NEBRASKA POWER REVIEW BOARD
Minutes of the 872nd Meeting
March 20, 2026
The 872nd 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. Mr. Grennan had previously informed the Board that he would not be able to attend this meeting because he was traveling today. The executive director stated that public notice for the meeting had been published in the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper on March 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 Board first considered the draft minutes from its February 20, 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. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – absent, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0.
The next item was acceptance of the expense report for the month of February. In February there was $32,561.28 in personal services, $18,367.80 in operating expenses, and $2,815.77 in travel expenses. The total February expenses were 53,744.85. February is the eighth month of the fiscal year, so 66.67% of the year has passed. The cashflow worksheet shows the PRB has used 74.97% of its cash fund. At the end of February, the agency was approximately 8.3% over budget. Last month the board was approximately 7.74% over budget. Mr. Liegl moved to accept the February expense report. Mr. Austin seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – absent, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0.
The next agenda item was to consider approval of the Cuming County Public Power District’s Petition for Charter Amendment 11. Cuming County PPD filed its Petition on January 5, 2026. The amendment would add language to the charter that the district cannot issue general obligation bonds, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. section 70-604(5). The amendment also removes outdated references to the “proposed” district. The “proposed” language was in the Petition for Creation when the District was first created and was never removed. There were no protests or objections filed with the Board. In order to approve the amendment, the Board needs to find that the charter amendment will not be contrary to the best interests of the District and will not jeopardize or impair the rights of creditors of the District or of other persons. Mr. Austin moved to waive the hearing and approve the Cuming County Public Power District’s Petition for Charter Amendment 11. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – absent, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0.
The next item on the agenda was to consider PRB-4075. This is an application filed by the Loup River Public Power District. The application was filed on February 24, 2026. The application requests authority to build .9 mile of 12.5 kilovolt three-phase distribution line in Platte County. The line will provide service to a new irrigation system located in the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 20 North, Range 4 West, in Platte County. This is roughly one mile southeast of the City of Newman Grove. The construction pass through the service areas of both Cornhusker PPD and Elkhorn RPPD. A Consent and Waiver form was filed by both Cornhusker PPD and Elkhorn RPPD consenting to the construction and waiving a hearing. The PRB consulted with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. section 37-807(3). The Game and Parks Commission informed the Board that the project is within the range of the endangered Whooping Crane and Northern Long-Eared Bat, and the threatened Western Prairie Fringed Orchid. Due to the project area consisting of disturbed agricultural fields and road rights-of-way, there is no suitable habitat for any of those species. The Commission determined the project would have “No Effect” on any endangered or threatened species. Loup River PPD did not have to certify that its vendors do not use foreign adversary components since Platte County is not on the list of geographical areas near any applicable military installation. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to approve Loup River Public Power District’s application PRB-4075. Mr. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – absent, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0.
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. This item was tabled at last month’s meeting. Several years ago, the Board asked the Nebraska Power Association (NPA) to develop several scenarios involving extreme events that would stress the electrical system in Nebraska for each report. The Board would select one of the scenarios and the analysis would be included in that year’s 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 (JPS) 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 expressed that he would like to have scenario two modified to include constraints on natural gas supplies to along with the extreme cold, and the rest of the Board agreed. Mr. Liegl asked about the recent fire situation in Nebraska and if that could be a scenario. Mustafa Muradi, a member of the JPS and an LES employee, spoke about the extreme weather events and stated that it was unique and similar to a tornado where it would affect an area but not necessarily the generation and distribution across the state. Shannon Coleman, another member of the JPS and an OPPD employee, agreed that the event would be unique, but could work into a scenario for next year. Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to approve scenario 2 for the 2026 report. Mr. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – absent, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4-0.
The next item on the agenda was the director’s report. The first item was an update on Southwest Power Pool activities. Chairman Hutchison spoke about the SPP’s expansion into the western interconnection starting on April 1. Arizona, Utah and Wyoming will become part of the RSC. There are procedures in place in the bylaws so those members who are in the western interconnect will vote on issues that affect the western interconnection, and similarly the members operating in the eastern interconnect will vote on issues that affect the eastern interconnection. The other topic was the consultant who was hired for one year to assist the RSC. The major issue the consultant will be working on is cost allocation and the benefit to cost ratio calculations. The consultant will be working to help the RSC members better understand the calculations. The CARE team is working on the cost allocation on high voltage cost calculations.
