OPPD Board of Directors Feedback SD-9 (2023)

WE NEED TO FOLLOW PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE IN MAKING OUR DECISIONS. Here are soundings from major scientists on the climate/clean energy issues.

1. NATURAL GAS IS A DISASTER.

WE HAVE KNOW SINCE AROUND 2008 THAT NATURAL GAS IS NOT A BRIDGE FUEL TO A RENEWABLE FUTURE. IT DOES NOT REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING FOR DECADES TO A 120 YEAR FROM NOW.
Here is a quote of the press release of one important study, among many, by Tom Wigley, who is a senior research associate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
“While coal use causes warming through emission of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, it also releases comparatively large amounts of sulfates and other particles that, although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight. . . . Wigley’s computer simulations indicate that a worldwide, partial shift from coal to natural gas would slightly accelerate climate change through at least 2050, even if no methane leaked from natural gas operations, and through as late as 2140 if there were substantial leaks. After that, the greater reliance on natural gas would begin to slow down the increase in global average temperature, but only by a few tenths of a degree.”
Thus to have any benefit post 2050, methane leakage rates must be kept below 2% (see his study here, p. 607)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0217-3.
It is important to note that NOAA studies over Colorado showed leakage rates of 4% and over Utah showed leakage rates of 9%. See this study in one of the two most prestigious general scientific journals. https://www.nature.com/articles/493012a

2. NATURAL GAS IS DELAYING THE DEPLOYMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY. See this study. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/094008

3. WORLD RENOWNED SCIENTISTS ARE COMING OUT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF NET ZERO BY 2050. “LARGE AND SUSTAINED CUTS TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSION NEED TO HAPPEN NOW”.
Here is an article by three of the founders of the idea, including Bob Watson, former chair of the IPCC. https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368. Here is a summary quote of the article.

“We have arrived at the painful realization that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier ‘burn now, pay later’ approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar… The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now.”


4. ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS TOO HIGH. THE CLIMATE SYSTEM IS SHOWING SIGNS OF INSTABILITY AND IS ON THE EDGE OF TAKEN US INTO A NEW STATE THAT THREATENS THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY. ALL FUTURE EMISSIONS MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. IT IS FAR LESS DANGEROUS AND LESS EXPENSIVE TO NOT BURN FOSSIL FUELS IN THE FIRST PLACE AND RAPIDLY MOVE TO RENEWABLES.
The amount of CO2 that must be removed will range from negligible (if the emissions of CO2 from the energy system and short lived climate pollutants have started to decrease by 2020 and carbon neutrality is achieved by 2050) to a staggering one trillion tons (if CO2 emissions continue to increase until 2030 and the carbon lever is not pulled until after 2030) ( See, Xu & Ramanathan, 2017; https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1618481114) Pulling 1 trillion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere will cost an estimated $300 trillion, an insane sum of money. (See James Hansen paper, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf, p. 592) It is far less expensive and reduces our risks considerably if we do not put the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place

5. THE COMMENTS THAT DISMISS RENEWABLES, OFTEN IN FAVOR OF NUCLEAR, ARE NOT WELL INFORMED. Amory Lovins, who is a highly credentialed physicist and consultant to utilities, destroys the idea the renewables are unreliable. Here are some relevant excerpts:
“If steady 24/7 operation or operation at any desired moment were instead a required capability of each individual power plant, then the grid couldn’t meet modern needs, because no kind of power plant is perfectly reliable. For example, in the U.S. during 2003–07, coal capacity was shut down an average of 12.3% of the time (4.2% without warning); nuclear, 10.6% (2.5%); gas-fired, 11.8% (2.8%).25 Worldwide through 2008, nuclear units were unexpectedly unable to produce 6.4% of their energy output.26 This inherent intermittency of nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants requires many different plants to back each other up through the grid. This has been utility operators’ strategy for reliable supply throughout the industry’s history.
Modern solar and wind power are more technically reliable than coal and nuclear plants; their technical failure rates are typically around 1–2%. However, they are also variable resources because their output depends on local weather, forecastable days in advance with fair accuracy and an hour ahead with impressive precision.27 But their inherent variability can be managed by proper resource choice, siting, and operation.
. A Stanford study found that properly interconnecting at least ten windfarms can enable an average of one-third of their output to provide firm baseload power.29 Similarly, within each of the three power pools from Texas to the Canadian border, combining uncorrelated windfarm sites can reduce required wind capacity by more than half for the same firm output, thereby yielding fewer needed turbines, far fewer zero-output hours, and easier integration.30 A broader assessment of reliability tends not to favor nuclear power. Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built—just over half of the 253 originally ordered—21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems. Another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants have lately averaged ~90% of their full-load full-time potential—a major improvement31 for which the industry deserves much credit—but they are still not fully dependable. Even reliably-running nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for ~39 days every ~17 months for refueling and maintenance. Unexpected failures occur too, shutting down upwards of a billion watts in milliseconds, often for weeks to months. Solar cells and windpower don’t fail so ungracefully. (see p. 6 of chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths.pdf )

NUCLEAR IS CURRENTLY TOO EXPENSIVE.
I think there should be more research and potential deployment of Fourth Generation Nuclear makes but right now 2nd generation nuclear is way too expensive and is not going to help us decarbonize in the short term. Here is another quote by Lovins: “New plants cost 3–8x or 5–13x more per kWh than unsubsidized new solar or windpower, so new nuclear power produces 3–13x fewer kWh per dollar and therefore displaces 3–13x less carbon per dollar than new renewables.” (see https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/why-nuclear-power-is-bad-for-your-wallet-and-the-climate )

WE ARE IN A CLIMATE EMERGENCY
A paper from 2018, signed by 11,000 scientists demonstrated that we are in a climate emergency. The paper stated,
“. . . We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. …The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”
William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R Moomaw, World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency, BioScience, Volume 70, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 8–12, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088

DURING THE PANDEMIC WE CELEBRATED THE HEROISM OF DOCTORS AND NURSES FOR SAVING AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE DAY AFTER DAY, OFTEN RISKING THEIR LIVES. NOW IT IS OPPD’S TURN TO STEP UP AND LEAD WITH COURAGE.
How is OPPD responding to the climate emergency? Can Management really say that it is impossible for them to do more to accelerate renewable energy deployment and they have exhausted all possible efficiency tools, etc., to avoid the reliance on more fossil fuels? If it is impossible to do more, then they can sleep with a good conscience. If it is possible for them to do more and they choose not to do more, then they will have to answer to their consciences and their children who will bear the consequences of catastrophic warming.
Richard Miller, Ph.D.
Professor of Sustainability Studies
Creighton University

The level of Demand Response (DR) in proposed SD-9 is too low and should be raised to reduce the capital investment in generation. The low DR level proposed indicates an overdependence on costly new generation rather than a balanced approach delivering affordable and environmentally sensitive energy services to its customers.
The proposed level of DR as a percent of peak load is, in comparison:
-Less than half of OPPD’s history of DR, as evidenced by OPPD data reported to EIA,
-Less than half of OPPD’s peers; less than half of Nebraska statewide range,
-An order of magnitude lower than best in class levels reported to EIA, and
-Far lower than levels recommended by experts in field.

As a customer of OPPD I an deeply bothered by the amount of money wasted on the continuing ads run by OPPD. It seems that the current leadership of OPPD is more interested in feel good unreliable sources of energy than in providing its customers with the cheapest most reliable sources of energy which should be its goal. Nuclear is one of the cleanest and most reliable sources of energy yet they shut down Fort Calhoun after getting it up to standards. Perhaps they should look at Europe who are discovering the folly that is wind and solar with the current tech and are returning to nuclear. Magic and dreaming will not power us into the future

As a resident of Omaha, I am deeply worried about the long-term effects that additional fossil-fuel generation will play into not just our city's climate resiliency but the overall effort to stop further climate change. By now, the science is out and there is irrefutable evidence that points to our need as a society to make a bold and drastic push towards renewable energy. From my personal prespective, it is dishearting to see OPPD contemplating the idea of more natural gas generation, as I beleive that such a decisino would push back its already promised decarbonization goals. It has already been well documentated that the additional need for energy generation is because of the new tech data centers which will be built in Douglas and Sarpy County. Although it is not wrong for Silicon Valley to want to utilize Nebraska for its company infrastruture, I beleive that it is OPPD's duty to exhaust all available options/opportunities that can keep it on track for his decarbonizatino goals. Such efforts should be made in tandem with both tech industry and the federal government in attempts to invest in greater battery storage, energy efficiency and taking advanatge of all the funding provided in the Inflation Reducation Act. It would be a disservice to the average OPPD customer to have to bear both the near and long term effects of increased fossil-fuel usage.

