Scenarios & Uncertainties
- Preemptive Challenge Session
- Run Sensitivity 2 — Rapid Load Growth / Extreme Weather
- Explicit Consequence Statement
- Proof Case 1 — Baseline vs. Alternative Portfolio
- Define Future-State Success Statement
- Finalize Acceptance Criteria & Approval Path
- Run Sensitivity 3 — Low Renewable Output / Curtailment
- Proof Case 2 — Resource Mix & Operational Constraints
- Set Tolerances & Acceptance Triggers
- Data & Model Preconditions Review
- Next Steps to Modeling & Execution
- Map Scenarios to Stakeholder Concerns
- Tiebacks: For Each Result, State the Consequence Eliminated or Reduced
- Reliability Stress Test — LOLE/EPNS & Reserve Margin Scenarios
- Confirm Experience Logistics & Pre-work
-
Solution Scope
Define modeling modules, scenarios, deliverables, timeline, stakeholder engagement cadence, and acceptance criteria.
Scope Configuration
- Deliver 20-year hourly load forecast dataset
- Assemble generator fleet and operational parameters dataset
- Run capacity expansion optimization and deliver candidate portfolios
- Produce production-cost simulations (hourly dispatch) for portfolios
- Perform resource-adequacy reliability study with LOLE results
- Run renewable-integration studies and system impact report
- Model demand-side management programs and savings curves
- Run carbon-price scenario and emissions-cost sensitivity runs
- Prepare draft IRP chapters and technical appendices
- Prepare regulatory filing package with exhibits and testimony
- Respond to commission discovery with analyses and exhibits
- Develop procurement-ready RFP specifications for selected resources
- Facilitate stakeholder advisory group meeting and feedback summary
Scope Questions
Deliver 20-year hourly load forecast dataset
- Do you require a 20-year hourly forecast as a single baseline or multiple scenario variants?
- What start year should the 20-year horizon begin (e.g., 2026)?
- Which end uses must the forecast support (select all that apply)?
- Which distributed energy resources and behind-the-meter influences should be modeled explicitly?
- What historical load and telemetry data are available (years and frequency)?
- Preferred deliverable formats for hourly dataset and metadata?
Assemble generator fleet and operational parameters dataset
- Do you have an existing unit registry (plant/unit list) to be verified or do we create one from scratch?
- Which unit attributes must be included in the dataset (select all required)?
- Do you need planned retirements / derates and committed resource additions encoded by year?
- Should maintenance and forced outage scheduling be modeled deterministically or probabilistically?
- Is there a preferred data format for fleet dataset delivery (e.g., Excel, CSV, model input)?
- Acceptance criteria: what validations or stakeholder approvals must the fleet dataset pass before modeling begins?
Run capacity expansion optimization and deliver candidate portfolios
- Which optimization platforms or tools are preferred/required for capacity expansion?
- What objective function(s) should the optimization prioritize?
- Which constraints must be enforced (select all that apply)?
- How many scenario / sensitivity runs should be delivered (baseline + number of scenarios)?
- What resource types are available as build options (select all that apply)?
- What deliverables define success: number of candidate portfolios, sensitivity tables, cost-risk tradeoffs, and documentation required?
Produce production-cost simulations (hourly dispatch) for portfolios
- Which production-cost simulation platform(s) should be used or supported?
- Should unit commitment be modeled with full UC realism (start-up costs, min run) or simplified dispatch?
- What output metrics are required from runs (select all that apply)?
- What time slices/years should be simulated (e.g., single representative year, multiple historical years, full 20-year rolling)?
- Are transmission constraints and interfaces required in the dispatch (zonal flows, limits)?
- What runtime or performance constraints should we respect (e.g., deliver results within X weeks)?
Perform resource-adequacy reliability study with LOLE results
- Which reliability metric(s) must we deliver (select all that apply)?
- What target reliability standard or benchmark should we test against?
- Should ELCC be calculated for renewables and storage as part of adequacy?
- Which resource availability assumptions should be used (FOR rates, outage schedules, weather-correlated VRE profiles)?
- Do you require probabilistic Monte Carlo LOLE runs or deterministic single-scenario assessments?
