NEBRASKA POWER REVIEW BOARD

Minutes of the 865^th Meeting

August 15, 2025

 

The 865th meeting of the Nebraska Power Review Board (Board or PRB) was held in the First Floor Hearing Room, Nebraska State Office Building, 301 Centennial Mall South, Lincoln, Nebraska.  The roll was called and present were Chairman Hutchison, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk, Mr. Austin, Mr. Grennan, and Mr. Liegl.  Executive Director Texel stated that public notice for the meeting had been published in the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper on August 5, 2025.  The Board made the meeting available to the public through Webex.  The Webex login information was available on the Board’s website.  The agenda on the Board’s website provided links to the agenda items with associated documents the Board will consider, as well as a link to the Nebraska Open Meetings Act.  Executive Director Texel explained that if any member of the public watching the meeting on Webex wanted to speak, they can click on the “raise your hand” icon.  They would be unmuted and could announce who is speaking, provide an address, and disclose if they represent an organization.  Anyone wishing to comment on an item or ask a question could also type the comment or question in the “chat” function and the Board’s staff would read the question or comment to the Board.  All background materials for the agenda items to be acted on were provided to all Board members prior to the meeting and a copy of the materials was in each Board member’s meeting notebook.  The executive director announced that a copy of the Nebraska Open Meetings Act was on display on the south wall of the room, and another copy was available in a black three-ring binder on the table in the back of the room.  A copy of all materials that the Board would consider was available for public inspection on a file cabinet, as well as extra copies of the agenda.             

 

The Board first considered the draft minutes from its July 18, 2025, public meeting.  The minutes had been sent electronically to the Board members.  The staff did not have any changes to recommend and no one contacted the office regarding any changes.  Mr. Liegl moved to approve the minutes.  Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk seconded the motion.  Voting on the motion:  Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes.  The motion carried 5-0.

 

The next agenda item was acceptance of the expense report for the month of July.  In July there was $32,087.39 in personal services, $21,905.52 in operating expenses, and $111.05 in travel expenses.  The total July expenses were $53,881.86.  July is the first month in the new fiscal year.  The cashflow worksheet shows PRB used 16.48% of the cash fund as of the end of July.  In July the PRB began collecting the assessments.  Not all the assessments have been received yet, so the cash fund is not fully funded, which inflates the percentage of the cash fund used.  If all of the assessments had been received the percentage of cash fund used would be 9.17%.  There was some discussion on the budget situation and how at the end of the fiscal year the Board will need to operate by using its reserves.  Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to accept the July expense report.  Mr. Grennan seconded the motion.  Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Moen – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes.  The motion carried 5-0.

 

The next item on the agenda was a presentation of the 2025 Annual Load and Capability Report. The executive director stated that many years ago the Board designated the Nebraska Power Association (NPA) as the representative organization to prepare this report, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 70-1024.  Jason Fortik, Vice President for Power Supply for the Lincoln Electric System and chair of the NPA’s Joint Planning Subcommittee, gave the presentation on the report.  The report covers the utility load forecasts and generation resources available and needed to satisfy the forecasted loads in Nebraska over the next 20-year period on a statewide basis.  The report includes information concerning generation units that are planned, committed, and studied in order to meet the State’s projected load growth.  The report also covers ten additional items of information the Board requested to be included in the report that are not enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. 70-1025(3).  The presentation indicated that overall Nebraska currently has excess generation capacity.  The average peak demand growth rate for the State is projected to be 1.7% per year. In 2024 the projected growth was 1.4%.  Mr. Grennan asked about modular nuclear reactors.  John McClure, Nebraska Public Power District general counsel, told the Board that NPPD has been doing studies and participating in public meetings in several study areas.  He spoke about the process of getting a particular location licensed for a nuclear reactor.  It is the hope that a site can be licensed so that when the technology is ready NPPD will be prepared to build one.  There is not a modular nuclear reactor facility yet licensed in the United States, but there is one being built in Canada.  The big question will be the cost and since one has not been built yet the final cost is unknown.  Mr. Grennan stated that somehow we need to make that first one happen.  Mr. Fortik explained that the graphs showing the Southwest Power Pool’s (SPP) planning reserve margin (PRM) will appear different from previous years.  The report shows that the utilities’ generation resources will be short or deficit in 2040.  SPP has implemented the new reserve peak margin for summer of 16%.  The report next year will include the winter PRM, which will be 36%.  The formula for calculating this percentage takes into account several criteria such as outages over the past seven years of a facility’s operation.  New generators can use the projected capacity in their formula.  Outages will affect the accredited capacity planning reserve margin (ACAP PRM).

