IDACORP's Battery Ramp vs Gas-Plus Strategy, 2027 Outlook

Sustainability of the battery ramp vs. “gas + battery” and whether SMRs are on the longer-term table (IDACORP/Idaho Power)

1) Is the battery ramp pace sustainable?

IDACORP says it currently has 250 MW of batteries in service and is executing an aggressive buildout, but it frames batteries as an “energy” resource rather than a full “capacity” replacement—especially in winter. The company notes that batteries are “a great resource for the summer” when solar output diminishes at sunset, but they are “not a great source for the winter” because of shorter days and limited ability to refill before the next demand cycle, and that they “last for 4 hours…[so] we do not really consider it a real capacity resource more than those first 4 hours.” ¹²³

Operationally, the company emphasizes the ramp is a sprint because of timing and queue pressure—implying it gets harder if the queue grows. Management describes “an absolute sprint to keep up with this growing load and getting the resources online and in time” while continuing to evaluate additional pipeline beyond what’s already shown. ³

On the size and mix of the near-term resource plan, batteries remain central but not exclusive. In the year-by-year mix discussed on the call, management says 2027 is “largely batteries” plus solar and another 100 MW of batteries (in addition to already discussed batteries), while from that point onward “it does turn a little more on the gas side” (with gas projects named in 2029 and 2030). ²

A key practical sustainability constraint appears to be not just technology readiness but project economics and commercial availability. On the customer pricing/availability theme, management states that a potential benchmark price (referenced as “over a $150 a megawatt hour”) is uncertain in terms of real procurement: “the bigger constraint right now is just the commercial availability… I do not even know if the $150 is a price that you could actually go buy 1 for.” ⁴

Bottom line on sustainability of ramp pace:

• Sustainable as a near-term pillar, but not as the sole long-term solution because batteries’ 4-hour characteristic limits their ability to replace winter/longer duration capacity. ³
• The company is already planning for a mix that tilts more toward gas after the earlier heavy-battery years, suggesting the pace of battery additions may continue, but the system’s “capacity” need forces diversification. ²³
• The ability to sustain ramp is also constrained by availability and pricing for the resources being procured, not just intent. ⁴

2) Will “gas + battery” be the long-term answer?

Idaho Power’s own described forward mix strongly supports “gas + battery,” not “batteries only.” Management explicitly states batteries are not “the answer to everything” and details why (winter limitations; limited effective capacity beyond the first 4 hours). ³

The company’s stated multi-year build plan includes both dispatchable gas projects and batteries/storage rather than relying on storage alone. Management describes:

• 2032 RFP bid mix: “At this stage… several of our self build projects remain competitive,” and management earlier notes that of 8 projects, 6 were gas projects and 2 were storage projects—a structural indicator that, in their planning procurement process, gas remains a material portion of capacity additions. ²⁵
• Gas projects with in-service dates: 167 MW (in-service 2028), 222 MW (in-service 2029), and 430 MW (in-service 2030). ⁵
• Year-by-year guidance: after 2027 largely batteries/solar, the plan “turn[s]… a little more on the gas side,” with specific gas projects referenced in 2029 and 2030. ²

Management also links dispatchable capacity to meeting a near-term capacity deficit. The gas projects are described as “dispatchable projects [that] will help us meet our near term capacity deficit.” ⁵

Bottom line on “gas + battery”:
The evidence in the excerpts points to gas + battery (and some solar/transmission) as the pragmatic long-term resource strategy, driven by the constraint that batteries (as deployed here, with ~4-hour duration) do not fully substitute for winter capacity needs, while gas provides dispatchability. ³²⁵

3) Are SMR options being considered for the longer term?

Yes—SMR technology interest exists, but management is not committing to being an early mover due to pricing and expected availability.

Management’s explicit stance:

• They “like SMR technology,” but “at this time… [they] do not love the pricing,” described as “likely over a $150 a megawatt hour.” ²
• They “are probably not gonna be the first, and… not gonna be the last to look at them,” and they will “continue to keep an eye and evaluate… over the next several years,” including “timing… when they would be available.” ²
• In response to a follow-up about whether SMR pricing matters given market constraints, management says there’s uncertainty: “we have to wait and see on what happens in the future,” and they add “I do find… that we are negotiating with them, turns out price does matter… Still.” ⁴

They also highlight active learning and engagement with institutions and developers. The company says it spent “a fair amount of time learning about these new technologies,” with involvement such as being on the customer advisory committee for one key technology/company, meeting with INL, and meeting “with most of the key developers.” ²

Bottom line on SMRs:
SMRs are on the longer-term consideration list—management has evaluated the tech and engagement is ongoing—but deployment timing and economics (especially pricing/availability) appear to prevent near-term commitment. ²⁴

---

Integrated conclusion (directly answering the question)

• Battery ramp pace: IDACORP says batteries are already in service at 250 MW and they are actively adding storage, but they describe a growing-load “sprint” and, critically, they treat batteries as mainly meeting energy needs (especially summer/short-duration shifts), not full winter capacity. ¹²³ This makes a “battery-only” long-term approach unlikely, even if battery additions remain significant. ²³
• Long-term answer likely “gas + battery”: Management explicitly lays out a plan where early years are battery-heavy (2027 largely batteries/solar), but later years tilt more toward gas, including named gas projects (2028/2029/2030) and a 2032 procurement mix that includes majority gas among the considered projects (6 gas vs. 2 storage). ²⁵
• SMR longer term: SMRs are being actively evaluated and management says they like the technology, but do not love the pricing (cited as potentially >$150/MWh) and they plan to evaluate over the next several years rather than lead the first deployments; they also stress price still matters in negotiations and commercial availability remains uncertain. ²⁴