"The New Power Plan presented in this report is work in progress. It is not a definitive alternative to the IRP 2010. The preferred power generation options shown are outputs of the TIMES model and are obviously highly dependent on input parameters and assumptions. We have accordingly also modelled alternative scenarios with higher demand, lower nuclear costs, more optimistic cost improvements of renewables, with and without shale gas, and with/without the 2012 ministerial determinations and an RE program with sustained annual investments. The New Power Plan presented in this analysis shows the impact of changing demand assumptions in accordance with the lower demand seen today compared to that of the IRP 2010. New information on the costs and electricity generating options are becoming available and indicate that RE costs and nuclear costs are higher, and the role which shale gas could play should it become available at costs competitive with LNG. The analysis performed clearly shows the importance of updating the IRP2010. Ignoring this new information and fixing decisions, including a large nuclear roll-out of large units, on an out-dated plan is going to be very costly to the economy. The analysis also shows that even with a higher demand, and lower nuclear costs, new capacity in nuclear is only required in 2029 and not in 2023 as per IRP 2010."