NEBRASKA POWER REVIEW BOARD
Minutes of the 878th Meeting
October 21, 2026
The 878th 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 10:01 a.m. The roll was called and present were Chairman Hutchison, Vice Chairwoman Gottschalk, Mr. Austin, Mr. Grennan, and Mr. Liegl. Executive Director Texel stated that public notice for the meeting had been published in the Lincoln Journal Star newspaper on October 11, 2026. The meeting was available to the public online through Microsoft Teams. The 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. The executive director explained that if any member of the public watching the meeting online 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 Board first considered the draft minutes from its September 18, 2026, public meeting. The minutes had been sent electronically to the Board members. Mr. Austin noted that there was a typo on the fourth page. It was in the first paragraph where it talks about “by the Governor’s Budget Office and the Legislation.” The word “Legislation” should be “Legislature.” Mr. Liegl moved to approve the minutes with the noted correction. Vice Chairwoman 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 September. In September there was $46,403.94 in personal services, $19,859.72 in operating expenses, and $3,090.37 in travel expenses. The total September expenses were $69,354. September is the third month of the fiscal year, which equates to 25% of the fiscal year. The cashflow worksheet shows the PRB has used 25.42% of its cash fund. The Executive Director also noted that personal service is higher due to September being one of the two months each year when there are three pay periods. Mr. Liegl moved to accept the September 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 item on the agenda was a briefing from Southwest Power Pool on the SPP’s 2026 Integrated Transmission Plan. Ms. Kim O’Guinn, SPP Senior Director for State Regulatory Policy, and Mr. Sunny Raheem, SPP Director of System Planning, gave the presentation to the Board. During the briefing there was discussion about the Highway/Byway cost allocation and the methodology that was recommended by the CARE Team. There was discussion on how the transmission system is stressed and that the peak demand has increased more than 16% in the last 7 years. The peak load in SPP’s operating area is anticipated to nearly double by 2035. Mr. Raheem went over how the planning process for the ITP is done. Robert Pick of NPPD and Loren Ditseh of OPPD provided comments expressing concern about the cost sharing for Nebraska’s utilities. Utilities are finding it difficult to justify to their ratepayers that their rates will have to increase because the utilities are helping to pay for lines being built two states away in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. The Board members thanked Ms. O’Guinn and Mr. Raheem for their presentation and the discussion.
The next agenda item was to consider a settlement offer in Complaint C-57. This is the show-cause hearing after which a majority of the Board found that Vecino Natural Bridge was supplying electricity to its tenants in the Muse Apartment complex in Omaha in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 70-1011. Vecino Natural Bridge filed an appeal with the Nebraska Court of Appeals. The attorney general’s office is handling the appeal and Vecino submitted a settlement offer. The attorney general’s office wanted to ask for the Board’s advice regarding whether to accept the settlement offer or make a counter-offer. Assistant Attorney General Ben Kinnison was present to discuss the settlement offer with the Board. The Board will go into closed session to discuss the settlement offer. Under the Nebraska Open Meetings Act, a public body may hold a closed session for certain situations. One of the reasons stated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-1410(1)(a) is to conduct strategy sessions regarding pending litigation. The Board stated that the pending litigation is the reason for the closed session. Mr. Austin made a motion to go into closed session for purpose of discussing settlement issues involved in the appeal of C-57, Nebraska Power Review Board v. Vecino Natural Bridge, LLC. Vice Chairwoman Gottshalk 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. Chairman Hutchison stated that the Board was going into closed session at 12:02 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the settlement offer in the pending appeal of the Board’s decision in complaint C-57. The Board then went into closed session.
After reconvening the public meeting, Chairman Hutchison stated that the Board’s meeting was being reconvened at 12:23 p.m. He confirmed that during the closed session the Board’s discussions were limited to the issue of the settlement offer in the pending litigation matter of Nebraska Power Review Board v. Vecino Natural Bridge, LLC.
The next item on the agenda was a joint application submitted by the City of Seward and the Norris Public Power District. The application was submitted on September 17, 2026. The amendment would transfer territory from Norris PPD to Seward. Exhibit A shows the tract of territory involved, which is on the south side of Seward. The amendment is not based on an annexation. It is meant to clean up boundaries so that Seward will serve everything north from the local Walmart and Norris PPD will keep everything south of Walmart along Highway 15. The territory covers a portion of the southwest quarter of section 28 and most of the northwest quarter of section 33, all in Township 11, Range 3 East. The parties did agree on compensation for the loss of revenue for customers and depreciated value of distribution assets in the area. Seward will pay Norris PPD $68,279.84. Vice Chairwoman Gottshalk made a motion to approve SAA 193-26-A. 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 item on the agenda was a discussion concerning the Board’s procedures during contested cases. Due to time constraints the Board members agreed to table this item until next month’s meeting.
The next item on the agenda was the director’s report. Executive Director Texel told the Board he had completed the three informal investigation that he told the Board about last month. The investigations dealt with a request from two public power districts that asked to be notified when any energy storage resources (ESRs) were to be built in their retail service area. There were three separate updates filed with the PRB concerning ESRs being built in conjunction with privately developed renewable energy generation facilities (PDREGF). Each PDREGF notice had stated that the facility would or may include an ESR as part of the PDREGF. The developer involved provided the executive director with updated information regarding the ESRs and asked to have him confirm that the ESRs were exempt from the PRB’s application and hearing process. The public power districts in whose retail service area the ESRs would be located questioned whether the ESRs met the requirements to be considered part of the related PDREGF. The executive director told the Board he reviewed each of the facilities under the PRB’s Guidance Document that had been in place when the PDREGF and the related ESRs were certified. So he determined they were grandfathered under the Guidance Document and not subject to the new requirements for ESRs to be “associated” with PDREGFs that were created by LB 1010 (2026). He then determined that each of the three ESRs were properly part of the PDREGF and could be certified as being part the related PDREGF. Mr. Grennan asked if the locations of the facilities could be sent to him, along with a copy of the letter from the utilities and the executive director’s letter setting out his findings. He has been asked about the facilities and it would be nice to know where they are and the details of the findings.
Mr. Grennan left the meeting at 12:33.
Executive Director Texel stated that he had submitted the PRB’s responses to a subpoena based on a case in federal court in Texas. The responses were prepared and delivered to the requesting party’s agent here in Lincoln. The case is captioned State of Texas, et. al., v. BlackRock, Inc. and State Street Corp. The Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against BlackRock and State Street alleging antitrust violations. The Nebraska Attorney General and 13 other states joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. It is his understanding the cause of action concerns the companies’ alleged attempts to use their market power in investments to try to destroy the coal industry.
Executive Director Texel noted that the next meetings are November 20, and December 18, 2026. He asked if the Board wanted to continue scheduling its meetings on the third Friday of each month. Mr Liegl said it might better accommodate personal and business trips, as well as vacations, if the meetings were moved to a weekday other than Monday or Friday. The Board members discussed changing the meeting dates, but decided that for now its meetings will continue to be on the third Friday of each month, but the Board may decide to revisit this issue. The executive director said in that case the first meeting of 2027 will be on January 15, 2027.
Mr. Liegl 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 – absent, and Mr. Liegl – yes. The motion carried 4 – 0. The meeting was adjourned at 12:49 p.m.
Timothy J. Texel
Executive Director and General Counsel
POWERED BY