Electric utilities face unprecedented uncertainties that complicate long-term resource planning. As a consequence, many utilities emphasize small resources that can be constructed quickly. However, insufficient data and analysis exist to adequately assess this risk-reduction strategy. This paper compares the benefits of such flexible resources (including energy-efficiency and load-management programs) with their costs, relative to large, long-lead-time power plants. The program flexibility benefits computed for various examples amount to 2–20 per cent. Cost estimates from the Northwest Power Planning Council suggest that these benefits are generally not enough to justify the higher costs of small power plants. However, the benefits are more than sufficient to justify the incremental costs associated with expansion of simple-cycle combustion turbines to combined-cycle operation. Also, the benefits amply justify application of the Council's option-and-build strategy. The first stage of their strategy involves the time-consuming but inexpensive activities of siting, designing, and licensing the plant. Then, the plant can be constructed, the site can be held as an option for several years, or the plans can be terminated. This strategy permits the second stage (construction) to be timed to match changes in load growth at very little cost. Utility conservation and load-management programs can provide substantial flexibility benefits. These benefits are a consequence of the ease with which such programs can be adjusted to match load growth. Relative to construction of a single 600 MW power plant, implementing the demand-side program described here cuts electricity price by 10 per cent, 50–100 per cent more than do small, short-lead-time power plants.