- Deliverable format and acceptance: do you need formal LOLE reports, tables by year, and supporting simulation files?
Run renewable-integration studies and system impact report
- Which integration issues should the study prioritize (select all that apply)?
- Do you require high-resolution renewable profiles (site-specific solar/wind) or aggregated regional profiles?
- Should storage dispatch and co-optimization with renewables be included?
- Are power-electronics limits (IBR penetration thresholds, curtailment rules) relevant for your system?
- What integration study outputs are required (e.g., curtailment rates, ramp events, needs for flexibility, mitigation options)?
- Do you expect recommended system upgrades or operational changes (e.g., synchronous condensers, revised reserve products) be included in the report?
Model demand-side management programs and savings curves
- Which DSM program types should be modeled (select all that apply)?
- Do you have program-level cost and savings data, or do you need us to develop savings curves and cost-effectiveness inputs?
- Should DSM savings be modeled as persistent over the 20-year horizon or with specific measure lifetimes and decay?
- Is Net-to-Gross adjustment and M&V assumptions required for regulatory defensibility?
- What level of granularity is needed for load-shape impacts (hourly shape adjustments, monthly buckets, seasonal only)?
- Do you require DSM program cost-effectiveness tests and TRC/UCT calculations for inclusion in the IRP?
Run carbon-price scenario and emissions-cost sensitivity runs
- Which carbon-price trajectories should we include (select all that apply)?
- Should carbon costs be incorporated into both capacity expansion and production cost runs or only one of them?
- Do you require explicit modeling of cap-and-trade or allowance allocation versus a carbon tax shadow price?
- What emissions species must be reported (CO2, SO2, NOx, methane)?
- How many sensitivity points per scenario (e.g., price +/- X%, alternative learning rates) should be delivered?
- Are there regulatory or social-cost values (SCC) we should reference or incorporate?
Prepare draft IRP chapters and technical appendices
- Which IRP chapters are required for the filing (select all that apply)?
- What level of technical detail is expected in appendices (full model inputs and assumptions, summarized tables, or selective disclosure)?
- How many internal review cycles and client review rounds should be planned before final drafts?
- Do you have a filing template or commission formatting requirements we must follow?
- Are there confidentiality/redaction requirements for technical appendices?
- Do you expect expert witness testimony drafting to be included within the chapter preparation scope?
Prepare regulatory filing package with exhibits and testimony
- What is the target filing date and are there hard regulatory milestones we must meet?
- Which filing components are required (select all that apply)?
- Are there jurisdiction-specific exhibit numbering or submission formatting rules we should follow?
- Do you require pre-filing stakeholder briefings or staff briefings prior to official submittal?
- Will legal counsel prepare or review testimony and exhibits, or should consulting team coordinate directly with counsel?
- Are there confidentiality or discovery protections to document in the filing (e.g., proprietary attachments)?
-
Mutual Commit
Finalize commercial terms, governance, milestones, and responsibilities for modeling, drafting, and regulatory support.
Agreement Modules
- Statement of Work (SOW)
- Master Services Agreement (MSA)
- Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
- Pricing & Payment Schedule
- Governance & Steering Committee Charter
- Roles & Responsibilities Matrix
- Data Access, Security & Privacy Agreement (DPA)
- Milestones & Acceptance Criteria
- Change Order & Scope Management
- Regulatory Support & Filing Commitment
- Intellectual Property & Deliverable Rights
- Risk Allocation, Liability & Insurance
- Termination & Transition Plan
- Escalation & Dispute Resolution
- Expense Reimbursement & Travel Policy
- Key Personnel & Subcontractor Approval
-
Deployment
Operationalize modeling runs, review cycles, filing preparation, and commission support with clear owners and risk controls.
-
Pre-Deployment Readiness
Confirm data handoffs, model environments, access, baseline forecasts, and risk controls before runs begin.
Readiness Questions
Starting Line — How Ready Do You Feel?
- On a high level, how would you describe your team's overall readiness to begin the pre-deployment checklist and model runs?
- What's the single biggest thing that would make you hesitate to press start on the first formal run?
- Which internal stakeholders would raise the loudest objections if a run started without addressing current gaps?
