Workshop Recordings and Feedback

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this 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.


Guestbook

OPPD accepted comments on the Final Results through Friday, Dec. 17. (Previous comments were received from the first five workshops and the June 18 Data Release, and August Interim Modeling Update). 

CLOSED: Feedback from Workshop 6 is now closed.

Thank you for taking public comment on the Initial Results presentation for Decarbonization Pathways.

Small Cost to Net-Zero - I was pleased to see that the increase in cost between “net-zero” balanced by 2050 and “net-zero” by 2035 was nominal– 0.2 cents / kwh (slide 48). I do understand that this cost increase happens faster, but the total increase of 16% (slide 26) is small in my view, especially given the importance of addressing climate change. Climate change will cost Nebraskans and people around the world extreme amounts of money and grief in the future – from flooding and storms to dealing with significant global migration. Just look at costs from the 2019 flooding here for Offutt, farmers and homeowners, as this storm was made more severe by climate change. I know that all of you understand this point, so I don’t believe that a 16% increase (or even 20%) over 14 years is significant. For those users just that are disproportionately impacted, OPPD should address this through programs or adjusted rate structures.

Concern with “Net-Zero” definition - I am concerned that OPPD’s version of “net-zero” does not include carbon capture, but that it seems “net-zero” is achieved by exporting clean energy. This still results in emissions. It is difficult to project the technologies that will be available in 15 years, let alone 30 years, so I am not sure this needs to get nailed down in 2021. However, this leads me to believe 2035 would be a much better goal for this “net-zero.” At a later date closer to 2035, achieving absolute zero, and then negative emissions, could be analyzed based on technologies at that time.

Concern with DATE for “Net-Zero” – The only scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent 2021 report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/) where temperatures do not continue to increase through 2100 is scenario SSP1-1.9 (see Table SPM.1 in Summary for Policymakers). My children, and your children or your grandchildren, will likely still be alive in 2100. This scenario (IPCC AR6 WGI SSP1-1.9) has GLOBAL emissions reaching Net-Negative before 2060 – and continuing to pull more and more CO2 out of the air each additional year beyond 2060. The International Energy Agency released “Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector” (https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050) in May of 2021. This Roadmap prescribes “overall net-zero emissions electricity in advanced economies” by 2035. That would be OPPD. The U.S. is an advanced economy. And the people who have elected the OPPD Board members since 2016 have predominately elected Board Members that care about addressing climate change in a thoughtful, balanced and yet urgent manner.

Conclusion – Net-Zero by 2035 should be the goal – Science and the smartest minds working on climate change say OPPD (an electric utility in an advance economy) should be at net-zero by 2035 if we want to meet the global goal of Net-Zero by 2050. The impressive Energy + Environmental Economics study concludes that reaching net zero by 2035 is possible for OPPD with existing technologies, and that this would result in a small cost increase, just over 1% per year for rates. OPPD is a public utility and the people who have elected its Board have consistently shown that climate change is a top priority. The public of OPPD’s service territory wants to see climate change addressed through moving OPPD to clean energy as soon as practicable – which I clearly see as 2035 this to this Energy + Environmental Economics study. Thank you for doing this Decarbonization Pathways study, I hope this can move OPPD forward to Net-Zero by 2035.

KGC 9 months ago

I was very disappointed in the energy mix that was being proposed during this workshop. Solar and wind take up too much land and during the presentation it was even admitted that it is not reliable and that we would still have to rely on fossil fuels during the times that the wind and solar generation cannot keep up or becomes non-existent. If our main concern is to provide carbon-free energy, we need to go nuclear. Cost should not matter. Nuclear provides decades of carbon-free, dense, reliable, and sustainable energy. Closing FCS was a mistake. I was told that to keep FCS operating for another 20 years would have cost upwards of $994 million. The projected cost of closing and decommissioning FCS is over $1 billion and we no longer get any power from it. We cannot achieve "net-zero" carbon emissions unless we have reliable, sustainable nuclear power.

breny426 9 months ago

Feedback left after this comment is from Workshop 5.

Sarah Lake 9 months ago

The VOM for a GTCC using natural gas, a blend of natural gas and Hydrogen, or 100% Hydrogen is approximately $2/mwh per Mitsubishi Power assuming a 600 MW GTCC plant. We recommend using $2/mwh instead of the current assumption of $4.6/mwh. Respectfully, John Robbins, Mitsubishi Power.

jrobbins0529 about 1 year ago

Thank you for clarifying what you intended to include in the VOM cost for the power to H2 to power option.

The VOM for power to H2 based on alakaline electrolysis per EPRI LCRI (May 20, 2021 Electrolysis TSC Meeting presentation) is 0.211 $/kg which converts to 8.8 $/mwh assuming 100% H2 use in a 600 MW CCGT plant. The VOM for H2 to power assuming a 600 MW CCGT plant using 100% H2 is approximately $2/mwh per Mitsubishi Power. Thus, the total VOM for power to H2 to power would be $8.8/mwh plus $2/mwh or $10.8/mwh. As a result, we recommend revising the current assumption of $15.2 /mwh to $10.8/mwh. We tried to attached the EPRI LCRI presentation cited but could not do so. If you would like us to send it to you for review, please let us know. Respectfully, John Robbins, Mitsubishi Power.

jrobbins0529 about 1 year ago

Thank you for the opportunity to give more feedback on the Data Release.

I reference you to the Memo of 5-28-21, sent to Emily Muth, from Thomas Vitolo, Phd. His comments reflect my thoughts, so I say ditto. Thank you!

