NEBRASKA POWER REVIEW BOARD
Minutes of the 868th Meeting
November 21, 2025
The 868th 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 beginning. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. The roll was called and present were Chairman Hutchison, Mr. Austin, Mr. Grennan and Mr. Liegl. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk had informed the Board at the last meeting she would be traveling and unable to attend this meeting. Executive Director Texel stated that public notice for the meeting had been published in the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper on November 9, 2025. The Board made the meeting 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 into the chat their name, address and organization (if any). 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, as well as extra copies of the agenda.
The Board first considered the draft minutes from its November 7, 2025, public meeting. The minutes had been sent electronically to the Board members. Mr. Grennan identified one error to be corrected in the draft of the minutes. In the 3rd to last paragraph, it lists the Board members voting to approve a motion to create a committee to work with the executive director to finalize comments in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) regarding interconnection of large loads. The name listed as voting is Moen, but should list Grennan. Mr. Moen was the Board member Mr. Grennan replaced. Mr. Austin moved to approve the minutes with the suggested correction. Mr. Grennan seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The next agenda item was to consider corrections to the minutes from May to September 2025. After Mr. Grennan notified the staff of the mistake in the November 7 minutes, the Board’s paralegal, Sara Birkett, went through and checked previous minutes for the same error. It was found that the minutes had a similar error in the minutes from the months of May, June, July, August and September 2025. The error occurred only in the acceptance of the expense report paragraph. The voting list showed Moen instead of Grennan. Mr. Austin moved to make the correction as described in the minutes from May through September 2025. Mr. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The next item was acceptance of the expense reports for the months of September and October. In September there was $31,700.07 in personal services, $3,984.08 in operating expenses, and $4,410.14 in travel expenses. The total September expenses were $40,094.29. In October there was $45,371.61 in personal services, $18,665.51 in operating expenses, and $347.41 in travel expenses. The total October expenses were $64,384.53. The September expenses are lower due to the JK Energy payment being made twice in August, once at the beginning of the month and then again at the very end of the month, which resulted in no payment being made in September. October is the fourth month of the fiscal year. The cashflow worksheet shows the PRB used 39.6% of its cash fund. At the end of October the agency was 6.3% over budget. Mr. Grennan moved to accept the September and October expense reports. Mr. Austin seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The next agenda item was to consider PRB-4068. This is an application filed by Southern Public Power District. The application is for 1.2 miles of 69 kilovolt (kV) with 12.5 kV underbuilt in Merrick County. The application was filed on October 7, 2025. The new line will not provide service to any new customers. The 69 kV line will be an upgrade to an existing 34.5 kV line and a portion of the line will move from its current location across the roadway. The 12.5 kV underbuilt will provide a back feed option for Southern PPD. The City of Central City filed a Consent and Waiver Form for the project. The PRB consulted with the Game and Parks Commission as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. section 37-807(3). The letter from the Commission states the project is within the range of the endangered Whooping Crane, Northern Long-Eared Bat, and Interior Least Tern, as well as the threatened Piping Plover. The project does not have suitable habitat for Northern Long-Eared Bats. A portion of the project area does have suitable habitat for Whooping Cranes, Piping Plovers and Interior Least Terns. Southern PPD’s contractor, RVW, Inc., has agreed to implement the conservation measures the Commission recommended for these species. If the project occurs during the spring or fall migration of the Whooping Cranes, or during the nesting season for Piping Plovers or Interior Least Terns, a site survey must be conducted in accordance with the Commission’s standard protocols prior to commencing work. If nesting species are found to be present the contractor will consult further with the Commission before commencing work. With these conservation measures the Commission determined the project “May Affect, but is not Likely to Adversely Affect” any threatened or endangered species and the Commission did not object to approval of the project. There is no military installation issue involved, so Southern PPD does not need to certify that its vendors do not use foreign adversary components. Merrick County is not