NEBRASKA POWER REVIEW BOARD
Minutes of the 866th Meeting
September 19, 2025
The 866th 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, and Mr. Grennan. Mr. Liegl had previously informed the Board that he would be out of town and would not be able to attend this meeting. Executive Director Texel stated that public notice for the meeting had been published in the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper on September 9, 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 August 15, 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. Grennan asked about the follow-up on the Load and Capability Report. He wanted to know if Mr. Fortik had submitted information regarding the challenges faced by the electric utilities in meeting load growth as the Board had requested, and if a transmittal letter had been drafted to send to the Governor and the Natural Resources Committee. Executive Director Texel stated that Mr. Fortik did provide him with a memo with bullet points outlining the details of the challenges and there was a draft letter for the Board to review. Executive Director Texel said after the meeting he would send out a copy of what Mr. Fortik submitted to the Board members. Mr. Austin 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 – absent. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The next agenda item was acceptance of the expense report for the month of August. In August there was $35,879.21 in personal services, $37,752.22 in operating expenses, and $2,178.73 in travel expenses. The total August expenses were $75,810.16. August is the second month in the new fiscal year. The Board has now received all its assessment funds. The cashflow worksheet shows the PRB used 22% of the cash fund as of the end of July. At the end of August the agency was 5.3% over budget. The executive director told the Board expenses were much higher in August than usual. The primary reason is that there were two payments to JK Energy during August. The monthly payment is $14,868, so they are substantial payments. Next month there will be no payment to JK Energy, so expenses should be lower than normal for September. Payments are normally made to JK Energy at the beginning of the month. With Ms. Hallgren scheduled to be out of the office on extended medical leave she wanted to have the payment processed early, so the second payment was made prior to the end of August. Also in August there were several large payments for conference registrations to attend meetings of the Advanced Nuclear Coalition Conference ($1,475) and NARUC ($1,500). Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to accept the August 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 – absent. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent.
The next item on the agenda was the Howard-Greeley Rural Public Power District’s Petition for Charter Amendment 8. The petition was filed on July 10, 2025. This petition is in response to the Board’s decision in the Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District’s Petition for Charter Amendment 6. In that decision, the Board denied the petition because the District’s charter does not include the language that a district cannot issue general obligation bonds, and the district’s petition did not add that language. The language is required to be in all public power district charters, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. section 70-604(5). During that proceeding it was discovered that Central Nebraska PP and ID, along with 14 other districts, did not have the required language in their charters. Howard-Greeley RPPD was one of those 14 districts. Section 5 of the District’s current charter states “The proposed district shall have no power of taxation and all property within said district shall be exempt from the levy of any taxes for the payment of any obligations of the district.” The Petition would remove the word “proposed” and add the language “nor shall it have the power to issue general obligation bonds” following word “taxation” in charter section 5. The amendment also cleans up some grammatical language and removes obsolete language in section 6 regarding the removal of a director position that became effective December 31, 2022. The Board published notice of the charter amendment on July 23, July 30 and August 6 in the St. Paul Phonograph-Herald and on July 24, July 31 and August 7 in the Cedar Valley News/Greeley Citizen newspapers. No objections or protests were filed. If no objection is filed, the Board is allowed to waive the hearing. Mr. Grennan moved to waive the hearing and approve the Howard-Greeley Rural Public Power District’s Petition for Charter Amendment 8. 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 – absent. The motion carried 4– 0 with one absent.
