I support home solar, but solar farms in the Midwest just don't make sense. I also believe it is dishonest and misleading when you state that you plan on building 1100 MW of solar generation. The second nuclear plant that was supposed to be built at Fort Calhoun Station would have produced about that much power and had been able to provide it reliably 24/7 on the 660 acres already designated for it. The plant itself takes up about a tenth of that land and the rest is covered with lush vegetation that scrubs out carbon emissions. To build 1100 MW of solar generation would require over 10,000 acres of land. It would rarely actually reach the peak generation of 1100 MW, and only during the day, and it would not be capable of having the same amount of lush vegetation that you can have on a nuclear site.

To stop the coal fired turbines at North Omaha will cost $X millions. For that cost, what is the scientifically correlated benefit in degrees of global warming avoided?

The solar incentive for residential customers sounds like a good idea. This would reduce the load on OPPD generating power. During a heatwave the solar energy at the home may not be enough and the home may have to request supplemental power from OPPD. Still this would be a reduction in the power load used by a home with solar power. OPPD should estimate the power savings it would have if a certain percentage of home owners were generating their own solar power.

Thank you for completing your decarbonization study and Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). I am happy to learn of your plans for continuing along decarbonization pathways. This is a great step towards making energy more sustainable for your ratepayers. I am a strong advocate of reusable energy and I would be extremely happy if OPPD would commit to making our power coal-free in the next decade. By committing to an accelerated decarbonization program with benchmarks to reduce carbon emissions and to remove coal power from OPPD’s portfolio of energy sources, I feel that OPPD’s commitment to renewable energy sources will prove that OPPD is helping to create a legacy that the community can stand behind and feel proud of. Federal policies seem likely to continue to favor decarbonization in the form of incentives and/or carbon taxes. Fortunately, OPPD seems well aware of these motivating factors and in a good position to continue advancing effectively towards zero carbon.
Specific items in the IRP that I was happy to note were the solar incentives program and other programs designed to moderate consumption in the Five-Year Demand-Side Action Plan (Table 1-2) on page 4. It is good to feel that the energy consumer has some options to help contribute towards developing a cleaner power source and a better future for our community.
Stephen Jacobson

How much is it going to cost OPPD ratepayers to achieve net carbon zero? Per page 123 of the 2021 IRP, OPPD says that 5.6 GW of new wind and 4.7 GW of new solar is necessary. The report also claims that lithium batteries will provide 2.0 GW. They don't exist now.

Using the costs for solar and wind just published by MidAmerican Energy, I calculate a capital investment of $23 billion. Add in inflation and natgas peaking plants, and the cost could be over $32B.

When is OPPD going to level with customer-owners about the TRUE cost of net carbon zero?

The consultant claims that rates will only increase by 16% by 2050. That's laughable. The debt service on $23B will drive rates through the roof; just like in Germany. Right now OPPD only has $1 billion in revenue.

David D. Begley
Customer-owner