OPPD Board of Directors

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Give Us Your Feedback

Today is a time of change in the utility industry. Utilities must embrace innovation and move quickly to find new and better ways to deliver affordable, reliable and environmentally sensitive energy services to you, our customer-owners.

From time to time, OPPD’s Board of Directors will call upon customers to provide feedback on specific topics. Your feedback is used to help shape OPPD’s decisions and how we operate now and in the future.

We invite you to be part of the conversation. Please review the following information and give us your input.


Today’s Topic: SD-7 Environmental Stewardship Revision

OPPD was seeking feedback regarding Strategic Directive 7 – Environmental Stewardship Revision.

The deadline for comments was Friday, May 14. Thank you to those who provided feedback.


Click the image above to view the SD-7 revision


Next Steps:

OPPD’s board of directors will review all comments for consideration.


Public Records Disclaimer

Nebraska's public records law may require OPPD to provide to interested persons, including members of the news media, copies of your communications to us, including your name and other contact information.

Give Us Your Feedback

Today is a time of change in the utility industry. Utilities must embrace innovation and move quickly to find new and better ways to deliver affordable, reliable and environmentally sensitive energy services to you, our customer-owners.

From time to time, OPPD’s Board of Directors will call upon customers to provide feedback on specific topics. Your feedback is used to help shape OPPD’s decisions and how we operate now and in the future.

We invite you to be part of the conversation. Please review the following information and give us your input.


Today’s Topic: SD-7 Environmental Stewardship Revision

OPPD was seeking feedback regarding Strategic Directive 7 – Environmental Stewardship Revision.

The deadline for comments was Friday, May 14. Thank you to those who provided feedback.


Click the image above to view the SD-7 revision


Next Steps:

OPPD’s board of directors will review all comments for consideration.


Public Records Disclaimer

Nebraska's public records law may require OPPD to provide to interested persons, including members of the news media, copies of your communications to us, including your name and other contact information.

Guestbook

OPPD's Board of Directors is accepting comments on SD-7 Revisions through May 14. Please leave your feedback here in our guestbook.

CLOSED: This comment period has concluded.

The scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, from human activity contribute to climate change impacts? Absolutely... Scientists that have divergent opinions are defunded, silenced, and cancelled. Social influencers that raise valid questions are censored, silenced, deplatformed, and cancelled. Of course there is a consensus when questions and debate are prohibited.

Nebraskan 6 months ago

If OPPD is serious about climate change, convince China, Russia, India and Pakistan in addition to many more countries that are the real reason for climate trouble. The USA has accomplished a great deal already concerning climate change.
One of your directors described OPPD's proposal as politics and he is correct. Politics of various kinds are seriously harming this nation.

Sincerely Paul Liess

Paul Liess 6 months ago

The net zero carbon goal is tied to the reason for the goal - climate change. The Nebraska Chapter Sierra Club, representing about 2000 members in the OPPD district supports the addition of the new language in SD-7. Scientific American now uses the words "climate emergency" instead of climate change. "The Pentagon will begin incorporating climate analysis into its war-gaming and analysis efforts as well as featuring the issue as part of its future National Defense Strategy." The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says of climate change: "Inaction is not an option." The Sierra Club applauds OPPD for promoting science and not opinion related to climate change.

ednibroc 6 months ago

I am delighted to support the SD-7 Revisions. To critics who encourage no participation in political matters, are they not aware of the stance our state government has taken? For instance, there are bills being presented to ban wind turbines and other green initiatives. By the time it can be proven 100% that climate change is a real concern, it’ll be too late to have any kind of chance to preserve any form of our present climate. We should’ve acted 20 years ago, but now is better than waiting for catastrophic weather events to prompt action.

Jean 6 months ago

I totally support adding this climate change statement. This is a no-brainer. Thank you, OPPD.

Mjohnson099 6 months ago

Thank you, OPPD, for your increasing commitment to cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy. The vast preponderance of scientific data points to an alarming human role in climate change. We need reduce our carbon emissions dramatically and quickly. Carry on, wise stewards!

Toddfather 6 months ago

OPPD is not a scientific research institution. The proposed changes does not define the scientific consensus. Is this a scientific consensus of meteorologists, climate scientists, or of lagomorphologists? Without defining the the source of information the board looks to for guidance, it is up to interpretation. It is foolish to believe that we now know everything about climate science currently. Further study could point to a larger contributing factor to climate change. The proposed changes essentially communicate, "The OPPD board of directors have decided they are the end-all be-all on everything related climate science. Any further discoveries will be promptly ignored because we have stuck our heads in the man-made global warming sand."

I will not argue against the similarity between the carbon dioxide concentration and average temperatures timeline data, nor will I argue against carbon dioxide's emissivity in the infrared band. However, is the atmosphere warming up purely because of these emissions, or is it driven because our overall energy use is increasing? Entropy says everything we do eventually ends up in heat energy. My point is that If further science finds that climate change is not influenced by emissions as much as other factors, then the proposed changes show that the OPPD board does not know what they are talking about.

Additionally, there seems to be no limitations placed on actions from this resolution. One could say that with this statement, the board of directors should do everything in their power to refuse electrical service to every cattle rancher in their territory. Or they should retract and rebuilt Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant in order to pursue carbon-free electricity. Or, that OPPD should not pursue additional natural gas peaking plant reserves that would avoid frigid weather rolling brownouts like what was experienced last winter. Or that in lieu of these actions, the board should be sued. I know, I know, sovereign immunity. But the future isn't known, and laws do change.

It just seems like this resolution change is rushed, ill-concieved and is contrived to fulfill some back-room agenda that doesn't have OPPD's critical mission or customers in mind.

JMJ 6 months ago

I don't think OPPD has any reason to make political statements, especially about climate change. What good does it do? It is just being divisive and there is no need for that in this company. OPPD is suppose to be apolitical. Please vote NO Thank you.

JJW 6 months ago

As an OPPD customer, I wholeheartedly support Passage of SD-7 and believe it is imperative that OPPD take steps to minimize its contribution to manmade climate change.

Jimpanol 6 months ago

I applaud OPPD for enacting this very serious and meaningful vision and goal. The science is proven and it is a FACT global warming is occurring and is largely man-made. Ignore the politics and listen to the science. Hopefully it is not too little too late. Global temperatures are warming faster than scientists had predicted and if it continues at it's current pace there may be no point of return. I would implore OPPD to try and reach net-zero carbon emissions much sooner than 2050.

bw0429 6 months ago

S o, the Board is now proposing to rely upon a “ consensus “ of scientists to accept as “ fact” there is a human component to the alleged climate change?? Since when was ANY scientific “fact “ established by a consensus of scientists ?? Seems to me that in order for something to be a fact it MUST be undisputed and absolute, objectively proven. Otherwise, if objective dissent exists then something is not a fact, it is only a disputed theorem.
Such is man made climate change. For every scientist who believes in it I will find a dissenting belief backed by objective data snd information. Science never has been, and never will be, based on a consensus. If the Board is willing to deal with a consensus then it is truly only dealing with politics, not science, and it should be honest in so stating its position.

Earl Greene 6 months ago

I wholeheartedly agree with the proposed SD-7 Revisions. A supermajority of climate scientists agree that humans are contributing to global warming through the generation of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Their theories on global warming and climate change make logical sense to me. It is entirely feasible to me that human activity has the power to destroy the planet. My question to those who disagree is: What is the greater risk? 1. The science is wrong and we spend resources unnecessarily to combat climate change? or 2. The science is correct and we do nothing and our planet eventually becomes uninhabitable? Besides, the earth has a limited supply of carbon fuels which eventually will be exhausted, so at some point renewable energy becomes a necessity.

RGreer 6 months ago

I am an OPPD customer, and I fully support the inclusion of this new language. Some might say that this does not change how OPPD does business. But all successful business people know that a powerful reason why changes everything. Businesses who have a strong purpose outperform those that do not. It motivates employees by giving their work meaning. It aids leaders in decision making. I am sure every Omaha corporation that OPPD serves is talking about ESG initiatives along these lines. It's just good business.

rynpndll 6 months ago

I am glad to see OPPD accept the scientific consensus. It is unfortunate that so many people don't want to accept the reality of global climate change. I hope to see more information about how OPPD plans to prepare for our changing climate.

conservio 6 months ago

In mid-February, when it was 20 below zero, OPPD had rolling blackouts for the first time in company history. OPPD's board should focus on ensuring that never happens again, rather than issuing politically correct policy statements on climate change.