 

Many of the utilities are now looking at the type of parts they will need to keep on hand for repairs. Chairman Hutchison asked about the dependency on natural gas and if there is a concern regarding overreliance. Mr. Fortik responded there is a concern about that.  Chairman Hutchison said he would like to see the slide showing the growth rate include how the interconnection demand for large loads affects the percentage of the growth rate.  Mr. Grennan added that along with the demand for generation, there is likewise a demand for transmission.  Chairman Hutchison said he believed utilities have had to delay the interconnection of large loads.  He would like to know what types of large loads are being delayed.  For example, are these typically agriculture-related loads, or data centers?  Mr. Liegl said he is aware that in other states data centers are looking at installing their own on-site generation source.  He asked if that is happening in Nebraska.  Mr. Fortik said no, to his knowledge that is not happening in Nebraska at this time.  Mr. McClure spoke about balancing the load of Nebraska generation now that the utilities are operating in the larger SPP footprint.  The supply and demand in the footprint has changed.  It has become even more important to keep the units in Nebraska well maintained. Chairman Hutchison noted that Table 7 in the 2024 report provided details on each proposed generation facility, but the 2025 report only provides aggregate information by fuel source.  He said he preferred the individual information as shown in the 2024 report.   Mr. Fortik stated that the change was done to make the report cleaner, and the subcommittee thought the individual information might include too much detail.  Some utilities felt more comfortable providing aggregate information. Mr. Grennan asked to have the subcommittee see if the information in Table 7 can be shown in future reports as it was in the 2024 report.  Mr. Grennan also asked if the report could include a summary or some kind of emphasis regarding what are the biggest concerns the industry has that may prevent them from meeting the required resource adequacy and planning reserve needs.  The Board thanked Mr. Fortik and the other utility representatives for the presentation and the discussion.  There was some discussion about the process concerning whether the PRB approves, accepts or only receives the report.  Chairman Hutchison stated that he felt it was better for the Board to vote to accept the report.  This shows that the Board has the responsibility to accept the information in the report.  Mr. Austin pointed out the statute says the representative organization only files the report with the Board.  Mr. Liegl moved to accept the 2025 Load and Capability Report as presented.  Mr. Grennan seconded the motion.  Voting on the motion:  Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin –yes, Mr. Grennan, and Mr. Liegl– yes.  The motion carried 5 – 0.

 

After the vote Chairman Hutchison asked if the Board would want to send a transmittal letter with substantive comments about the Load and Capability Report to the Governor and Natural Resources Committee. He said that last year the Board sent a transmittal letter explaining some of the concerns with generation sources and resource adequacy.  He stated that he would like to see two significant issues, load interconnection delays and dependency on planned generation sources to meet loads, be addressed in the letter.  Mr. Liegl said if there are concerns, they should be communicated to the policy makers. Mr. Liegl thought the letter should state the risk and include projections for how they will impact the system and be dealt with over the next ten years.  Mr. Grennan stated that the risks need to be acknowledged and the policy makers need to know what they are.  All Board members agreed that a transmittal letter should highlight issues of concern in the report.  The Board asked Mr. Fortik to have the subcommittee provide the Board with some proposed language or bullet points regarding the most important issues creating problems for the utilities when it comes to meeting their load demands and reserve margin requirements.  The information can then be included in the Board’s transmittal letters to the Governor and Legislature.

 

The Board recessed its meeting at 11:07 for a short break.  The Board reconvened its meeting at 11:14.  All Board members were again present.

 

