OPPD says their 3.2% residential rate increase for 2022 is “modest”. So what would you call a 1% increase to reach the goal of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2035? I would call that tiny and very necessary.

OPPD could stop hurting everyone involved in the Agriculture businesses in Nebraska by ending the burning of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. To do that, OPPD could change their goal of net-zero CO2 emissions to 2035. Not doing that will cause OPPD to put more global warming gasses into the air which causes more climate change which is already hurting the Nebraska Ag industry

If OPPD would support a federal carbon price and dividend they might find that a 1% increase is not needed. They might be able to lower their rates like Lincoln Electric System did earlier this year, for 2022. Here is LES's lower rates statement https://www.les.com/company/les-2022-budget-and-rates

When the market is given a big incentive to find alternatives to fossil fuel use, due to a price on carbon, they will find cheaper and better ways to produce and store electricity.

Supporting this federal law won't cost OPPD a dime for higher priced coal or gas. Any increase could be passed on to the customers in a Fuel and Purchased Power Adjustment. The federal carbon dividend will cause almost every low and middle income person to get more in their monthly dividend checks than any higher price OPPD might have to charge. As OPPD gets more of their power from non-fossil fuel sources, their customers will be able to keep more of their increasing carbon dividend checks in their bank accounts.

Supporting a price on carbon could save OPPD and their customers many millions of dollars every year. OPPD's board and staff endorsement of this bill will help Senators Fischer and Sasse, and Representatives Bacon, Fortenberry and Smith to support this legislation.

Thank you for promoting the efficient use of electricity. Please widen your perspective to include more than each customer's monthly electric bill. In addition to telling customers how to reduce air leakage through the building envelope, tell them how to do so without causing excessive indoor air pollution. Example: Promote the renovation of existing homes, and construction of new homes, that have much better indoor air quality and lower utility bills. A home buyer that obtains a 30-year mortgage at 3%, could invest up to $23,000 more for a home for each $100 reduction in utility bills without increasing the total monthly sum of mortgage and utility payments. Upgrading homes and other buildings will help to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and the toxic pollutants that are damaging the brains and bodies of OPPD's customers-owners. Evidence from Harvard University, MIT, EPA, American Lung Association, etc. is available on request.

Like many others, I thank you for your decarbonization efforts to date, and for planning the workshop series to gather public input. While public comment is still accepted, I ask that you continue consideration of a net-zero target of 2035, especially considering the reported 1% increase in costs over a 2050 timeline. I appreciate the logistical challenge of accelerated decarbonization, but as a ratepayer and as a parent who hopes my children grow up and stay in Omaha, believe the effort to be most worthwhile.

Thank you OPPD! Your dedication to a transparent and thoughtful approach to exploring the decarbonization process was much appreciated. I understand how you came to the 2050 commendable net zero goal, however, a few things have become apparent. The analysis from E3 indicated that the cost to decarbonize by 2035 is relatively small and that there is value in decarbonizing more quickly than 2050. Also your recently approved 2.5% average rate is considered a moderate increase to cover rising material costs and labor. Also from your recent decarbonization analysis, indications showed that a 1% yearly increase to address the climate crisis would also be considered moderate and well worth the expense especially since OPPD could support a carbon fee and dividend which would help protect their lower income consumers.

Thank you OPPD for your commitment to planning for a pathway to decarbonize and for sharing your process with us in very well thought out and explained workshops. I am encouraged with the results. While the plan currently calls for decarbonization by 2050, I urge you to consider a decarbonization target of 2035. Supporting a price on carbon would spur the innovation needed to get to that target.

I am grateful to OPPD for the workshops, and for all the efforts to engage and inform the public about the critical and necessary pathway to decarbonization. While the 2050 goal is commendable, I strongly urge you to consider a goal of 2035. The sooner we can reach the goal the better it will be for the health and well-being of Nebraskans, as well as businesses and agriculture. From a financial standpoint, I understand the cost of decarbonizing by 2035 rather than 2050 is relatively small, so there is no logical reason to wait. Let's do this!!

Thank you OPPD for stepping up and paving a pathway to decarbonization. Today's changing weather patterns in the Midwest and Great Plains are influencing the pervasiveness of outdoor air pollutants such as ozone and fine particulate matter. These pollutants are a public health factor, as they negatively impact our respiratory systems. This is especially worrisome for Nebraska, which has higher death rates from asthma than most states. Your commitment to net-zero decarbonization will be a big step toward cleaner air for your customers.

Thank you for engaging the public on OPPD's Final Results workshop for the Decarbonization Study! I heard from the E3 consultant that the incremental cost of decarbonizing by 2035 instead of 2050 is "relatively moderate" and that "value comes from accelerating carbon emissions reduction". In my view, the incremental cost is unexpectedly small, which is really good. And the value I see from accelerating carbon emissions reductions is the fact that an additional 15 years of emissions would be avoided. What flooding or storm damage or even deaths could that avoid?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) provides a Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector to reach Net Zero by 2050 - see https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050. This Roadmap requires overall net-zero emissions for electricity in advances economies by 2035 - and that would include OPPD.

I am proud of the movement toward Net-Zero OPPD and the other Nebraska utilities have made. I do however, think that we should be doing our part to reach Net-Zero global emissions by 2050, and the IEA has OPPD's role projected as Net-Zero 2035.

E3 did evaluate risk of renewables investment and concluded that Solar, Wind and Gas built to run on green hydrogen are all low risk investments. They also found that scaling up and down in proportion to the time period set to decarbonize and consistent with load needs would result in proportionate investments consistent across a variety of pathways. That is also good.