one of the counties listed or defined as being within the geographic areas containing the applicable military installations. There was a question about some of the construction also being in Hamilton County. The executive director responded that although some of the project will occur in Hamilton County, the portion the Board was approving is limited to Merrick County. Hamilton County’s boundary is the river. The map shows the complete project which does extend into Hamilton County. The portion in Hamilton County is part of Southern PPD’s retail service area and only the portion that is in the City’s service area requires the Board’s approval. Mr. Austin moved to approve Southern Public Power District’s application PRB-4068 with the understanding that Southern PPD or its contractor will follow the recommended conservation measures set out in the Commission’s consultation letter. Mr. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The next agenda item was to approve the withdrawal of application PRB-4069. This is an application filed by the City of Auburn’s Board of Public Works. The application requests permission to build 7,700 feet of 7.2 kV overhead distribution line and 7,000 feet of underground 7.2 kV underground in Nemaha County. The line would serve a poultry facility in OPPD’s retail service area. The application was filed on November 3, 2025. OPPD initially believed its substation in the area could not handle the additional load, so OPPD was going to let Auburn provide service. After the application was submitted, OPPD’s planning department determined that OPPD could serve the facility. OPPD withdrew its offer to sign a Consent and Waiver form. PRB Rules of Practice and Procedure require that following the filing of any application or pleading, a party shall not be permitted to withdraw said application or pleading without the Board’s approval. Due to this rule Auburn was notified that it would need to submit a written request to formally withdraw application PRB-4069. Mr. Grennan asked if the customer is still going to be served. Executive Director Texel said that the customer is within OPPD’s service area and will be served by OPPD. OPPD does not have to file an application to serve a customer in its own service area. Mr. Liegl moved to approve the withdrawal of PRB-4069. Mr. Grennan seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The next agenda item was to consider amended application PRB-4063-M. This is an application filed by Nebraska Public Power District to build a microwave communication facility in Holt County. The initial application was filed on September 5. NPPD filed an amended application on October 24. The reason for the amended application was to add additional telecommunications carriers identified by the Public Service Commission as providing service in the area. The PRB contacted the PSC for a list of telecommunications carriers within the area of Holt County. The PSC identified fourteen possible carriers within the area. NPPD wanted to contact each of the carriers prior to the PRB sending out the formal notice of filing to each carrier. In the amended application NPPD explains the response it received from each carrier. The executive director told the Board this item needs to be tabled until the December 19 meeting. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. section 70-1021, the PRB must give notice to potentially interested telecom carriers and provide them with 10 days from receipt of notice in which to object to the Board’s approval of the application and to request a hearing. There are still two carriers that have not received notice. The certified letters were not picked up at the addresses provided by the PSC. The Board sent new certified letters to the companies’ registered agents listed on the Secretary of State’s website. All Board members agreed to table the item until the Board’s December 19 public meeting.
The next item was to consider if the Board will request the Nebraska Power Association to include additional information in the 2026 Load and Capability Report. The Board discussed two issues that were raised at previous meetings. The first discussion was concerning Table 7 in the Load and Capability Report. The method used to show the information in the 2025 report was different than what was used in the 2024 report. Table 7 provides information on “Committed, Planned and Studied” generation resources. In 2024, the table showed detailed information on each generation resource in each category. In 2025 the table showed aggregated information by fuel type. Executive Director Texel explained that in his communication with Jason Fortik, chair of the NPA’s Joint Planning Subcommittee that prepares the report, the changes to Table 7 could also be made without a formal request. Chairman Hutchison had asked to have the items added to the agenda so the Board could discuss if it wanted to make a formal written request under Neb. Rev. Stat. section 70-1025(3)(b). Mr. Liegl asked if this change would require additional work. Mr. Rosenkranz, with NPPD and a member of the NPA Joint Planning Subcommittee, told the Board the data in Table 7 as used in 2024 is readily available so it would not require much additional work.
