NEBRASKA POWER REVIEW BOARD
Minutes of the 871st Meeting
February 20, 2026
The 871st 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 9:00 a.m. The roll was called and present were Chairman Hutchison, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk, Mr. Austin, and Mr. Liegl. Due to the inclement weather Mr. Grennan participated via Webex. The executive director stated that public notice for the meeting had been published in the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper on February 10, 2026. The meeting is 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 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 executive director announced that since Mr. Grennan was participating via Webex the meeting will count as a virtual conference meeting.
The Board first considered the draft minutes from its January 23, 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. Mr. Austin moved to approve the minutes. 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 was acceptance of the expense report for the month of January. In January there was $31,861.56 in personal services, $21,410.62 in operating expenses, and $(669.91) in travel expenses. The total January expenses were $52,602.27. January is the seventh month of the fiscal year, so 58.3% of the year has passed. The cashflow worksheet shows the PRB used 66.04% of its cash fund. At the end of January the agency was approximately 7.74% over budget. Last month the board was approximately 8.76% over budget. There was discussion concerning communications with the Budget Office about the Board’s budget situation. Rebecca Hallgren, the Board’s business manager, explained she had sent an e-mail to the Board’s budget analyst to let him know where the Board stood in terms of finances. She also let him know that she had started to collect the gross revenue certificates, which was started a month earlier than in past years. Chairman Hutchison talked about the potential of the assessment figure being in the range of several cents higher than in previous years. The Board’s assessment figure is calculated based on a set number of cents per thousand dollars gross revenue for each utility. Last year’s assessment figure was .000124354485 per $1,000. Chairman Hutchison wanted to let the utilities know that the assessment figure for this year will need to be somewhere in the 16 cent range to fully fund the Board’s budget and reserve fund. Mr. Liegl moved to accept the January expense report. 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 to consider approval of SAA 296-26-A. This is a joint application submitted by the Village of Campbell (Campbell) and Southern Public Power District (Southern PPD). The application was filed on January 21, 2026. Currently, Campbell has a retail service area boundary around the village and a service area agreement with Southern PPD. Campbell wants to turn over its retail service area and have the area served by Southern PPD. This application would transfer Campbell’s retail service area to Southern PPD and terminate SAA 296. Southern PPD surrounds the Village of Campbell. The application would essentially erase the service area boundary around the village. The Board asked whether this was done very often. The executive director said it is not common, but over the 15 or 20 years about eight villages have transferred their retail service area to the local public power district and terminated their agreement. This often happens when a long-time village employee that maintains the electric distribution system retires and the village has no one capable of assuming the job. He was not sure if that was the case with Campbell. A map showing the service area around Campbell is attached to the application as an exhibit. Mr. Liegl moved to approve SAA 296-26-A, transferring the retail service area of the Village of Campbell to Southern Public Power District and terminating SAA 296. 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 to consider the extreme weather scenario to be analyzed as part of the 2026 Load and Capability Report. Several years ago the Board asked the NPA to develop several scenarios involving extreme events that would stress the electrical system in Nebraska. The Board would select one of the scenarios and the analysis would be included in the report. The 2024 scenario was a severe winter storm in western-central Nebraska that would affect Gerald Gentleman station and the local utilities in that area. The 2025 report addressed extreme and sustained heat and drought conditions across a majority of Nebraska, causing reduced river flows and heat-related complications at generating facilities, with concurrent low wind generation. The NPA’s Joint Planning Subcommittee is responsible for preparation of the report. The subcommittee had submitted three scenarios to the Board for its review and selection of the one to be included in the 2026 report. Chairman Hutchison said with increasing use of natural gas as a fuel he would like to add a scenario pertaining to natural gas supply issues to scenario 2 along with the extreme cold. Mr. Grennan stated that the utilities’ recent generation additions have been natural gas, so it seemed reasonable to examine issues related to constraints and problems that could occur involving that fuel source. Jason Rosenkranz, Director of Resource Planning and Risk with the Nebraska Public Power District, is a member of the joint planning subcommittee and spoke with the Board regarding the concerns about the current scenarios and the addition of natural gas constraints. After further discussion the Board members asked the NPA Joint Planning Subcommittee to rewrite scenario 2 to also address natural gas constraints and susceptibility to weather issues and submit it for the Board’s consideration at the March 20 PRB meeting. The Board members agreed to table the agenda item until March meeting.
