Modeling the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in Resource Planning

The document outlines a three-step approach for utilities to incorporate the DOE's Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) program into resource planning: modeling portfolio-wide savings from low-interest financing, prioritizing 'clean repowering' at existing fossil sites, and optimizing transmission investments. It argues that failing to model these factors leads to suboptimal resource portfolios and missed savings. The brief provides technical guidance on calculating forward interest rates, managing compliance costs (such as NEPA and the Davis-Bacon Act), and leveraging the EIR's $250 billion lending authority to accelerate the clean energy transition while reducing costs for ratepayers.

• The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) program, managed by the Loan Programs Office (LPO), offers a significant opportunity for ratepayer savings with up to $250 billion in lending commitments available through September 2026 and a $5 billion budget to reduce interest rates.
• Incorporating EIR financing into resource planning can lead to substantial cost reductions and a shift toward cleaner energy portfolios. For example, modeling by the North Carolina Public Staff showed that applying EIR financing to 40% of eligible projects could increase clean resource capacity by 500 MW while reducing the present value of the revenue requirement (PVRR) by $415 million through 2032.
• Clean repowering—deploying wind, solar, and storage at existing fossil fuel sites—can bypass interconnection delays and reduce costs. RMI estimates this approach could support 250 GW of clean energy in the US, resulting in annual savings of $12.7 billion over the next decade.
• EIR financing can change the economic viability of transmission plans, making more aggressive transmission investment more cost-effective by enabling greater integration of low-cost clean energy generation.
• To maximize savings, utilities should use high-leverage EIR loans (up to 80% of project costs) and structure them as off-balance sheet obligations to avoid credit downgrades that would increase the cost of non-EIR financing.
• Compliance with federal requirements can add costs and delays, though some are minimal. NEPA reviews for solar and storage on previously disturbed land often qualify for categorical exclusions, while an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can take 1.5 to 2 years and cost a median of $2.1 million (inflation-adjusted).

APA

RMI (2024). Modeling the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in Resource Planning. https://rmi.org/resources/modeling-the-does-energy-infrastructure-reinvestment-program-in-resource-planning/

Chicago

RMI. Modeling the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in Resource Planning. 2024. https://rmi.org/resources/modeling-the-does-energy-infrastructure-reinvestment-program-in-resource-planning/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=RMI |title=Modeling the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in Resource Planning |date=4 November 2024 |url=https://rmi.org/resources/modeling-the-does-energy-infrastructure-reinvestment-program-in-resource-planning/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{rmi2024modeling, author = {{RMI}}, title = {{Modeling the DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program in Resource Planning}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {2024}, month = nov, url = {https://rmi.org/resources/modeling-the-does-energy-infrastructure-reinvestment-program-in-resource-planning/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }