Go Back

Workshop Recordings and Feedback

Share Workshop Recordings and Feedback on Facebook Share Workshop Recordings and Feedback on Twitter Share Workshop Recordings and Feedback on Linkedin Email Workshop Recordings and Feedback link

Thank you for joining us for Pathways to Decarbonization – Energy Portfolio Workshops.

The comment period from Workshop 6: Final Results was through Dec. 17, 2021 and is now closed. However, if you have questions or comments about the Pathways to Decarbonization initiative, please click here.

A recording of the workshop is available here. The slides can be found here.

For more information about the 2021 Integrated Resource Plan, please click here.

Previous Workshops

We have hosted 6 workshops and an Interim Modeling Update. We recommend attending or watching the workshops in order as they build off each other. A summary video of past workshops is also available. This video highlights the content covered in the six workshops.

Workshop 1: Decarbonization Pathways Planning 101 held April 7, 2021

Workshop 2: Multi-Sectorial Modeling held April 28, 2021

Workshop 3: Developing Key Assumptions & Scenarios held May 12, 2021

Workshop 4: Developing Modeling Approach held May 26, 2021

Interim Modeling Update held August 4, 2021

Workshop 5: Initial Results held October 27, 2021

Workshop 6: Final Results held December 9, 2021

We also held an engagement session update about the Customer and Community workstream on Sept. 2, more details about that event and the recording can be found here. Additional information including Glossary of Terms and Pre-Read Materials for Workshop 3 and 4 are located in Documents on this page.

Data Release

OPPD released a detailed set of assumptions. The data release is located in Documents on this page. Feedback for the data release is now closed.


Thank you for joining us for Pathways to Decarbonization – Energy Portfolio Workshops.

The comment period from Workshop 6: Final Results was through Dec. 17, 2021 and is now closed. However, if you have questions or comments about the Pathways to Decarbonization initiative, please click here.

A recording of the workshop is available here. The slides can be found here.

For more information about the 2021 Integrated Resource Plan, please click here.

Previous Workshops

We have hosted 6 workshops and an Interim Modeling Update. We recommend attending or watching the workshops in order as they build off each other. A summary video of past workshops is also available. This video highlights the content covered in the six workshops.

Workshop 1: Decarbonization Pathways Planning 101 held April 7, 2021

Workshop 2: Multi-Sectorial Modeling held April 28, 2021

Workshop 3: Developing Key Assumptions & Scenarios held May 12, 2021

Workshop 4: Developing Modeling Approach held May 26, 2021

Interim Modeling Update held August 4, 2021

Workshop 5: Initial Results held October 27, 2021

Workshop 6: Final Results held December 9, 2021

We also held an engagement session update about the Customer and Community workstream on Sept. 2, more details about that event and the recording can be found here. Additional information including Glossary of Terms and Pre-Read Materials for Workshop 3 and 4 are located in Documents on this page.

Data Release

OPPD released a detailed set of assumptions. The data release is located in Documents on this page. Feedback for the data release is now closed.


CLOSED: Questions from Workshop 6 have concluded.
  • Share In workshop 5 slide 39 you touch on Land Use Impacts factually but NOT the resultant Geographic Equity issues and lost of economic equity issues by "cover"ing up more several times the area of City of Omaha. How are you addressing this Geographic Equity Issue and your social equity resolution of by "covering" up land outside of Omaha (you are Omaha PPD not Eastern PPD thusely creating the issue)? Can you confirm slides do NOT include what is now operating or under construction only future (do you have that number of sq miles at present?). Thx on Facebook Share In workshop 5 slide 39 you touch on Land Use Impacts factually but NOT the resultant Geographic Equity issues and lost of economic equity issues by "cover"ing up more several times the area of City of Omaha. How are you addressing this Geographic Equity Issue and your social equity resolution of by "covering" up land outside of Omaha (you are Omaha PPD not Eastern PPD thusely creating the issue)? Can you confirm slides do NOT include what is now operating or under construction only future (do you have that number of sq miles at present?). Thx on Twitter Share In workshop 5 slide 39 you touch on Land Use Impacts factually but NOT the resultant Geographic Equity issues and lost of economic equity issues by "cover"ing up more several times the area of City of Omaha. How are you addressing this Geographic Equity Issue and your social equity resolution of by "covering" up land outside of Omaha (you are Omaha PPD not Eastern PPD thusely creating the issue)? Can you confirm slides do NOT include what is now operating or under construction only future (do you have that number of sq miles at present?). Thx on Linkedin Email In workshop 5 slide 39 you touch on Land Use Impacts factually but NOT the resultant Geographic Equity issues and lost of economic equity issues by "cover"ing up more several times the area of City of Omaha. How are you addressing this Geographic Equity Issue and your social equity resolution of by "covering" up land outside of Omaha (you are Omaha PPD not Eastern PPD thusely creating the issue)? Can you confirm slides do NOT include what is now operating or under construction only future (do you have that number of sq miles at present?). Thx link

    In workshop 5 slide 39 you touch on Land Use Impacts factually but NOT the resultant Geographic Equity issues and lost of economic equity issues by "cover"ing up more several times the area of City of Omaha. How are you addressing this Geographic Equity Issue and your social equity resolution of by "covering" up land outside of Omaha (you are Omaha PPD not Eastern PPD thusely creating the issue)? Can you confirm slides do NOT include what is now operating or under construction only future (do you have that number of sq miles at present?). Thx

    L asked about 3 years ago

    Dear L.,

    Thank you for your comments. We appreciate you taking time to tell us what you think. Your opinion matters!