- How does it feel in your organization as the filing deadline approaches — calm, managed pressure, high stress, or something else?
- Tell us about a past pre-deployment rush that cost you time, credibility with a commission, or required substantial rework.
Who Holds the Keys — Access, Permissions, and Accounts
- If we tried to run the models tomorrow, whose credentials or approvals would bottleneck the whole process?
- Do you have documented handoff points and named owners for each critical dataset we need?
- List the systems and data sources we must access (EMS, SCADA, AMI, fuel contracts, generator outage logs, market data, other).
- How do you currently provision temporary access for external consultants: fast and auditable, moderate, slow, or never?
- What legal, cybersecurity, or vendor-vetting steps must happen before any external party can ingest or view your data?
- Typically, how long do access requests take to fulfill today?
Are We Bracing for Surprise — Data Quality, Coverage, and Lineage
- How many data elements do you expect will surprise us during the first validation run?
- Which data feeds have known accuracy or completeness problems (for example, missing timestamps, meter drift, stale contract terms)?
- When was each primary dataset last reconciled with its source of truth (EMS, billing, fuel vendor, outage registry)?
- How do you currently track data lineage and versioning for inputs used in IRP runs?
- Describe one recent data issue that changed a modeling result or regulatory outcome and how it was discovered.
- How tolerant are you of input uncertainty in baseline runs before a commission would question the defensibility of results?
Modeling Home — Environments, Versions, and Reproducibility
- If a result is challenged, can we reproduce the identical run with the same environment and inputs tomorrow?
- Which modeling platforms and exact versions will we be using for capacity expansion, production cost, and reliability analysis?
- What automation exists for provisioning model environments (containers, VMs, scripts) versus manual setup?
- Who owns model governance: version control, change logs, and approval for assumption or code changes?
- How do you capture and approve ad-hoc model code or parameter changes during the engagement?
- Would having a reproducible 'run ID' package (inputs, scripts, environment, outputs) be essential for regulatory responses?
Baseline Beliefs — Forecasts, Assumptions, and Stakeholder Acceptance
- Which baseline assumption — if nudged slightly — would most upend your preferred resource plan?
- Which baseline forecast do commission staff in your jurisdiction scrutinize most (load, fuel price, DER adoption, demand response, retirements)?
- How finalized are your baseline forecasts for modeling: locked, near-final, draft, or not started?
- Who must sign off on baseline assumptions before we begin runs and what's their typical approval timeline?
- Have past filings required material updates to baselines during discovery, and if so, what typically triggered those updates?
- If baselines change midstream, how comfortable are you documenting ranges and probabilistic assumptions rather than single point estimates?
Controls Before the Run — Pre-Run Validation and Risk Mitigation
- What single governance failure would most likely force a rerun of key analyses or push back the filing date?
- Which pre-run validation checks are mandatory for you (data completeness, load balance, fuel contract validation, reserve margin checks)?
- Do you already use an acceptance checklist we should align to, or should we create one together?
- What emergency stop criteria should pause runs (for example, missing critical data, model crash, cybersecurity alert)?
- How should late-breaking assumption changes be handled: freeze assumptions, controlled change window, or ongoing change log with approvals?
- Who is authorized to give final 'go' or 'no-go' for a run to be used in the filing?
Human Factors — Roles, Timelines, and Communication Under Pressure
- If the modeling team misses a milestone, which role in your organization experiences the most reputational risk?
- What is your preferred cadence for readiness checkpoints during execution: daily standups, weekly demos, milestone reviews, or ad-hoc?
- How available will your subject-matter experts be during the execution window: full-time, part-time, on-call, or limited?
- When commission staff or intervenors submit questions during review, who should be the primary point of contact from your side?
- Describe an instance when communications broke down in a prior filing and what you would change now.
- How would you like uncertainty and limitations surfaced to executives before filing: a high-level brief, a detailed appendix, or both?
What Will Make This Irrefutable — Acceptance Criteria and 'Go' Signals
- What concrete evidence would a skeptical commissioner need to stop questioning our core conclusions?
- What quantitative acceptance thresholds do you expect for reliability and economic metrics (reserve margin, LOLE, cost deltas) that must be met before filing?