The second issue deals with interconnection of new customers, especially large loads. Mr. Liegl stated that the more details in the report would make it useful. Chairman Hutchison noted that the second issue relates to what new loads have been delayed in receiving service, for how long, and what type of customer loads or industries have been most affected by the delays in interconnecting. The issue had been raised in the transmittal letters that accompanied the report when it was provided to the members of the Natural Resources Committee and Governor Pillen. It is helpful to characterize the situation to help understand how the utilities across the state are working to meet the demands of loads wanting to interconnect but are not able to on their desired timeframe. Based on previous discussions it is the Board’s understanding the utilities are managing interconnections by delaying when some of the loads are able to connect. Admittedly, the request is complicated. Mr. Grennan discussed the potential that the interconnection of some loads are being delayed because the customer is researching multiple alternative sites, not due to utility actions. John McClure, NPPD general counsel, addressed the Board about this concern. He said this is an important discussion item, but the word “delay” is not the correct way to describe the interconnection issue. It is better to look at it as “How is it being planned and how it will be managed?” The electric industry had a flat electrical growth rate for many years, but now load growth is substantial. Some loads are speculative. NPPD has developed criteria for dealing with expected loads. There are many different criteria to look at to determine the likelihood of a potential load actually interconnecting, such as whether the prospective customer has purchased land, if needed equipment has been purchased, etc. NPPD has three different categories it looks at: expected loads that have made a deposit to cover interconnection costs, less certain are those not far enough along to submit a deposit, and what type of load, such as data centers or a manufacturing facility. There are significant challenges to address the current rate of load growth. Mr. Liegl asked if the utilities share information to understand how to manage the requests for interconnection. Mr. McClure stated that the utilities continually share information and lessons learned. Mr. McClure spoke about the Tall Grass Pipeline and the capture and transportation of carbon. Both Iowa and North Dakota have run into delays in trying to build and use carbon pipelines. Chairman Hutchison asked the other Board members if they think it would be a good idea to appoint a committee of two Board members that could work with the industry to determine what information might be needed to address the interconnection issue for the Load and Capability reports. He suggested that Mr. Grennan and himself could be appointed to comprise the committee. Mr. Grennan agreed that this is an important subject. The industry has done a good job of characterizing the loads involved. The Board could examine the types of loads and look at the time frame the industry is looking at to interconnect each type of load. There was discussion about loads that were requesting interconnection information from multiple utilities. If multiple utilities are all using these potential loads for their estimates it would cause the numbers of prospective loads to appear elevated. There are also often nondisclosure agreement clauses that utilities sign when these loads are looking for sites. The Board discussed many concerns about generation meeting load demand, but there are also concerns about transmission. Evan Egr, executive director for the Nebraska Bitcoin Association, spoke to the Board about bitcoins and the work needed to deploy this new technology, as well as education needed about the bitcoin industry. He appreciated how the utilities are working to interconnect the facilities needed for this new technology. Mr. Liegl moved to create a committee of Mr. Grennan and Chairman Hutchison to work with NPA to determine how to address the inclusion of additional information on new load interconnections in the load and capability report. Mr. Austin seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
Chairman Hutchison stated that the committee will work on both issues to be added to the reports and bring a final recommendation to the Board for a vote.
The next item on the agenda was to consider formal approval of the PRB’s comments in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in docket RM26-4-000. The docket is captioned “Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System.” The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy directed FERC to issue the ANOPR. The ANOPR addresses the proposed adoption of new rules dealing with the interconnection of large loads. The deadline for submitting comments was originally November 14, but FERC extended the deadline to November 21. The Board had invited the utilities to provide input that the Board could consider when formulating its comments. OPPD and LES submitted comments to the PRB. The comments were in the Board’s meeting notebooks. Chairman Hutchison discussed SPP’s process to address the backlog in processing large interconnection requests. The process is known as HILL (High Impact Large Loads) and CHILL (Conditional High Impact Large Loads). A draft copy of the comments had been submitted to the Governor’s Policy Research Office and posted on the Board’s website in association with this agenda item. Mr. Grennan spoke briefly about the characteristics of large loads and that the interconnection should be dealt with at the local level, not by FERC. Mr. Grennan moved to approve the draft comments in FERC docket RM24-6-000 and direct staff to file the comments with FERC. Mr. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan– yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The Board then discussed whether to take action on a potential violation of Neb Rev. Stat. section 70-1011 by an apartment complex in OPPD’s service area. This is still an active informal investigation. Due to this the PRB will not disclose the name of the apartment complex involved. The executive director told the Board he spoke with the attorney representing the apartment complex. The attorney is coordinating with OPPD to come to a resolution. The executive director told the attorney a resolution or some concrete movement to address the issue was needed before the December 19 PRB meeting or the Board may decide to initiate administrative or legal action. The Board agreed to table this item until the December 19 meeting. Executive Director Texel asked if the Board wanted to set a hard deadline for resolution or substantial action prior to the December meeting. The Board agreed that it would be a good idea to set a date as a hard deadline. Chairman Hutchison stated that he felt that the executive director could work with the attorney and OPPD to work out a logical deadline. The rest of the Board members agreed to delegate the decision regarding a deadline to executive director.