The next item on the agenda was to consider approval of a draft office policy that would provide standing authorization to expend the funds necessary to annually renew the Board’s associate membership in the American Public Power Association (APPA) and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).  An alternative option is for the Board to vote on approval of the dues payments every year. In the process of paying this year’s annual dues to both organizations State Accounting informed the Board that it would process the payments this year, but they will require evidence of Board action before approving the expenses in subsequent years.  The PRB has been an associate member of APPA before the executive director was employed by the PRB,  so the Board has been paying those annual dues for more than 27 years.  The Board became an associate member of NARUC in 1999. Ms. Birkett (the Board’s paralegal) could not find in the minutes where the Board explicitly voted to authorize or direct the payment of the membership expenses.  With other annual expenses the Board has voted to approve an office policy that gives standing approval for the expenditures.  This would be similar to the Board’s existing policy giving standing authority for the Board to pay the costs for the executive director and general counsel and any Board members that are licensed attorneys to attend the APPA’s annual legal seminar.  Although State Accounting would prefer the annual votes, they acknowledged that an office policy would be sufficient.  The executive director asked the Board members if they would prefer to vote on these expenditures annually or approve a standing policy.  Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk stated that she would prefer the standing approval in the form of an office policy.  Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to approve the draft of Office Policy 13 that provides standing approval to pay the annual dues for the Board’s membership in both APPA and NARUC.  Mr. Liegl seconded the motion: Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes.  The motion carried 5-0.

 

The next item on the agenda was to consider approval of expenses to purchase a subscription to the “RTO Insider” online magazine or newsletter.  Chairman Hutchison told the Board he asked to have this on the agenda.  He was made aware of this magazine or newsletter through SPP.  It is a specialty magazine that covers issues related to RTOs (regional transmission organizations) in the United States.  In addition to the SPP the magazine covers issues involving PJM, MISO, CAISO, and ERCOT.  The magazine provided a free copy to the executive director and he forwarded it to all Board members for their review.  An annual subscription would normally be $1,260 for government agencies, which allows fifteen people in the organization to receive the magazine.  Chairman Hutchison contacted the magazine and told them the NPRB is a small agency with a limited budget.  The agency has only three staff members and five board members.  The publisher offered a special discounted rate for the NPRB of $750 with only two individuals receiving the magazine.  Mr. Liegl asked what the electric industry representatives think about the Board subscribing to the magazine.  Mr. McClure stated that the PRB got a very good deal on its specialty rate.  He said RTO Insider is a specialty periodical and those are never inexpensive.  Mr. Fortik told the Board that LES subscribes to the magazine and it is a good way to stay on top of the RTO world.  Mr. Liegl moved to approve the cost to subscribe to the “RTO Insider” magazine.  Mr. Austin seconded the motion. Voting on the motion:  Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes.  The motion carried 5-0.

 

The next item on the agenda was the Director’s report.  Chairman Hutchison discussed several items related to the SPP.  He spoke about the consolidated planning process that it is hoped will streamline the generation interconnection planning process.  Chairman Hutchison then told the Board the large load interconnection queue process is still being examined.  The process will use the existing cost-allocation method.  There was discussion about one project in the new transmission portfolio listed as a reliability project, but the projected cost is coming in over budget.  The original cost estimate was about $1.3 billion.  The amount now is over $3 billion out of a $7.5 billion portfolio. The project is in the Texas panhandle and goes into Oklahoma.  The overall project will be completed in several steps and this is just the beginning.  The line would eventually loop through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico.  John McClure told the Board the line would be the first 765 KV line in the SPP footprint.

 

Executive Director Texel spoke about several applications that are expected to be submitted in the near future.  He told the Board the City of Wayne is planning to replace its generator and told him it intends to submit an application.  The replacement generator will be larger than the City’s current generators, so they will not be exempt from the application and hearing process.  NPPD is preparing to submit an application for a large natural gas generating facility. That is expected to be filed yet in August.

 

Executive Director Texel updated the Board about the potential violation of service area protection which had been discussed at last month’s meeting.  This is where a customer informed the Board that each apartment in his complex has a meter and the the landlord collects the usage information and forwards the information to another company that sends bills to each tenant.  The monthly bill for each tenant is not a set amount, but rather is based on usage.  Last month the Board agreed a letter should be sent to the landlord to find out if the customer’s assertions are accurate.  A letter had been sent on August 6.  The letter requested the landlord reply by September 5 so the executive director could provide an update at the September 19 PRB meeting and the Board could determine how to proceed.

 

Executive Director Texel stated that the next three PRB meetings are scheduled for September 19, October 17, and November 21, 2025.

 

The last item was the executive director’s annual performance evaluation.  The Board members had a copy of the review form in their notebooks.  Chairman Hutchison asked the Board to contact him with their comments and he would compile them and complete the form.

 

Mr. Austin moved to adjourn the meeting.  Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk seconded the motion. Voting on the motion:  Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes.  The motion carried 5 – 0.  The meeting adjourned at 12:08 p.m.

 

                                                                        

Timothy J. Texel

Executive Director and General Counsel