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 5: Initial Results is now closed

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

Feedback for Workshop 5: Initial Results was accepted through Nov. 7. The comment period is now closed.

If you want more information or have additional questions about Pathways to Decarbonization, please click here.



Previous Workshops

We have hosted 5 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 first four 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

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.


Upcoming Workshops

The workshops are technical in nature and designed to build from one another. It is highly recommended to watch previously recorded workshops before attending upcoming workshops.

Join us for Workshop #6 (Dec. 9. 4-6 p.m.): Final Results. To register, click here.

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

The comment period from Workshop 5: Initial Results is now closed

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

Feedback for Workshop 5: Initial Results was accepted through Nov. 7. The comment period is now closed.

If you want more information or have additional questions about Pathways to Decarbonization, please click here.



Previous Workshops

We have hosted 5 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 first four 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

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.


Upcoming Workshops

The workshops are technical in nature and designed to build from one another. It is highly recommended to watch previously recorded workshops before attending upcoming workshops.

Join us for Workshop #6 (Dec. 9. 4-6 p.m.): Final Results. To register, click here.

Guestbook

OPPD accepted comments on the Initial Results through Sunday, Nov. 7. (Previous comments were received from the first four workshops and the June 18 Data Release, and August Interim Modeling Update).  

CLOSED: Feedback from Workshop 5 is now closed.

I support the plan to achieve net zero by 2035.

Midightmama4 28 days ago

If only Congress and OPPD had taken decisive action soon after Dr. James Hansen told them global warming was a problem in 1988 the world wouldn't be in this crisis today. But we are, maybe because they were afraid to use their political capital at that time. We need leaders to take action now. I hope OPPD will be one of those leaders.

Mark Welsch 28 days ago

Citizens' Climate Lobby's national staff continue to tell us that a price on carbon is still on-the-table in Congress.

Not working harder on a price on carbon is causing more damage and costs to Nebraska farmers, ranchers and some cities that will have to move because of recurrent flooding.

Mark Welsch 28 days ago

IMHO, it is primarily because OPPD does not support and lobby for a price on carbon and dividend that Don Bacon does not support it. He needs the public support of OPPD because it is one of the largest users of fossil fuels in his district.

Mark Welsch 28 days ago

Ag is the number one industry in our state. OPPD should stop harming it.

Mark Welsch 28 days ago

Farmers, ranchers and communities are being harmed because OPPD has and continues to burn fossil fuels, causing global warming and climate change. OPPD should quickly work to protect them for more harm by ending the use of fossil fuels.

Mark Welsch 28 days ago

OPPD said it will be hard to comply with the regulations they are hearing about in the Reconciliation Package Congress is working on. OPPD should officially and publicly endorse the effort to put a price on carbon and pay people a dividend. Congress is talking about a price on carbon right now. Endorsing it would support the dividend that would protect OPPD customers from any higher prices that might happen because of changes mandated by regulations and the price on carbon.

OPPD's mission statement is "To provide affordable, reliable and environmentally sensitive energy services to our customers." OPPD's board and staff need to make providing environmentally sensitive energy their top priority. Not in all cases, but most of the time being environmentally sensitive has been done only if it was very affordable.

A price on carbon is the cheapest, quickest, easiest, and simplest way for this country to reduce our carbon emissions throughout all sectors of our economy, not just the electric generation part of it.

Implementing a plan to be net-zero carbon by 2035 should be done.Having a Federal price on carbon would make it much more likely for new innovations to be created that will make that goal easier and less expensive.

Mark Welsch 28 days ago

Yes I support the plan to achieve net zero by 2035.

Rjpaetz 28 days ago

I am pleased to see the tremendous effort that OPPD staff & management have put into understanding and developing the pathways to decarbonization for the district. It is clear that there is acknowledgment of the necessity of rapidly ending the carbon emissions that have historically result from power generation, and moving to renewable clean energy.

After the recent Workshop presentation, the Net Zero Accelerated pathway would provide substantial positive progress toward the goal we must achieve.

It is absolutely essential that we as a community, as a state, nation, and world decarbonize. As. Fast. As. Possible. Accelerating the pace of brinnging clean energy resources online and ending the emissions from outdated fossil-fueled generation is necessary if we are to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic impacts of global climate change.

While I would prefer to see OPPD set and achieve the pathway of Net Zero by 2035, I acknowledge that might not yet be clearly possible with the current capabilities of the district. Anything less than the objectives laid out by the Net Zero Accelerated pathway irrevocably guarenntees our children and grandchildren will have to spend the entirity of their lives struggling against the impacts of climate change we have caused. That is not the legacy I want to leave to future generations.