Vita Brevis 6 months ago

Applause for OPPD. The science deniers commenting here are repeating misinformation instead of learning the facts. Warming is occurring as predicted, and the increased energy in the atmosphere means increased energy in weather systems. Every year now, we see new record heat waves, droughts, derechos, floods, El Niños, wildfires, polar vertices, and hurricanes (ask the insurance companies).
Jim Bechtel, Omaha

Science is a self-correcting process of testing and confirming or disproving hypotheses, which is exactly the path climate science has taken, over the past two centuries of testing and confirming that have led to the present solid consensus.

Two centuries: Fourier in 1824, Tyndall in 1859, with his simple experiments (easily replicated in High School physics classes) that demonstrated how gases absorb long-wave heat radiation, and Arrhenius in 1895 who calculated the greenhouse effect. The carbon isotopes in the CO2 identify the escalating CO2 as coming from fossil fuels (1979).

Solid consensus: Every professional scientific organization in the country: our National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, the Geological Society of America and many more.

Our tragedy is that the scientifically illiterate deniers cling desperately to their vast conspiracy theories and refuse to make the effort to learn any real science, even though www.realclimate.org has a special section "for beginners."

The same lobbying firms and contrarians hired by the tobacco industry to sow confusion about lung cancer now work for the petroleum industry to create doubts about climate science, as thoroughly documented by Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes.

Take it seriously. In 2009 the CIA established a Center on Climate Change and National Security. The CIA's expert analysts issue increasingly severe warnings about the threats to our national security from climate disruption. Again, kudos to OPPD.

Jim B 6 months ago

This is clearly politically motivated. It will make some people really happy and some people really mad and for what purpose? To create even more conflict? Here's an idea just shut up and do you job. Giving your opinion about the origin or factors contributing to climate change is not OPPD's job.

Comeonman 6 months ago

I am opposed to OPPDs plan. I suggest all persons interested in following the science on this topic read the new book due out on May 4 titled, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why it Matters.” The book is authored by Stephen Koonin who was a chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department. He recently gave an interview to the Wall St Journal (4/18-19/21). “Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but but that what the media and politicians and activists say have drifted out of touch with actual science as to be absurdly false.”
Mr. Jenkins writes the Business World column for the Wall Street Journal. He has this to say after reading “Unsettled “, “Any reader would benefit from its deft, lucid tour of climate science, the best I’ve seen. His rigorous parsing of the evidence will have you questioning the political classes compulsion to manufacture certainty where certainty doesn’t exist. You will come to doubt the usefulness of century long forecasts claiming to know how 1% shifts in variables will affect a global climate.
“Mr Konin agrees that the world has warmed by one degree celsius since 1900 and will warm by another degree this century. Neither he nor most economic studies have seen anything in the offing that would justify abandoning the rapid and wholesale abandoning of fossil fuels.
He is a fan of advanced nuclear energy, as am I to provide carbon free base load, as am I.
Erroneously, most people believe we can change CO2 levels easily but “40% of the CO2 emitted a century ago remains in the atmosphere...Any warming it causes emerges slowly so any benefit would be small and distant.”

Roseann Slattery 6 months ago

I am sorry. This is all politics. There is no scientific consensus on man made climate change. The only facts are carbon dioxide is increasing and plants love it. There are scammers trying to sell OPPD on "green technology" and use this flawed theory to push their products. If there was any validity to the theory, tell me, tell us all, how much carbon dioxide should be in the atmosphere? We don't know. One third of Earth land mass is a desert. If anything should be done, plant more plants.

PutFreedomFirst 6 months ago

So what kind of science is being used to show the real existence of climate change? And what facts is it based on? Is it just future projections?

jettardz 6 months ago
Page last updated: 15 May 2021, 07:14