The next agenda item was the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska’s (MEAN) Petition for Charter Amendment 42. This amendment would add the town of Holyoke, Colorado as a voting member of MEAN and update the list of directors in MEAN’s charter. The executive director stated that the approval criteria are set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. section 18-2433. The statute states that the Board must determine that the statements in the petition are true and conform to the public convenience and welfare, and that the plants, systems and works, the operation of the same, the exercise of powers, and the assumption of duties and responsibilities of, or on the part of, such agency, do not nullify, conflict with, or materially affect those of any other district or a corporation organized under the provisions of chapter 70, article 6 or 8, or the Electric Cooperative Corporation Act, or those of any part of such district or corporation. MEAN supplied a certified copy of its Board’s resolution voting to approve the addition of Holyoke as a member and a copy of the ordinance passed where the Town of Holyoke authorized the actions necessary to become a full member of MEAN. Public notice was published in the Holyoke Enterprise newspaper on August 6, 2025. Statewide notice in Nebraska was published in the Omaha World Herald on August 7, 2025. Written Notice was sent to the Nebraska Public Power District, the Western Area Power Association (WAPA) and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., since those entities have wheeling or wholesale contracts with MEAN. Written Notice was also sent to the mayor of Holyoke, Colorado. Mr. Austin moved to waive the hearing and approve the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska’s Petition for Charter Amendment 42. 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– absent. The motion carried 4 – 0 with one absent.
The Board went into recess at 9:28 a.m. to conduct an evidentiary hearing on PRB-4061-G. The executive director explained that during the hearing the Board would be acting in its quasi-judicial capacity. Although the public was free to observe in person or on Webex, no comments from Webex or people attending the meeting could be allowed. The Board reconvened its public meeting at 12:02 a.m. All members who were present prior to the recess were again in attendance.
As explained prior to the recess, during the recess the Board held an evidentiary hearing on PRB-4061-G. This is an application filed by the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) for authority to construct or install a 694-megawatt generation facility near Hallam, Nebraska. The facility would consist of twelve 18-megawatt reciprocating internal combustion engines and two 239-megawatt simple cycle combustion turbines. The units will primarily run on natural gas but will have the ability to run on fuel oil. During the hearing NPPD gave testimony on the need for the added generation. The PRB consulted with the Game and Parks Commission as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. section 37-807(3). The Commission determined that the site was in the range of the state and federally listed endangered northern long-eared bat and the state and federally listed threatened western prairie fringed orchid. There is no suitable habitat for the western prairied fringed orchid in the project area. NPPD had agreed it would follow the conservation measures recommended by the Game and Parks Commission in order to avoid adverse impacts on northern long-eared bats. The Commission stated that with NPPD’s agreement the project “May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” northern long-eared bats and did not object to the Board’s approval of the project. Mr. Austin moved to approve PRB-4061-G, but NPPD must follow the conservation measures outlined by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission in the consultation letter. 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 – absent. The motion carried 4-0 with one absent. Executive Director Texel explained that the Board’s oral decision by voice vote is considered to be a preliminary, but binding, ruling by the Board. The written order will still be the Board’s final decision on the application. He explained that in uncontested matters where the Board members can agree that the evidence is clear in favor of approval it is the Board’s longstanding practice to vote on the application during its public meeting as a matter of convenience for the applicant. This allows the applicant to know whether the project is approved or not so the applicant can proceed forward with the project. Otherwise the applicant would have to wait four to eight weeks for the Board to issue its written decision before beginning work on the project.
The next agenda item was to consider approval of travel expenses for board members who are licensed attorneys to attend the American Public Power Association’s (APPA) Legal and Regulatory Conference. The APPA Legal Seminar will be in San Diego, California on October 12 through 15. Board Policy 6 provides standing approval of the expenses for the Board’s designated attorney member and any other member licensed to practice law to incur the expenses necessary to attend the APPA annual Legal and Regulatory Conference. Board Policy 4 provides standing authority for the executive director and general counsel to attend the annual legal seminar. However, State Accounting notified the staff that, when possible, it prefers the Board vote on approval of larger expense items such as this each time the event occurs. The expenses would include registration cost of $875 per person if signed up by August 1, or $975 if registered by September 1. The PRB is an associate member of APPA, so it is eligible for member rates. The hotel cost would be $359 plus taxes per night. There would also be air travel, meals and per diems. Mr. Austin has already registered for the event. Mr. Liegl and the executive director were not planning to attend. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to approve the expenses for Mr. Austin or any other attorney on the Board to attend the APPA Legal and Regulatory Conference. 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– absent. The motion carried 4 – 0 with one absent.
