NEBRASKA POWER REVIEW BOARD
Minutes of the 875th Meeting
June 26, 2026
The 875th 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 meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. The roll was called and present were Chairman Hutchison, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk, Mr. Austin, Mr. Grennan, and Mr. Liegl. The executive director stated that public notice for the meeting had been published in the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper on June 16, 2026. The meeting was available to the public through Webex. The Webex login information was available on the Board’s website and in the published notice. 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 need to type their name, address and organization (if any) into the “chat.” 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 at the back of the room. A copy of all materials that the Board would consider was available for public inspection, as well as extra copies of the agenda.
The executive director took a moment to congratulate the Board’s paralegal, Sara Birkett, on reaching 20 years of service with the State, all of it with the Power Review Board. On behalf of the Board the executive director presented her with a card and gift card to a restaurant in recognition of her years of service. She will also receive a 20-year medallion from the State.
The Board first considered the draft minutes from its May 15, 2026, public meeting. The minutes had been sent electronically to the Board members. The staff was not aware of any corrections needed, and no one contacted the Board regarding any changes. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to approve the minutes. 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 was acceptance of the expense report for the month of May. In May there was $34,983.38 in personal services, $19,548.67 in operating expenses, and $2,2557.43 in travel expenses. The total May expenses were 56,789.48. May is the eleventh month of the fiscal year, so 91.67% of the year has passed. The cashflow worksheet shows the PRB has used 104.64% of its cash fund. At the end of May, the agency was approximately 12.97% over budget. Last month the board was approximately 11.87% over budget. The Board discussed the financial situation. Rebecca Hallgren (the Board’s business manager) told the Board that the agency is operating on its reserve funds. Technically the Board has only one cash fund account, but the additional amount over expected expenditures is designated as the reserve. The reserves are not included in the Board’s operating budget since they are used only during emergencies or at the start of the new fiscal year when the Board has not yet collected its assessments from the utilities. However, the Board was not allowed to collect its full appropriations for several years now, and the reserve funds have not been replenished. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to accept the May expense report. Mr. Grennan 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 to consider whether a proposed draft outline prepared by the Nebraska Power Association’s Joint Planning Subcommittee meets the Board’s expectations regarding the addition of certain information in the 2026 Load and Capability Report. The Board has been discussing requesting information in the 2026 Load and Capability Report that addresses the challenges associated with providing service to new large loads in the time frame desired by those loads. The Nebraska Power Association (NPA) expressed concerns, such as the scope of the request. Chairman Hutchison and Mr. Grennan met with the CEOs of the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) and the Lincoln Electric System (LES) on April 7. It was agreed that the NPA Joint Planning Subcommittee would prepare a draft proposal to address the additional information in an appendix to the report. The process agreed upon was that the NPA Board would approve the draft of the new section, followed by the PRB reviewing the proposal for the new section at the PRB’s June 26 meeting. Then NPA Joint Planning Subcommittee would include the new section in the report when the NPA presents the report to the PRB for final acceptance at the August 21 meeting. The Board had previously tabled action on this issue. If the Board agrees to this then the executive director would submit a formal written request to the NPA to add the additional information concerning interconnection of the large loads. The Board discussed the draft outline and agreed it met their expectations. Mr. Liegl moved to approve the draft of the NPA’s proposal to address the issue of large load interconnection, and to direct the executive director to formally request the addition of the information. 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 Board then considered proposed amendments to Guidance Document 14. This is the Guidance Document that was created to address electric Energy Storage resources (ESRs). In the 2026 Legislative session LB 1010 was passed. That bill provided the definition for an ESR and authorized private entities to build them, and provided a process to prerequisites to do so. The bill addressed ESRs associated with generation facilities as well as stand-alone facilities. The language in the Guidance Document was largely followed in the LB 1010 language. Since the bill will go into effect on July 18, 2026, the executive director drafted amendments to remove language that would be outdated due to the LB 1010 changes. A copy of the amendment was provided to the attorneys and lobbyists the PRB knows represents private developers. The private developers offered suggestions, many of which were incorporated into the draft. After that, the draft was shared with the public power utilities for any further suggestions. No public power utilities suggested any additional edits. Chairman Hutchison noted that the draft allowed private entities 90 days in which to notify the Board if a renewable generation facility is decommissioned, leaving the ESR to then become stand-alone. The Board discussed whether the 90 day deadline in section II.c. was appropriate. Chairman Hutchison believed that if a facility is planning to decommission it would now far in advance, and it would not need 90 days to notify the PRB. Mr. Grennan agreed. He said the owner of a facility does make the decision to decommission a facility quickly. It involves considerable planning and deliberation. The Board discussed whether the ninety days should be amended to be thirty days or possibly at the same time as the decommissioning. Mr. Liegl moved to approve the amendments of Guidance Document 14, except that the notice deadline in section II.c. be changed from ninety days to thirty days. 