- Are there qualitative narratives or external validations that materially strengthen defensibility (operational sign-off, third-party review, precedent, stakeholder endorsements)?
- Would you want a 'pre-file' dry run with simulated discovery to test defensibility before we finalize materials?
- What timeline do you need for final sign-off after model runs conclude to ensure the filing deadline is met?
- Would a packaged reproducible run with annotated assumptions and a step-by-step walkthrough deck satisfy your internal audit and regulatory needs?
-
Modeling & Execution
Execute capacity expansion, production cost, reliability, and sensitivity analyses across agreed scenarios and assumptions.
-
Validation & Filing Preparation
Verify results against acceptance criteria, finalize draft IRP chapters, evidence, and filing materials for commission review.
Validation Questions
Quick Check: Where Are We Right Now?
- What's the filing deadline or regulatory milestone we're aiming for?
- How complete is each IRP chapter today (rough estimate by percent)?
- Which high‑level deliverables are still outstanding (list the top 3)?
- Who on the utility side is the final signatory or decision owner for the filing?
- On a scale from 1–5, how confident are you that we can meet the deadline without scope cuts?
What Could Blow Up at Filing?
- If a commissioner or intervenor intentionally tried to undermine our case, what one issue would they attack first?
- Which assumptions are most likely to trigger intense scrutiny or disagreement?
- Are there recent precedents in this jurisdiction where similar assumptions were rejected or heavily modified?
- How defensible is our treatment of uncertainty (scenario range, probabilities, sensitivity breadth)?
- Which external data sources or vendor inputs could be challenged, and by whom?
Is Our Evidence Bulletproof—or Just Plausible?
- Which parts of the analysis would you feel uncomfortable defending under cross‑examination?
- Do we have version‑controlled model archives and run logs that reproduce each published figure?
- How quickly could we produce the raw inputs and model runs if commission staff demanded them (days)?
- Which datasets lack clear provenance or chain‑of‑custody documentation?
- Have we completed independent peer review, QA checks, or third‑party validation on critical modules (capacity expansion, production cost)?
Does the Filing Tell the Right Story?
- Does the current narrative clearly tie modeling choices to the utility’s strategy and public policy obligations, or does it read like disparate technical appendices?
- Which stakeholder audiences need a tailored narrative (pick all that matter)?
- Are the executive summary and visuals concise and persuasive enough to be quoted in hearings and orders?
- Do we have prepped talking points, Q&A, and exhibit maps for the technical conference and hearings?
- Who on the team is prepared to present and defend technical modeling choices during live proceedings?
Stakeholder & Commissioner Psychology: Anticipate the Pushback
- Which commissioners, staffers, or intervenors are most likely to be skeptical of our conclusions and why?
- Which narratives (cost-focused, reliability-focused, environmental justice, local economic impacts) will gain traction with local stakeholders?
- Have any parties formally requested additional analyses or data already (discovery, data requests)?
- Which concessions or modeling relaxations would appease stakeholders without undermining the plan?
- How emotionally ready is your executive team for hearings and public scrutiny (nervous, prepared, eager to engage)?
Remediation & Time Tradeoffs: What Do We Fix First?
- If we had to deprioritize one deliverable to hit the deadline, which would create the highest regulatory risk?
- Which remediation tasks should be highest priority (select top 3)?
- For the top remediation items, what are realistic time estimates to complete them (hours or days)?
- What internal approval paths or signoffs are the longest lead and could delay final submission?
- If the commission requests supplemental analysis after filing, what is our preferred escalation path and resourcing plan?
After the Docket: How Will We Win or Learn?
- How will we measure success after filing—what outcomes would make this filing a clear win versus a 'just‑in‑time' compliance exercise?
- What quantitative metrics should we track post‑filing (e.g., acceptance rate of exhibits, number of data requests, time to resolve discovery)?
- Would you want a formal post‑mortem workshop to capture lessons and harden processes for the next IRP cycle?
- What ongoing level of support would you budget for post‑filing (e.g., discovery responses, hearings, supplemental runs)?
- Who should own the long‑term evidence and model dossier so future audits or IRPs can build on this work?