The next item on the agenda was to consider whether any action would be taken regarding a potential violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. section 70-1011 by an apartment complex in OPPD’s service area. The executive director stated that the name of the apartment complex would not be disclosed, as this is currently an informal investigation to determine of a violation is occurring. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. section 84-712.05(5) records developed by public bodies charged with duties of investigation are not public records. If formal action is taken the identity of the apartment complex would become a public record. A letter was sent via certified U.S. mail to the apartment complex’s owner, which is located out of state. The letter requested a response by September 5. No response was received. The Attorney General’s office was contacted to coordinate how to proceed. The AG’s office recommended the Board send a second letter to the owner’s registered agent in Nebraska. A follow-up letter was sent on September 16. The letter requested a response by October 6. The executive director told the Board there was no need for action at this time. He would keep the Board updated regarding any response.
The next item on the agenda was the director’s report. Chairman Hutchison discussed several items related to the SPP. At last month’s meeting there was discussion on a large 765 kilovolt (kV) transmission project in the western Texas and Oklahoma area. Chairman Hutchison shared a map that outlined the project and showed several other potential future transmission lines. The total projected cost for the lines shown would be in the $80 billion range. The loop project in the Texas area described last month and shown on the map would be $7.5 billion. The overall project will be completed in several steps, of which this is just the first. The line would eventually loop through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico. Chairman Hutchison and the Board discussed the line and if the issue of the line is actually addressing the load centers. Mr. Grennan wondered if a better way to address the load centers maybe adding generation, especially given the costs involved. Chairman Hutchison expressed his concerns for the cost and said that one of his priorities is to address the cost allocation methodology when he is chairman of the RSC next year. He expressed the need for input from Nebraska’s utilities. Robyn Spady, OPPD, stated that she has a team working on ideas for how to address cost allocation issues. She would be glad to meet with Chairman Hutchison and said she would get in contact with him at a later date to set up a meeting.
The executive director then spoke about a recent decision issued by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is Transource Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania PUC issued on September 5, 2025. Officially the name is Transource v. Defrank, but Defrank is the chairman of the Pennsylvania PUC, which is the real party in interest for the PRB’s discussion purposes. All commissioners on the Pennsylvania PUC were named as defendants. Executive Director Texel had prepared a summary of the case and sent it to the PRB members prior to the meeting. Executive Director Texel had also provided a brief summary of the decision at the Nebraska Power Association’s meeting on September 17. Although technically the decision is not controlling in Nebraska because Nebraska is in the eighth circuit, the decision would be persuasive authority from another federal circuit court and is therefore important. The background of the case is that the Pennsylvania PUC denied an application filed by Transource for two new transmission lines. Transource was the company selected by the PJM Interconnection regional transmission organization to build the lines. The PUC denied the application because the lines would significantly increase costs for Pennsylvania customers, while lowering the costs for Maryland customers. The PUC found there was not a need for the lines in Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit upheld a federal district court’s decision finding that the state PUC could not reject a transmission project approved as part of an RTO’s regional planning process because to do so would frustrate the federally-approved RTO’s federal objectives and therefore violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Executive Director Texel noted that the next three PRB meetings are scheduled for October 17, November 21, and December 21, 2025. Mr. Grennan stated that he would be traveling on October 17 and so he would not be able to attend via in person, but he could participate via Webex if needed. Chairwoman Gottschalk and Mr. Austin will not be able to attend the November meeting.
Mr. Grennan 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 – absent. The motion carried 4 – 0 with one absent. The meeting adjourned at 12:39 p.m.
Timothy J. Texel
Executive Director and General Counsel
POWERED BY