Don Preister about 1 year ago

The top priority for OPPD needs to be removing the coal-fired power plant from North Omaha. Converting the plant to gas is cleaner than coal, but it is not sufficient. Our community members in North Omaha deserve air that is equally as clean as our community members in Dundee, West O, and Aksarben. The North Omaha power plant is an embarrassing example of environmental racism that should have been addressed years ago.

nickmccreary93 about 1 year ago

The model should include what would happen to power plants in the Missouri River floodplain if one or more of the upstream dams were to break during a record flood event.
I should have added:
This includes power plants above and below OPPD's power plants, because if other systems plants are taken out of service, there will be less power available in the Southwest Power Pool.

Mark Welsch about 1 year ago

The model should include what would happen to power plants in the Missouri River floodplain if one or more of the upstream dams were to break during a record flood event.

Mark Welsch about 1 year ago

The model should include a price on carbon.

Mark Welsch about 1 year ago

The models should have net zero by 2030, 2035 and 2040 included.

Mark Welsch about 1 year ago

To be a true model, Climate Change must be included. Predictions include many more days over 100 degrees. What will that do to the load on OPPD's systems?

Going back only 50 years is "cooking the books" by ignoring hot weather in the 1930's when it got up to 110 and hotter! OPPD needs to include the hot weather from the 1930's in their modeling. I'm told it was hot in the 1920s as well. Why ignore the hot past? It all should be included in the models for the future.

A true decarbonization plan must look at, generation, transmission, and how much of the fossil fuels that are used in everyone's lives will be changing quickly to electric power. Electric vehicles may be the only vehicles sold within 10 or 15 years. People and businesses will use electric heat pumps for HVAC, hot water, electric stoves and clothes dryers, etc. This must be in the models. 

The model must include what OPPD can do to with legislation to change the amount of fossil fuels used throughout this area, country and the world. To not do that ignores the part of the mission statement that mentions the environment.

The model should include how OPPD can encourage everyone to convert their homes and businesses from using fossil fuels to electricity.

The model should include how OPPD can encourage everyone to be more energy efficient with insulating homes and businesses and every other way possible.

Mark Welsch about 1 year ago

The modeling scenarios I am most interested in seeing are net zero and near zero by 2035 both with and without a carbon price. I believe these scenarios are most interesting because there may be a mandate for clean electricity by 2035 and there may be a carbon price to encourage achievement of that target. The information generated by the model could be very valuable to both management and the board of directors as they make critical decisions over the next few years. Also, confidence in estimates of demand, price, and available technologies is higher between now and 2035 than it is between 2035 and 2050.

Alan V about 1 year ago

I attended Workshop 4. From my perspective as a meteorologist, the proposal to use data from the last 50 years to evaluate scenarios for system reliability and resiliency is insufficient, but could be fixed if a few adjustments are implemented. As was pointed out at the end of the workshop, using past data doesn't incorporate climate change. In our region, this can be approximated by choosing data from a point further south. Taking data from one degree latitude south would correspond to a regional warming of about 1C, at least as much as would be expected in 30 years. To test realistic potential heat extremes that the system might be subject to, it would also be necessary to incorporate a hot scenario at least equivalent to the summers of 1934 and 1936, which were hotter than anything in the modern record for most of the SPP region, including the OPPD service area. In recent heat waves, hot and humid conditions with relatively light winds have been predominant. The 1930s heat waves were generally very hot and dry, with stronger winds. This would make a difference for both wind resources, and electricity demand for air conditioning vs. agricultural irrigation. Generator cooling water availability is also potentially affected differently. The 2012 heat wave was a modern analog of very hot, dry conditions. It should be scaled hotter to reflect 1934 and 1936 conditions, and this could be developed as an extreme heat wave scenario. Severe winter cold is adequately sampled in a prior 50-year dataset. However, a climate change concern not addressed sufficiently is an expected increase in icing events. These are more prevalent and severe further south, and are expected to increase in our region. This could be addressed by shifting the winter data grid northward for icing scenarios. The two subtypes that would threaten the grid are severe accumulation events, and prolonged light icing events. The former could potentially take down power lines. The latter might disable wind generation, even if the ice load is insufficient to threaten power lines, because the turbine blades would be moving through an elevated layer of increased ice accumulation. Of course, during an icing event, locally available solar generation is minimal, due to heavy cloud cover.

JPollack about 1 year ago

I attended Workshop 4: Developing Modeling Approach and wanted to provide feedback on the response regarding future climate change and how that would be incorporated into the models. I believe that the speaker said that the climate records for the past 50 years would be used as the future climate in the scenarios you will be running. I believe a better approach would be to contact the Nebraska State Climatologist, Martha Shulski at UNL for data on future climate predictions. She has provided an excellent synopsis of the future climate predictions for different parts of NE. Her analysis has been used for both surface and groundwater modeling across the state and the same data could be used for OPPD's work. She uses the global climate models developed by the IPCC.

Karen Griffin about 1 year ago

I recently attended the OPPD decarbonization meeting. I was the participant who bought up that OPPD has a unique opportunity with an industrial customer with an existing installation of 132 MW of electric boiler load. These boilers are currently mothballed. With the correct financial incentives, the boilers could give OPPD 132 MW of demand response while offsetting steam produced from gas boilers. Think of them as a “Reverse Peaking Plant”. Let me know if you would like to discuss my idea.

cmaras over 1 year ago
Page last updated: 04 Feb 2022, 04:26 PM