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 item was to consider the assessment figure the Board would use for fiscal year 2026-2027. In the last month Ms. Hallgren, the executive director, and Mr. Liegl have met with the Governor’s Budget Office and spent considerable time dealing with this issue. Ms. Hallgren has met with the budget analyst assigned to the PRB several times to go over the numbers involved in the Board’s budget. Ms. Hallgren calculated that an assessment of 15.77 cents per $1,000 gross revenue would provide for the Board’s projected fiscal year 2026-2027 expenses of $710,100, and would replenish the Board’s cash reserve funds to a level of $80,000. The total assessment collection would be $790,500. The PRB’s average monthly expenses are approximately $55,000, so the $80,000 reserve would be roughly enough to cover 1 ½ months operating expenses. The Governor’s Budget Office initially determined the PRB should use an assessment figure of 13.48458. This would mean the PRB would collect $674,200 for the expenses in fiscal year 2026-2027. The anticipated expenses incurred for the current fiscal year (2025-2026) are expected to be $678,000. If the $674,200 amount were used, the amount collected for the upcoming fiscal year would be $4,000 less than what the staff anticipates the Board will spend in the upcoming fiscal year. The Budget Office eventually assigned a new budget analyst to the PRB. After numerous e-mails and several Microsoft Teams meetings, the new senior budget analyst acknowledged that the PRB did not have sufficient funds and the numbers the budget office was using were not adequate. Both the analyst and the Budget Office director agreed the reserve fund should equate to at least 3 months’ expenses. The new analyst recommended the assessment figure of 15.1913655. This would allow the PRB to collect $761,491. This amount would cover the anticipated expenses for 2026-2027 and increase the reserve margin to approximately $85,000. The Budget Office informed Ms. Hallgren that they met with Governor Pillen and he thought the 15.19 assessment figure was acceptable. The assessment letters will be sent to the utilities on or about July 1, but the utilities have 45 days in which to pay. Due to the PRB already operating on reserve funds, the executive director asked the three largest utilities (OPPD, NPPD and LES), if they could expedite their payments. Each of the CEOs for those utilities offered to have the assessment letter for their utility emailed to them, and they would try to expedite payment. The Board and PRB staff expressed their appreciation for the utilities offering to help in this situation. The executive director emphasized that this financial situation was not of the PRB’s making. The Budget Office previously was limiting the amount the PRB could collect and was not replenishing the reserve funds. However, the executive director told the Board that with the new budget analyst things have seemed to turn a corner and there is a great deal more coordination between the Budget Office and the PRB staff. The executive director said he greatly appreciated this new level of coordination and the Budget Office’s more thorough understanding of the PRB’s financial situation. He is hopeful that this new positive working relationship will continue. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to approve an assessment figure of 15.1913655 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. 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 whether the Board will reimburse the executive director for the costs to attend a legal seminar. The Nebraska State Bar Association sponsored a seminar titled “2026 Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Energy Legislative and Policy Update.” The seminar was held virtually on June 11. Two of the topics covered were the passage of LB 1010 (the ESR bill) and LB 1261 (Privately-owned Large Load Generators). Executive Director Texel explained that he wanted to hear the information concerning the battery storage and large load generation, so he paid the fee himself. The timing of the seminar did not allow putting it on the May agenda. The registration cost for the seminar was $100. Mr. Grennan moved to approve reimbursing the executive director for the $100 seminar fee. 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 the director’s report. The first item was an update on Southwest Power Pool activities. Chairman Hutchison stated that he has been working on cost allocation with the CARE team. Mr. Grennan asked about the western interconnect and if there has been any issues since April 1 when the western system was integrated into the SPP’s footprint. Chairman Hutchison believed that it was working out well. During meetings there are times when only the eastern interconnect states vote, sometimes only the western states vote, and sometimes both vote, depending on the impact of the issue involved. With the western interconnect relying more on renewables, there are more Resource Advisory warnings issued for the SPP west.