Appreciating that there are challenges to revising the net -zero goal to 2035, like implementation, integration and supply chain challenges, I still think that it should be seriously considered. If the goal is missed, its probably not the end of the world. But just because something is challenging, doesn't mean that you should not even try.

Feedback left after this comment is from Workshop 6.

I support the plan to achieve net zero by 2035.

If only Congress and OPPD had taken decisive action soon after Dr. James Hansen told them global warming was a problem in 1988 the world wouldn't be in this crisis today. But we are, maybe because they were afraid to use their political capital at that time. We need leaders to take action now. I hope OPPD will be one of those leaders.

Citizens' Climate Lobby's national staff continue to tell us that a price on carbon is still on-the-table in Congress.

Not working harder on a price on carbon is causing more damage and costs to Nebraska farmers, ranchers and some cities that will have to move because of recurrent flooding.

IMHO, it is primarily because OPPD does not support and lobby for a price on carbon and dividend that Don Bacon does not support it. He needs the public support of OPPD because it is one of the largest users of fossil fuels in his district.

Ag is the number one industry in our state. OPPD should stop harming it.

Farmers, ranchers and communities are being harmed because OPPD has and continues to burn fossil fuels, causing global warming and climate change. OPPD should quickly work to protect them for more harm by ending the use of fossil fuels.

OPPD said it will be hard to comply with the regulations they are hearing about in the Reconciliation Package Congress is working on. OPPD should officially and publicly endorse the effort to put a price on carbon and pay people a dividend. Congress is talking about a price on carbon right now. Endorsing it would support the dividend that would protect OPPD customers from any higher prices that might happen because of changes mandated by regulations and the price on carbon.

OPPD's mission statement is "To provide affordable, reliable and environmentally sensitive energy services to our customers." OPPD's board and staff need to make providing environmentally sensitive energy their top priority. Not in all cases, but most of the time being environmentally sensitive has been done only if it was very affordable.

A price on carbon is the cheapest, quickest, easiest, and simplest way for this country to reduce our carbon emissions throughout all sectors of our economy, not just the electric generation part of it.

Implementing a plan to be net-zero carbon by 2035 should be done.Having a Federal price on carbon would make it much more likely for new innovations to be created that will make that goal easier and less expensive.

Yes I support the plan to achieve net zero by 2035.

I am pleased to see the tremendous effort that OPPD staff & management have put into understanding and developing the pathways to decarbonization for the district. It is clear that there is acknowledgment of the necessity of rapidly ending the carbon emissions that have historically result from power generation, and moving to renewable clean energy.

After the recent Workshop presentation, the Net Zero Accelerated pathway would provide substantial positive progress toward the goal we must achieve.

It is absolutely essential that we as a community, as a state, nation, and world decarbonize. As. Fast. As. Possible. Accelerating the pace of brinnging clean energy resources online and ending the emissions from outdated fossil-fueled generation is necessary if we are to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic impacts of global climate change.

While I would prefer to see OPPD set and achieve the pathway of Net Zero by 2035, I acknowledge that might not yet be clearly possible with the current capabilities of the district. Anything less than the objectives laid out by the Net Zero Accelerated pathway irrevocably guarenntees our children and grandchildren will have to spend the entirity of their lives struggling against the impacts of climate change we have caused. That is not the legacy I want to leave to future generations.

I'll be proud to tell today's children that we did everything we possibly could to support and protect them, now, and in years to come. It is comforting to me to know that we have leaders at our public power district who share this dedication and passion about securing a clean, safe, bright future.

Please, I ask you, set a pathway that decarbonizes OPPD as fast as possible. Thank you.

Thank you for providing detailed information and a reasonable time for public input at these workshops. I support net zero by 2035, given the relatively low projected costs. Overall, I consider it the most ethical, and the pathway of least regret. I note that the definition of "net zero" has shifted, and will need to be firmed up. The most important metric is lowering total net carbon dioxide emissions. In this context, rapid transfer to renewable generation is the most effective. Energy efficiency has the biggest payoff early on, when the proportion of fossil fuel generation is the highest. This will require a large shift for both OPPD and consumers.

I remain concerned that there may be a systemic underestimate of the ongoing effects of climate change if the Monte Carlo simulation of loads, renewable profiles and generator outages is not conducted properly. If you run 1000 years of model simulations, but only sample the observed weather from the last 40 years, you will obscure the risk that we will repeat a scenario like the 1930s, or worse. For example, a 1-day-in-10-year high temperature for Omaha in the past 40 years is 106F, and the highest observed was 109F. Yet, in the 1930s, there were 9 days with temperatures of 110F or higher, and the major heat waves featured clustered days of extreme temperatures. There should be at least one scenario where our temperatures are simulated to reach the highs actually observed in Portland OR last June, 108F, 112F, and 116F on successive days. While renewable generation may be vulnerable to extreme heat, it is also true that such heat waves mostly occur during periods of severe drought. This means that the use of the Missouri River for cooling water could be restricted, affecting fossil fuel generation.

Thank you for your hard work as you prepare OPPD’s proposal to achieve net zero by 2050. It appears that it is within OPPD’s reach to move up the net zero time frame to 2035, with just a 1% rate increase per year in your modeling scenarios. While not all stakeholders will be able to absorb a rate increase, there are many ways these increases can be offset: namely a carbon dividend generated from a price on carbon.

With a vacuum of leadership at the state level in the area of climate change, OPPD is now being relied upon as a trusted leader as our city navigates the effects of climate change and prepares for the future. Please consider moving your net zero target to 2035. It’s the right decision for today for a better tomorrow.