I'll be proud to tell today's children that we did everything we possibly could to support and protect them, now, and in years to come. It is comforting to me to know that we have leaders at our public power district who share this dedication and passion about securing a clean, safe, bright future.

Please, I ask you, set a pathway that decarbonizes OPPD as fast as possible. Thank you.

ScottHW 28 days ago

Thank you for providing detailed information and a reasonable time for public input at these workshops. I support net zero by 2035, given the relatively low projected costs. Overall, I consider it the most ethical, and the pathway of least regret. I note that the definition of "net zero" has shifted, and will need to be firmed up. The most important metric is lowering total net carbon dioxide emissions. In this context, rapid transfer to renewable generation is the most effective. Energy efficiency has the biggest payoff early on, when the proportion of fossil fuel generation is the highest. This will require a large shift for both OPPD and consumers.

I remain concerned that there may be a systemic underestimate of the ongoing effects of climate change if the Monte Carlo simulation of loads, renewable profiles and generator outages is not conducted properly. If you run 1000 years of model simulations, but only sample the observed weather from the last 40 years, you will obscure the risk that we will repeat a scenario like the 1930s, or worse. For example, a 1-day-in-10-year high temperature for Omaha in the past 40 years is 106F, and the highest observed was 109F. Yet, in the 1930s, there were 9 days with temperatures of 110F or higher, and the major heat waves featured clustered days of extreme temperatures. There should be at least one scenario where our temperatures are simulated to reach the highs actually observed in Portland OR last June, 108F, 112F, and 116F on successive days. While renewable generation may be vulnerable to extreme heat, it is also true that such heat waves mostly occur during periods of severe drought. This means that the use of the Missouri River for cooling water could be restricted, affecting fossil fuel generation.

JPollack 28 days ago

Thank you for your hard work as you prepare OPPD’s proposal to achieve net zero by 2050. It appears that it is within OPPD’s reach to move up the net zero time frame to 2035, with just a 1% rate increase per year in your modeling scenarios. While not all stakeholders will be able to absorb a rate increase, there are many ways these increases can be offset: namely a carbon dividend generated from a price on carbon.

With a vacuum of leadership at the state level in the area of climate change, OPPD is now being relied upon as a trusted leader as our city navigates the effects of climate change and prepares for the future. Please consider moving your net zero target to 2035. It’s the right decision for today for a better tomorrow.

ifinnegan3 28 days ago

The quantity of affordable natural gas available to OPPD may decline much sooner than predicted during Workshop #5.
See the article titled: The US shale revolution has surrendered to reality
Excerpt: "Investors are not interested in losing more money on any U.S. shale. The latest survey of oil and gas companies by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas makes that very clear: “We have relationships with approximately 400 institutional investors and close relationships with 100. Approximately one is willing to give new capital to oil and gas investment. The story is the same for public companies and international exploration.”
https://www.nationofchange.org/2021/07/19/the-us-shale-revolution-has-surrendered-to-reality/

Exploration and Production companies have been drilling in the most productive shale areas, where production from the average well declines more than 85% during the first 3 years. Future drilling will be done in less productive areas where annual production declines will be even faster.

NOTE: Production of natural gas from conventional (non-shale) wells has been declining for many years.

Jon 28 days ago

Key terms in the Workshop #5 discussion appear to have shifted from the way they were used at the beginning of this process. Treating gas generation emissions as offset through renewable exports is not “net zero” for 2050 and in violation of the board’s directive. “Real” net zero requires any GHG emissions be offset through negative emissions, e.g. carbon capture and storage, so that there is no net contribution to global GHG levels by OPPD. “Absolute zero” would mean no GHG emissions from OPPD production at all, or in Mr. Ming’s words during the workshop “any type of offset at all.”

To claim that paths treating renewable exports as offsets in 2050 and absolute zero paths “both result in the same amount of total GHG emissions” seems to assume that other utilities in our market will fail to meet the goal of net zero by 2050, which while possible, is not an assumption it is ethical to make in our preparations. Treating exports in 2050 as equivalent to negative emissions is a dangerously misleading claim of equivalence in relation to climate impacts and it represents planning to fail in OPPD’s net zero goal.

The net zero by 2035 pathway should be adopted to help OPPD prepare for a potential price on carbon and to meet with international bodies such as the IPPC and IEA’s announced imperatives for electrical sectors in advanced economies to reach global net zero by 2050. The prevented emissions if we adopt the 2035 path relative to the moderated 2050 path, 103 MMT, would be equivalent to the annual total carbon footprint of about 6.5 million average US citizens or around twice that of the poorest 30 million people in South Africa.