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 previously 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 plan to wait until the amended petition is filed. Once the petition is amended, LES, the NPRB and Eolian plan to each file motions for summary judgment. He stated that he had drafted PRB’s motion for summary judgment along with the supporting documents, so they are ready to be filed once Liphardt’s amended petition is filed. Another issue is a need to wait to see if LB 1010 is passed. If it passes, lawsuit will be moot. If this happens then LES and intervenors will most likely file a motion to dismiss instead of the summary judgment.
The executive director told the Board the contract renewal with JK Energy Consulting (State contract 94903 O4) was signed by John Krajewski yesterday, March 19. The renewal covers the period from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027. The State Materiel Division should sign the contract on behalf of the State within the next two business days.
The next discussion was about legislative bills. Executive Director Texel told the Board that at this point in the session unless a bill has a priority designation, it is not going anywhere this session unless the bill is amended into another bill that has a priority designation.
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 attorney’s fees and costs. The hearing was held February 18. The Judiciary Committee designated the bill as one of its committee priority bills. There has been no other 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. 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 Natural Resources Committee advanced the bill to general file on March 6. The Committee designated the bill as one of its priority bills. The Committee’s plan is to package LBs 1010, 1111 and 1064 together. In the original version of the bill a public power utility must be a joint applicant for the ESR, but that provision has been removed from the Committee amendment version. The Committee amendment also removes the annual data center report to the PRB from what was LB 1111, and now requires the applicant to submit evidence on several issues required for approval instead of only providing written notices as was in the original bill. The executive director thought that the main points of disagreement between the private developers and public power utilities were that the private developers will not accept the power purchase agreement requirement, they want eminent domain rights withheld for these facilities, and they do not agree with the provision that requires the private developer to acquire written consent from 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. Without the consents the PRB cannot approve the project. The executive director sent a recommended amendment to the Committee counsel that would clarify points pertaining to the definition of what constitutes an ESR that is “associated” with a PDREGF, add “or in the immediate vicinity” to the language saying the ESR must be located on the same premises as the PDREGF, and to remove references separating the PDREGF and the ESR in 70-1015. If the amendment is not introduced or adopted the executive director was working with the NPA to come up with language for Senator Brandt and Senator Clouse to have a discussion on the record to clarify at least one or two of the issues that would otherwise be addressed in the proposed amendment. That way there would be legislative history to show what was intended on those certain issues.
LB 1026—This bill was introduced by Senator Storm. The bill prohibits retirement, shutdown or cessation of operation of 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 and it does not have a priority designation.
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 to 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 and it does not have a priority designation.
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 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 and it does not have a priority designation.
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 utility. 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 and it does not have a priority designation.
LB 1193—This bill was introduced by Senator Prokop. The bill addresses regulation of and requirements for ESRs, and subjects privately owned ESRs 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 and it does not have a priority designation.
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 and entities 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 and it does not have a priority designation.
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 was held February 26. There has been no action on the bill and it does not have a priority designation.
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 and it does not have a priority designation.
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. The hearing was February 5 before the Natural Resources Committee. OPPD, NPPD and LES testified in support of the bill. Senators Conrad and Juarez oppose the bill and have filed numerous amendments. Senator Moser designated LB 1261 as his priority bill. The Committee advanced the bill to General File. The only amendment the Committee made was to remove the word “projected” from the reference to the capacity of the large load. The bill was subsequently advanced to Select File by a 34 to 7 vote. Prior to advancing the bill to Select File two amendments submitted by Senator Conrad were adopted. One was to require the board of directors of a public power utility to approve a waiver of a restriction for the private entity to serve only one large industrial customer, and the other was for the public power utility’s board of directors to approve the power purchase agreement that includes a waiver of the utility’s eminent domain rights. The executive director pointed out that municipalities do not have a board of directors. Also, the wording on page 3, lines 9-10 indicates the industrial customer involved has a retail service area. It would be quite helpful to address these two points prior to final reading. The executive director already contacted the NPA about the issues and the NPA indicated it would work with Senator DeKay to submit an amendment to address these two points.
Executive Director Texel noted that the next meetings are April 17, May 15, and June 26, 2026.
Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Liegl seconded the motion. Voting on the motion: Chairman Hutchison – yes, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk – yes, Mr. Austin – yes, Mr. Grennan – absent, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4 – 0. The meeting adjourned at 10:26 a.m.
Timothy J. Texel
Executive Director and General Counsel
POWERED BY