In Korea, energy policies are actualized through various energy-related plans. Recently, however, as high-ranking plans, which are very vision-oriented, continually set higher sector-by-sector goals, subordinate action plans, which require consistency, encounter distortions in their establishment process. Also, each subordinate action plan reveals limitations in terms of securing flexibility of the plan in responding to uncertainties of the future. These problems pose potential risks such as causing huge social costs. In this regard, with an aim to provide empirical evidence for discussions on improving the procedure for developing and executing Korea’s energy plans, this study mainly analyzes the Basic Plan on Electricity Demand and Supply?one of the most important subordinate action plans?in order to explain the problems of the Basic Plan in a logical manner, and potential problems that could occur in the process of sustaining consistency between the Basic Plan and its higher-ranking plans. Further, this paper estimates the scale of social costs caused by those problems assuming realistic conditions. According to the result, in the case of where maximum electric power is estimated to be 7% (15%) less than the actual amount in the Basic Plan on Electricity Demand and Supply, the annual generation cost will rise by 286 billion won and (1.2 trillion won) in 2020. Such social costs are found to occur even when establishing and executing the Basic plan according to the target goal set by its higher-ranking plan, the National Energy Master Plan. In addition, when another higher-ranking GHG reduction master plan requires the electricity sector to reduce emissions by additional 5% in the GHG emissions from the right mix in electricity generation with ‘zero’ cost of carbon emission, the annual generation cost will rise by approximately 915 billion won in 2020. On the other hand, the analysis finds that since economic feasibility of electric powers in Korea varies significantly depending on their type, Korea is expected to face very small potential social costs caused by uncertainties over the future price of carbon dioxide in the process of establishing the Basic Plan.