Resource Adequacy Challenges in the West: Insights from a Summer at WIEB

Henry Daniels-Koch 
M.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering – Atmosphere/Energy ‘26

This summer I worked with the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB), a regional policy organization that addresses energy issues across the West, from nuclear waste transport to transmission planning and resource adequacy. My focus, alongside fellow Shultz Energy Fellow Maya Arengo, was on resource adequacy frameworks. Together, we interviewed more than 30 professionals—from regulators and utility leaders to market operators and advocacy groups—to understand how the West is preparing for reliability challenges.

Across the U.S., the risks of outages are rising. Load growth from data centers and electrification is accelerating, variable resources like solar and wind add uncertainty, and shortages of critical equipment slow project development. The West is experimenting with two different paths to address these risks.

In California, the Public Utilities Commission responded to the 2020 blackouts by creating the “Slice-of-Day” program. Load-serving entities must demonstrate enough resources to cover monthly peaks plus a reserve margin, across all hours of the peak day. This has driven billions of dollars of new investment—mostly in batteries—that has dramatically improved reliability, though at high cost to ratepayers.

Outside California, utilities can voluntarily join the Western Resource Adequacy Program (WRAP). WRAP pools the region’s diverse resources—dispatchable hydro in the Northwest, solar in Nevada, and more—so participants can reduce reserve margins, avoid costly new investments, and improve reliability. The program relies on a probabilistic Effective Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) framework, testing resources under thousands of load scenarios.

Our interviewees described how both approaches face challenges. California’s program has delivered reliability, but at the risk of overspending. WRAP offers efficiency and collaboration, but binding participation requires utilities to meet strict accreditation standards or pay steep “Cost of New Entry” penalties. At the same time, new regional energy markets (EDAM and Markets+) are providing their own reliability benefits, which may reduce the perceived value of WRAP. Many stakeholders told us they remain optimistic WRAP will become binding but some expressed they would like to see penalties eased or phased in to encourage participation.

I began the summer wondering whether California’s and WRAP’s divergent approaches could pose harmonization challenges with each other. I’ve come to believe they can work independently, each suited to its governance structure, though both still face steep hurdles.

Working at WIEB gave me a window into how regional energy policy actually gets made—through the constraints and creativity of different players. Utilities must answer to shareholders, regulators to spending prudence, and market operators to resource neutrality. Yet across these limits, people are finding voluntary, collaborative ways to keep the grid reliable. I am leaving the fellowship with deeper technical and policy knowledge, stronger confidence engaging with industry leaders, and a renewed motivation to keep working on these challenges as variable resources and load growth reshape the grid.