-
-
Commission Support & Success Reviews
Support discovery, technical conferences, and hearings; review final outcomes and capture lessons for future IRPs.
Success Reviews
- Pre-Hearing Readiness & Strategy
- Technical Conference Runbook & Live Demonstration
- Discovery Response Coordination & Traceability Review
- Hearing Day Support & Real‑Time Issue Resolution
- Post‑Filing Review & Lessons Learned Workshop
Issues & Enhancements
- Stand up a dedicated hearing support channel with named operator and evidentiary index.
- Agree on a tightly scoped demo that directly proves key claims and maps to commission concerns.
- Prepare a scripted presentation and assign who performs each demo step and answer category.
- Establish a rapid escalation and data‑delivery path for any follow‑up requests from the conference.
- Create a one‑click demo package (preloaded scenarios + annotated outputs) for use in the technical conference.
- Draft and distribute anticipated Q&A with model references to witnesses.
- Designate a single point of contact for post‑conference data deliveries and time commitments.
- Discovery Inventory & Prioritization
- Ensure all discovery responses are reproducible, documented, and aligned with the record.
- Minimize legal/regulatory exposure by proactively framing technical limitations and providing defensible evidence.
- Assign clear owners and timelines for each response and evidence package.
- Produce a discovery response tracker mapping requests to deliverables, owner, status, and expected delivery date.
- Prepare a reproducibility appendix for model outputs that includes inputs, versions, and scripts.
- Schedule legal/regulatory review slots for high‑sensitivity responses 48 hours before submission.
- Logistics & Communication Protocol
- Enable witnesses to present concise, defensible testimony and respond to cross effectively.
- Ensure immediate access to validated evidence and rapid generation of any supplementary outputs requested.
- Capture and assign all post‑hearing follow‑ups with owners and accelerated timelines.
- Current State Snapshot
- Prepare a 30‑minute rapid rebuttal template and designate approvers.
- Within 24 hours, compile a post‑hearing log of commitments, new data requests, and assigned owners.
- Verdict & Outcome Summary
- Capture an unbiased, evidence‑based account of why specific outcomes occurred and quantify their impacts.
- Create a prioritized, owned improvement backlog to reduce risk and rework for the next IRP.
- Agree a validation plan and schedule to confirm implemented changes ahead of the next filing cycle.
- Produce a Lessons Learned report linking commission language to evidence gaps and recommended model/process changes.
- Update the IRP playbook with new acceptance‑criteria templates, evidence checklists, and discovery response procedures.
- Schedule a six‑week follow‑up to review progress against the improvement backlog and validate implementation.
- Ensure a single, concise articulation of current status and the remaining evidentiary gaps to close.
- Define clear success criteria for commission acceptance on each contested issue.
- Assign witnesses and finalize logistics for mock preparations and hearing day roles.
- Create an actionable evidence remediation plan with owners and deadlines.
- Compile and circulate a redlined evidence map linking exhibits to issues and owners.
- Schedule and book 2 mock cross‑examination sessions with identified witnesses.
- Produce a one‑page ‘talking points’ packet per witness covering current state, consequence, and proof.
- One‑Sentence Current State Framing
- Gap Analysis: Expected vs. Actual
- Consequence Framing for Audience
- Consequence & Risk Assessment
- One‑Sentence Opening Framing
- Current State of Evidence Traceability
- Success Criteria / Future State
- Future State & Key Claims to Prove
- Consequence Review
- Consequence of Delayed/Incomplete Responses
- Evidence Retrieval Workflow
- Rapid Rebuttal & Redirect Process
- Evidence & Proof Map
- Response Strategy & Narrative
- Live Model Demonstration Plan
- What Worked / What Didn’t (Evidence & Process)
- Presentation Walkthrough (Scripted)
- Real‑Time QA & Model Support
- Ownership, Evidence Packaging & Version Control
- Roles, Witnesses & Speaking Order
- Actionable Improvements & Ownership
- Post‑Hearing Immediate Actions
- Mock Q&A / Cross Prep Plan
- Audience Q&A Prep & Escalation Path
- Validation & Close‑Out Plan