Jordan Anderson

What good are deadlines unless there is a penalty for failure and an incentive for success?

I proposed that a 10% clawback on the CEO's salary if the deadlines are met and a 10% bonus if the deadlines are satisfied.

That's fair.

David D. Begley
Customer-owner

Solid scientific research proves we do not have much time left to protect ourselves and our children from climate change effects—every year that we don’t change to renewables causes enormous suffering. Please make a solid plan with a timetable and interim metrics to achieve (or even better-- beat!) the OPPD goal of net zero by 2050.

Please intensify the prioritization on renewables because they are a cleaner, more affordable energy source.

Please provide interim metrics on how OPPD plans to reach the 2050 decarbonization goal given the new investments in fossil fuels and need to ramp up production to meet the energy needs of data centers and other high-intensity users.

The Near Term Generation proposal as written will contract for over 900 MW of new fossil fuel infrastructure by 2025, while 900 MW of new renewables will not be reached until 3 years later in 2028. Thank you.

As an individual, I can green my life as much as possible, including electrifying my life (geothermal in my home, no more natural gas, electric cars and power tools, insulation, e-bike, etc.) — but that will not get us to where we need to be regarding climate change. I need to work collectively with others, especially with our Public Power District. I/we need you to green our energy/electricity more quickly. We need to move the date for net-zero up to 2040 instead of 2050. We need the Near Term Generation proposal 900 MW of new renewables to be online by 2025. We need a higher priority on renewables because they are a cleaner, more affordable energy source. We need to provide interim metrics on our decarbonization goal given the new investments in fossil fuels. Let’s start with the planetary emergency that is climate change and work backwards to increasing our speed of transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. I understand we need base load and peak generation and low cost, etc., etc., etc. We also need a habitable Nebraska and planet. Read Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. Do better. Do it faster. We cannot do it alone as individuals. Let’s do it together. Thank you.

Solar panels and wind turbines are highly susceptible to extreme weather conditions. NPPD lost a solar farm to hail damage earlier this year, no word on the cost of repairs and how long the farm was out of service. Solar panels also lose efficiency over time. We can’t afford to lose these forms electricity generation due to weather and risk brownout and blackout situations during high demand periods. Also, since these farms are out in the country on prime farm land, what is the cost to build transmission lines, secure the easements, to reach and serve customers? Where is nuclear power generation in the generation mix for OPPD? This is the ultimate green source of electricity generation and should be part of the long term plan for customers. Coal and gas generated electricity must stay in the mix based on projected consumer and industrial growth. We need the North Omaha and Nebraska City plants to stay on line. Generation from coal and gas must stay in the plan and override “green” initiatives. Customers ultimately will not go without electricity and lower their standard of living to 100 percent support green initiatives.

Removed by moderator.

The U.N. climate panel report recently stated that climate change today is a "code red for humanity", warning the world is already certain to face further climate disruptions for decades, if not centuries, to come, especially if action is not taken. It is therefore our duty to take sustainable action towards energy production. While the upfront costs may seem unreasonable, it is necessary to consider the current and future implications on the climate and plan for inevitable strain of an increasing population of climate-driven displaced peoples who have been directly and indirectly impacted by the decisions of OPPD and other power providers.

I live in North Omaha, we have the worst air pollution due to the coal plant paired with worse insulation for heating and cooling. Our energy burden needs to be offset by OPPD investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy in North and South Omaha.

One of my reliable sources informed me that it can cost at least $3m per mile for high-power transmission lines. Is that what it will cost to bring electricity from York County (K-Junction Solar) to Omaha? It's 83 miles from York to Omaha. That means $250m added to an already expensive and inefficient project.

OPPD is not at all transparent about the true and fully loaded costs of solar and wind.