The next item on the agenda was the director’s report. The first item was an update on Southwest Power Pool activities. Chairman Hutchison spoke about a recent vote at the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Board of Directors meeting. The RSC had passed a proposed policy change and submitted it to the SPP Board of Directors. The members committee that takes an advisory vote prior to the SPP Board voted 4 in favor, 12 against, and 5 abstain. The discussion on the peak demand assessment was very emotional. The SPP Board vote was 16-2 in favor. This change will have to be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). If the SPP Board had not approved the change, the SPP would have drafted its own proposal and both the SPP and the RSC proposals would be submitted to FERC as alternate proposals. That has never been done before. Chairman Hutchison stated he would be attending meetings with FERC representatives to outline the details of the proposed peak demand assessment.
Executive Director Texel then gave the Board an update on the PRB’s participation in the Liphardt v. City of Lincoln d/b/a Lincoln Electric System lawsuit in Lancaster County District Court. Mr. Liphardt’s counsel told LES and the intervenors he was planning to amend the Petition to add LES’s chief financial officer as a named defendant. This is common in mandamus actions. LES and the intervenors need to wait until the amended petition is filed. Once the petition is amended, LES, the NPRB and Eolian plan to file motions for summary judgment.
The contract with JK Energy Consulting (State contract 94903 O4) is being finalized. The Department of Administrative Services’ Budget Office now requires that it approves contract renewals. The Budget Office requires an agency complete a “Pre-Agreement Outcome Tool” (PAOT) with numerous questions to justify the contract and ensure that the agency is holding the contractor accountable. After the executive director submitted the PAOT the Budget Office submitted additional questions to be answered. Chairman Hutchison and the executive director prepared the responses to the additional questions and submitted them. The Budget Office approved the contract renewal on February 9.
The next discussion was about legislative bills. This is a short legislative session, with only 60 legislative days. The last day for senators to introduce bills was Wednesday, January 21. The Board had a list of the bills from the previous session, as well as all the new bills. Executive Director Texel limited his discussion to new bills in the 2026 session, and those that would affect the PRB or the electric industry.
LB 935 – This bill was introduced by Senator Bosn. The bill provides for an award of costs and attorney’s fees in certain actions involving political subdivisions. Political subdivisions would include public power districts. If a claim is found to be frivolous, in bad faith or primarily for harassment purposes, the political subdivision could ask for fees and costs. A hearing was held February 18. There has been no action taken yet.
LB 1010—This bill was introduced by Senator Brandt. The bill authorizes private entities to build energy storage resources (ESRs) in Nebraska, but the ESR must sell the output to a public power utility through a power purchase agreement. The bill also allows use of eminent domain for ESRs. An application for a privately-built ESR must be filed with the PRB. The bill incorporates a good deal of what is in PRB Guidance Document 14. The committee’s plan is to package LBs 1010, 1111 and 1064 together. The committee hearing was held on February 11 before the Natural Resources Committee. The executive director thought that the main points of disagreement between the private developers and public power were that the private developers will not accept the power purchase agreement requirement, they want eminent domain withheld for these facilities, and they do not agree with the provision that requires the public power utility in whose service territory the ESR will be located and the utility that will own the transmission assets with which the ESR will interconnect to sign a written consent or the PRB cannot approve the project.