Costs are not simply “in the eye of the beholder” but have real concrete meaning in relation to different populations ability to pay to mitigate and adapt to climate change. We need to use the decarbonization planning process to ensure affordable bills for Nebraskans through targeted programs and to do our part to make sure we all pay our fair share in maintaining a livable future, not only for people vulnerable to climate impacts here in Nebraska but around the world. We cannot just externalize those real environmental costs onto the vulnerable, nor expect those without the economic resources to pay for the necessary transition. Even the scenario of meeting absolute zero without emerging technologies, which Mr. Burdick described as “not economically feasible” is far more economically feasible than paying the economic consequences of failing to meet the emissions reductions science tells us is necessary to mitigate climate change. When considering externalized environmental costs as well as the difference in economic costs, the 2035 path seems the clear choice.

Ryan Wishart 28 days ago

Our family goes out of its way to limit our carbon footprint and feel it is the least OPPD could do. We strongly feel that 2035 is enough time to shoot for net zero carbon emissions. It may be too late already sow hat are you waiting for?!

csherwin 28 days ago

I am highly in support of net zero by 2035 goal

Laura Komenda 28 days ago

I fully support the goal of net zero by 2035. Achieving net zero as soon as possible is critical for the health of our planet and to minimize the effects on human health. Furthermore, as a student at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, achieving net zero by 2035 would better align with and support our campus net zero building emission goal by 2030.

orpaetz 28 days ago

Thank you to OPPD board for setting the decarbonization goal by 2050 and pushing for this public decarbonization workshop series. I am glad that the team included models for net zero by 2035, as OPPD really should be reducing our GHG emissions before 2050. I appreciate the commitment to energy efficiency (EE) included in the model as it is much more than what is happening now, and I'm excited to see OPPD drive this increased EE with on-bill inclusive financing (eg Pay As You Save) along with additional incentives and programs that ensure diverse customers have access to these upgrades and savings. It looks like demand response is included in capacity, but it pretty small piece of capacity in 2050. I also only see small amount of customer-owned distributed energy resources (DERs). It seems like there could be more demand response and along with EE and customer-owned DERs and that these could help lower costs and help us get to zero GHG emissions sooner. A good reference on this is the Local Solar for All roadmap: https://www.localsolarforall.org/roadmap Another benefit of EE, demand response, and DERs is that customer-owners of OPPD become active participants in reducing emissions and get to receive benefits of more comfortable homes and lower bills. I was impressed at the relatively low cost of getting to net zero by 2035 versus business as usual, and I want to reiterate support for a zero emission goal by 2035. Thank you to the board & staff, and I look forward to continuing to engage in this process.

LizVeazey 28 days ago

Initial results from OPPD's decarbonization study clearly indicate that decarbonization is not only possible, but achievable at reasonable cost either by 2050 or 2035. The reasons for choosing 2035 over 2050 are many, but boil down to providing significant benefits for a small additional cost. Addressing climate change sooner rather than later greatly reduces the costs that result from destabilized weather systems.

Another result shows that providing large amounts of wind and solar generating capacity, in the near term, would be a "no regrets" policy that would not result in stranded assets. One concern with solar and wind capacity is what to do with the oversupply during high renewables periods. The study seems to propose exporting renewables as a path to net zero. However, when OPPD is experiencing weather conditions that maximize production, much of the rest of SPP will be also, so there may be little demand at those times. Another path to net zero would be direct air capture using oversupply as an energy source. If OPPD co-located direct capture facilities with renewable generation facilities, and only ran them during oversupply, it could minimize transmission requirements and use the combination to stabilize the grid too.

Alan V 28 days ago

I think it would be the optimum act OPPD could take to decarbonize by 2035. OPPD would be a national leader to do so and set an example for other electricity districts. The planet is in crisis. If we don't do all that we can NOW to counteract climate change, the weather extremes and resulting disastrous and astronomically expensive costs will only increase. Whatever the cost now to decarbonize will be small in comparison to rectify and repair disasters caused by extreme weather. Please set on the pathway to decarbonize by 2035.

adduey2015 29 days ago

Thank you for your work in looking out for our health as you provide us electricity. I live in the inner-city where we have been disproportionately effected by lead and other pollution, some of which likely came from the coal generation plant in North Omaha. Please cut all fossil fuel generation by 2035, even if it raises electric costs. Thank you. Mary Ann Krzemien

Don Preister 29 days ago
Page last updated: 23 November 2021, 11:41