David D. Begley
Customer-owner

Renewables (wind and solar) are a fool's errand. There are many flaws to the system those devoted to it overlook. E.g. non-recyclable materials, dependence on China and other countries, kills wildlife, reliance on federal subsidies (someone still has to cover that cost) and everyone understands it is not reliable. Drive-thru Iowa sometime and look at how often the turbines there aren't turning. It can be part of a plan but there shouldn't be a heavy reliance on it.
You should be looking at nuclear energy (SMRs) and maintain the use of natural gas which is environmentally friendly but not given a fair assessment. Your papers show you will keep using gas and I applaud that. But it should be a higher percentage of the proposed plan. Regarding nuclear energy, there may not be many being built in the US (blame environmentalists, not the technology) but there are plants being successfully built in other countries. I understand you are looking at short-term answers, but OPPD should be looking at long-term solutions just as well, and moving towards them, today.
Solar panels and wind turbines all have short life spans and if OPPD waits till after solving the short-term problem to solve the long-term problem you will be right back where you started - trying to solve another short-term problem. Except you will be out of office and have passed the problem on to others, particularly the ratepayers. I'm not trying to sound cynical, but that is the reality of the situation.
Also, the Earth's CO2 levels are not in danger of heating the planet. There is plenty of scientific research to show it has been far higher in the past and temperatures did not spike. In fact, temperatures have gone down in many cases during a period of CO2 increases. CO2 is also good, and necessary, for agriculture and all plant life. Models have been wrong for years and many environmental scientists understand it's not the demon it's made out to be.
Last point for the Board, how much of the push to wind and solar is coming from the technology companies that have moved into our area (facebook, google)? There must be a lot. It has been reported in the media as a requirement by them and your direction implies you are accepting it. The average consumer is more concerned about reliability and pricing, especially the lower and middle class.
If we go the way of California with high prices and constant threats of brown-outs who will take the blame for following that path? If those companies insist on it, then place them on their own grid, pay higher prices, and accept the risk of reliability.

Sincerely,
Chip Riedmann

Please invest in smart meters and ways to charge peoples electric cars during off demand hours and use their battery for times of high need. Please stop fossil fuel plants from operating. Encourage people to purchase less & use less energy. We have to move to a circular economy. Invest in ways to store the extra energy my solar panels create. Science is shouting that we need to move as fast as possible to reduce carbon pollution. Do not fall for the simple “business as usual” mantra. It is difficult and expensive, but that is the result of so many years of inaction.

I applaud your focus on renewable generation. I hope you find a place for renewable natural gas in your plans. I believe RNG is going to play a major role in the nations' energy production going forward. I hope OPPD helps lead the way. Wind and solar are an obvious choice going forward but RNG will help address the intermittent nature of those choices.

Best Regards,

Erik Voien

The timeline as outlined on the draft Resolution by OPPD is moving at breakneck speed. Landowners in the affected areas have not had ample time to review plans comprehensively. Residential perspectives are markedly different than commercial. (Fairness)

OPPD is one of many NE public utilities that has operated cost efficiently in the past (comparative to other states/local service areas.) There are key areas regarding these new technologies, operational, and maintenance concerns for the future and impacts, particularly fiscal. The alternate procurement methods as noted in the draft resolution are concerning, as the draft specifically seeks relief from NE Revised Statutes Sections 70-637 through 70-641. Engineering Certification from OPPD has great bearing to validate construction costs, project scope, and future impacts to project(s) undertaken. Public projects of this magnitude can carry much unintended risk. Transparency and commitment to public involvement will be key to support the Near Term Generation Resource Plan.

Any plan moving forward? It doesn’t heavily include nuclear is not a serious plan. Wind and solar sound nice but are not reliable enough to power out growing area.

With the amount of data centers that you’re adding in your power generating area, I strongly suggest more reliable power generation.

I would guess if you’re having a shortage you’re not gonna turn the power off at Facebook and Google. It’s going to be our neighborhoods.

Suggest that Demand Response minimum be significantly increased and an associated implementation year be included. Recognize that increased energy efficiency is not a resource but greater emphasis on assisting customers with efficiency goes hand-in-hand with management of resources.

Please be a leader in prioritizing renewable energy as a top priority. Climate change is here. We are feeling the effects. Please don't wait until it is too late.

Any form of energy storage is a net consumer of energy. Including batteries as a resource assumes that there will always be enough excess generation available to charge them. How safe is that assumption?

OPPD intends to rely more heavily on wind & solar. This will put the utility, its customers, and the regional power pool at risk of power shortages. Wind and solar have highly variable output, and cannot be relied upon to provide a given amount of power when it is most needed. The “accreditation” limits for wind appear to assume that wind will always provide at least 14% of nameplate capacity at any given time. What if that assumption is overly optimistic? How is OPPD addressing that risk?

Please explain how it’s possible to meet a goal of net-zero-carbon without using nuclear for base load generation. OPPD is dismissing SMRs because (1) they can’t be in place by 2030, (2) they cost too much, and (3) nobody else has built any yet. If all the utilities wait for someone else to “go first,” then no SMRs will ever get built. OPPD apparently prefers to be a follower rather than a leader in this regard.