LB 1026—This bill was introduced by Senator Storm. The bill prohibits retirement, shutdown or cessation of operation of energy generation facilities if the utility has any customers waiting for electric service. It provides exceptions if the facility is unsafe, damaged, uneconomical, or if decommissioning is required by state or federal law. The hearing was held on February 5 before the Natural Resources Committee. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1027— This bill was introduced by Senator Storm. The bill requires privately developed renewable energy generation facilities (PDREGF) to have a power purchase agreement with a public power utility. It also requires that PDREGFs must file an application with the PRB for approval, ending the current exemption. The PRB submitted a fiscal note for $7,500. This was done based on the average number of PDREGF’s per year and the cost of a hearing. The hearing was February 5 before the Natural Resources Committee. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1064—This was introduced by Senator Bostar. The bill adopts the Large Load Customer Regulation Act. It requires public power utilities to develop interconnection standards for new large loads (20+ megawatts capacity). Public power entities must also establish demand response and curtailment procedures for new large customers. LES testified in support of and NPPD testified neutral. NPPD stated that there were a few details that needed to be worked out. The hearing was on February 11 before the Natural Resources Committee. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1111—This was introduced by Senator Machaela Cavanaugh. The bill requires the representative organization in section 70-1025 (the NPA) to file an annual data center load report with the NPRB. The bill provides a list of eight categories of information that is to be included in the report. The bill also requires public power entities to impose numerous terms on new large data centers when interconnecting the load. Each public power utility would have to post information regarding large data centers on its website. The hearing before the Natural Resources Committee was held on February 12. There has been no action on the bill, although as previously mentioned the executive director was told the Committee plan is to package LB 1111 with LB 1010. The executive director also told the Board members that at the hearing Senator Juarez asked if the PRB has discussed or reviewed what guardrails are needed to deal with issues caused by data centers. He responded that there have been internal discussions, but the PRB is not set up to implement policies, not to design them. This is especially true with technical issues, since the PRB has no staff that are technical experts in electric policies. The staff consists of a lawyer, a paralegal and a business manager. Senator Juarez said she would prefer it if the PRB would be more proactive in such issues. The executive director thanked her and said he would share her comments with the Board.
LB 1172—This bill was introduced by Senator Holdcroft. The bill would require each electric supplier to maintain 75% of its generation portfolio as dispatchable. Electric suppliers must certify annually to the PRB whether they are in compliance. The hearing before the Natural Resources Committee was held on February 4. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1186—This bill was introduced by Senator John Cavanaugh. The bill adopts the Affordable American Energy and Jobs Act. The bill defines affordable American energy as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro or battery storage. To qualify, a power supplier must have a power purchase agreement with a Nebraska public power entity. Qualifying facilities are not subject to eminent domain by public power utilities. The Nebraska Department of Water, Energy and Environment is to develop a list of best practices for such facilities. Counties are not required to adopt the practices, but if they do, the county receives additional funds from the nameplate capacity tax. The hearing was held on February 19 before the Revenue Committee. The NPA testified in opposition to the bill. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1193—This bill was introduced by Senator Prokop. The bill addresses regulation of and requirements for energy storage resources, and subjects privately owned energy storage resources to the nameplate capacity tax. Much of what is set out in the bill matches what is in PRB Guidance Document 14. The bill’s operative date is January 1, 2027. The hearing was held on February 11 before the Natural Resources Committee. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1204—This bill was introduced by Senator Clouse. The bill adopts the Nameplate Capacity Tax Facility Standard Act. It would create uniform permitting, zoning and building requirements for PDREGFs and ESRs. The hearing was held February 12 before the Natural Resources Committee. There was a large number of citizens that testified in opposition to the bill due to the loss of local control. OPPD and the NPA testified in opposition. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1255—This bill was introduced by Senator Bostar. The bill would prohibit public power suppliers from exercising the power of eminent domain. The hearing will be February 26 before the Judiciary Committee.
LB 1259—This bill was introduced by Senator Hansen. The bill would adopt the Grid Modernization Act. It removes the obligation for public power to serve new large loads if the utility and the load cannot agree on the terms of service or if the customer is served by a private generation contract. It authorizes the PRB to promulgate several sets of new rules and regulations and hire consultants. Public power utilities and large-scale private generation providers must obtain PRB approval of large load contracts. The bill is very long and complicated. The executive director submitted a fiscal note for $730,000 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year and $505,000 for future years due to the number of experts that would need to be hired to accomplish the tasks, and to assist in drafting technical regulations. The hearing was held February 4 before the Natural Resources Committee. There has been no action on the bill.
LB 1261 – This bill was introduced by Senator DeKay on behalf of the Governor. It would allow private entities to construct generation facilities to serve new loads greater than 1,000 megawatts. There are a number of restrictions, such as ensuring the new large customer pays all costs to upgrade the transmission system for its project. Eminent domain could not be used to acquire these facilities. OPPD, NPPD and LES testified in support of the bill. The hearing was February 5 before the Natural Resources Committee. The Committee advanced the bill to General File on a 6-2 vote. Senators Conrad and Juarez oppose the bill and have filed numerous amendments. Senator Moser designated LB 1261 as his priority bill.
Executive Director Texel noted that the next meetings are March 20, April 17, and May 15, 2026.
Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to adjourn the meeting. 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 meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Timothy J. Texel
Executive Director and General Counsel
POWERED BY