Chairman Hutchison then gave an update on SPP activities. There had been an SPP Board meeting at the beginning of November. The SPP Board approved an additional build on the 765 kilovolt backbone. This was discussed previously and a map was shown to the Board members. There was an agreement between the SPP Board president and the current RSC Board to create another task force. There will be a new task force called CARE (Cost Allocation Resource Evaluation). The REAL team will wrap up and Chairman Hutchison’s focus will be on the CARE task force. It will be similar to REAL. The CARE task force will kick off December 10. Mr. Grennan asked if the resource adequacy issue has been addressed. Chairman Hutchison said it was believed the increase in reserve margins and how to accredit generation resources has addressed the concerns. The last item mentioned was that the RSC voted on its officer elections for 2026 and Chairman Hutchison is President. Kim David, from Oklahoma, will be vice president.
Executive Director Texel noted that the next meetings are December 19, 2025, January 16, and February 20, 2026. The 2026 meetings will be held on the third Friday of each month.
The last agenda item was to discuss the legal strategy and guidance regarding the PRB’s participation in the Liphardt v. City of Lincoln d/b/a Lincoln Electric System lawsuit. Attorney General Hilgers authorized the PRB to move to intervene in the lawsuit, and he appointed Executive Director Texel a Special Assistant Attorney General for purposes of representing the PRB in the lawsuit. The Eolian company has already filed a motion to intervene in the case. Mr. Liphardt’s lawyer does not oppose Eolian’s intervention. Executive Director Texel contacted Liphardt’s attorney and he does not oppose the PRB’s intervention, either. A hearing on Eolian’s motion to intervene had been scheduled for today, but Eolian’s counsel asked the Court to reschedule the hearing for December 5th at 10:00 a.m. so that the hearing could address both Eolian’s and the PRB’s motions to intervene. The Board asked to have this issue placed on the agenda so the Board could discuss strategy and give guidance to its attorney. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. section 84-1410(1)(a), an agency is authorized to enter into closed session for specific reasons. One of the reasons listed is a strategy session pertaining to pending litigation. Mr. Austin moved to enter into closed session for the purpose of discussing the Board’s strategy and provide guidance to the general counsel regarding the Board’s motion to intervene in and subsequent participation in the Liphardt v. City of Lincoln, d/b/a Lincoln Electric System lawsuit currently pending before the Lancaster County District Court. Mr. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4 – 0 with one absent.
Chairman Hutchison stated that the Board will now go into session at 11:01 a.m. and will limit discussion to only the subject matter stated in the motion. Executive Director Texel stated that Webex will be muted and the camera will be turned off. Once the closed session is over the Board will return to its open meeting. Any persons wishing to remain can wait in the hallway and the Board’s staff will tell them when the closed session is ended. There are no substantive agenda items or voting issues following the closed session.
Mr. Liegl made a motion for the Board to return to open session of its public open meeting. Mr. Austin seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4 – 0 with one absent. When the Board reconvened in open session Chairman Hutchison stated that the Board returned from closed session at 11:39 a.m. He stated that during the closed session the discussion was limited to strategy and guidance for the Board’s attorney in the pending Liphardt lawsuit.
Mr. Grennan moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Austin seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – absent, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – yes, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4 – 0 with one absent. The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Timothy J. Texel
Executive Director and General Counsel
POWERED BY