Executive Director Texel then updated the Board on the PRB’s participation in the Liphardt v. City of Lincoln d/b/a Lincoln Electric System lawsuit in Lancaster County District Court. On May 15, the Plaintiff’s attorney filed a request to dismiss the case and a few hours later the Lancaster County District Court Judge signed an order dismissing the case.
The executive director gave an update on staff activities, which is something Chairman Hutchison has requested. Last month, the Board received two applications for distribution line extensions that are less than ½ mile in length. The Board received one privately developed renewable energy generation facility certification notice. This notice included the new requirement of submitting minutes of a public meeting held within the county where the facility would be located.
The executive director told the Board the staff is compiling the information for the PRB’s Biennial Report. In even years the Biennial Report is prepared for submission to the Governor and the Legislature. Ms. Birkett is compiling the necessary information and preparing a draft report that will cover the period from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2026.
The executive director explained that with all the numerous recent changes in state law concerning ESRs, definition of military installations and foreign adversaries, and large load privately owned generators, etc., there are a growing number of factors and exceptions for the staff to consider when applications or notices are submitted. Due to this he asked Ms. Birkett to go through the statutes and prepare a checklist or outline setting out all the requirements to go through when an application or notice is filed. This would also help in the event of staff turnover. Ms. Birkett prepared one checklist for the PDREGFs and one for any other generation or transmission application. The checklist helps to assure the staff will not overlook an item, and might be helpful to share it with an applicant to help them go through the process. One checklist is about four pages, the other is six pages. Chairman Hutchison asked if this would be something that could be put on the website to help applicants go through the process. Executive Director Texel stated that although the checklist was intended to be an internal document for PRB staff use, the final version will be a public document and anyone could ask for it. Chairman Hutchison asked the executive director to post the checklists on the PRB’s website once they are finalized.
The executive director then told the Board about a virtual seminar held by the Midwest Reliability Organization. MRO is the FERC-approved reliability organization with jurisdiction over the SPP’s operating area. The MRO said that its outlook was that an energy emergency alert being issued in the MRO’s areas are low. June 2025 was the peak period for transmission outages. The leading cause for the outages was lightning. The leading cause for sustained (longer lasting) outages was due to failing AC (alternate current) circuit equipment.
The next item on the agenda was to consider whether the Board would approve a pay raise for the Board’s executive director and general counsel. State employees, both those covered by the bargaining unit and those that are rules-covered employees, are eligible to receive a 3.25% pay raise effective July 1 if their performance evaluation is at least satisfactory. The PRB has an employee in each classification: union, rules and non-classified. The union employee, Ms. Birkett, will receive a 2.25% pay increase and an additional 1% performance-based increase. The rules covered employee, Ms. Hallgren, will receive a 3.25% pay increase based on performance. If a rules employee does not have a “satisfactory” or better evaluation they are not eligible for a pay increase. The agency heads or non-classified employees are left to the discretion of each board or commission, subject to the personal service limitation set in the agency’s appropriation. As part of the budget process, the agency appropriation provides sufficient funding for each employee to receive a 3.25% salary increase. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to approve a 3.25% pay increase for the executive director effective July 1, 2026. 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.
Executive Director Texel noted that the next meetings are July 17, August 21, and September 18, 2026.
Mr. Liegl moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Grennan 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 10:40 a.m.
Timothy J. Texel
Executive Director and General Counsel
POWERED BY