    The information presented is representative of new wind and solar resources only and does not include existing OPPD facilities. The purpose of the analysis to-date is only to determine the scale of resources required. Further analysis and discussion will be needed for resource siting.

    OPPD

  • Share Hello - could you clarify the scope of what is intended to be included in the VOM for the candidate resource "power to H2 to power."? The value shown of $15.2/mwh is significantly higher than our estimates so we'd like to be sure what you intended to include in this number before we submit our comments by July 5. Since you have a price of H2 forecast, we assume the VOM to produce H2 would be included in the H2 fuel price and so the VOM should only be the VOM of a GTCC utilizing H2. Thank you, John Robbins on Facebook Share Hello - could you clarify the scope of what is intended to be included in the VOM for the candidate resource "power to H2 to power."? The value shown of $15.2/mwh is significantly higher than our estimates so we'd like to be sure what you intended to include in this number before we submit our comments by July 5. Since you have a price of H2 forecast, we assume the VOM to produce H2 would be included in the H2 fuel price and so the VOM should only be the VOM of a GTCC utilizing H2. Thank you, John Robbins on Twitter Share Hello - could you clarify the scope of what is intended to be included in the VOM for the candidate resource "power to H2 to power."? The value shown of $15.2/mwh is significantly higher than our estimates so we'd like to be sure what you intended to include in this number before we submit our comments by July 5. Since you have a price of H2 forecast, we assume the VOM to produce H2 would be included in the H2 fuel price and so the VOM should only be the VOM of a GTCC utilizing H2. Thank you, John Robbins on Linkedin Email Hello - could you clarify the scope of what is intended to be included in the VOM for the candidate resource "power to H2 to power."? The value shown of $15.2/mwh is significantly higher than our estimates so we'd like to be sure what you intended to include in this number before we submit our comments by July 5. Since you have a price of H2 forecast, we assume the VOM to produce H2 would be included in the H2 fuel price and so the VOM should only be the VOM of a GTCC utilizing H2. Thank you, John Robbins link

    Hello - could you clarify the scope of what is intended to be included in the VOM for the candidate resource "power to H2 to power."? The value shown of $15.2/mwh is significantly higher than our estimates so we'd like to be sure what you intended to include in this number before we submit our comments by July 5. Since you have a price of H2 forecast, we assume the VOM to produce H2 would be included in the H2 fuel price and so the VOM should only be the VOM of a GTCC utilizing H2. Thank you, John Robbins

    jrobbins0529 asked over 3 years ago

    Dear jrobbins0529,

    We will be modeling multiple hydrogen resources in this study. Hydrogen CTs, which are available in the "mature + H2 scenario," and Power to Hydrogen to Power (P2H2P), which is available in the "emerging technology case." The hydrogen price only applies to the Hydrogen CTs and not to the P2H2P. The assumption is that the former has access to abundant hydrogen available in a pipeline network and the latter produces its own hydrogen.

     The VOM of the P2H2P of $15.2/MWh includes VOM of its two components - the elecrolyzer (based on a UC Irvine study which includes periodic electrolysis cell maintenance and replacement, water purification, etc.) and the hydrogen CT (based on the NREL ATB which includes typical VOM costs for a CT). Thus, we are not double counting for the P2H2P since the VOM plus the endogenous energy price would result in an effective price of hydrogen produced by that resource.

    Regards,

    OPPD

  • Share Hello.  I was unable to attend the workshop, but have listened to the taped version.  I wanted to know if the small modular nuclear reactor technologies being considered include thorium nuclear options such as molten salt nuclear reactors and liquid fluoride thorium reactors.  Thanks! Joan Schrader on Facebook Share Hello.  I was unable to attend the workshop, but have listened to the taped version.  I wanted to know if the small modular nuclear reactor technologies being considered include thorium nuclear options such as molten salt nuclear reactors and liquid fluoride thorium reactors.  Thanks! Joan Schrader on Twitter Share Hello.  I was unable to attend the workshop, but have listened to the taped version.  I wanted to know if the small modular nuclear reactor technologies being considered include thorium nuclear options such as molten salt nuclear reactors and liquid fluoride thorium reactors.  Thanks! Joan Schrader on Linkedin Email Hello.  I was unable to attend the workshop, but have listened to the taped version.  I wanted to know if the small modular nuclear reactor technologies being considered include thorium nuclear options such as molten salt nuclear reactors and liquid fluoride thorium reactors.  Thanks! Joan Schrader link

    Hello.  I was unable to attend the workshop, but have listened to the taped version.  I wanted to know if the small modular nuclear reactor technologies being considered include thorium nuclear options such as molten salt nuclear reactors and liquid fluoride thorium reactors.  Thanks! Joan Schrader

    Joan Schrader asked over 3 years ago

    Hello Joan, 

    Thank you for your interest and comments. This is a very broad analysis over many years with many different technology options to consider. We are planning on sharing our technology screening and selection process in Workshop #3 on May 12th. Our modeling will likely include representative categories of resources as opposed to specific technologies. To the extent that a specific advanced nuclear technology has different cost or performance characteristics from others, then we can discuss whether that warrants inclusion as a separate resource option. Again, we will be requesting feedback during and after Workshop #3 and would welcome your input.

    OPPD

Page last updated: 04 Feb 2022, 04:26 PM