Correction: The Omaha Public Power District is expected to file an integrated resource plan with the Western Area Power Administration early next year. An earlier version of this story misidentified the authority that will receive the plan.

The Omaha Public Power District and the Sierra Club, often at odds over energy issues, have found some important common ground: The utility can achieve its goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 at minimal additional cost — or even slightly reduced cost — to customers. 

The utility and environmental group both recently made public the results of computer modeling by consultants to determine how the utility could meet its net-zero goal while minimizing impacts on reliability, resiliency, and affordability. 

OPPD’s consultant, E3, estimated that by 2050, the cost to customers would increase by less than 1% per year. The Sierra Club’s consultant, Synapse Energy Economics, concluded that minimizing or eliminating coal and natural gas could be achieved at a slight savings compared to the company’s current course.

“Our modeling and theirs show they can do this,” said John Crabtree, who represents the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign in Nebraska. “It’s feasible. There are things they can do now. The primary obstacle is: Will they have the courage to do this?”

Colton Kennedy, the utility’s manager of corporate planning, concurred that there is “an overwhelming similarity” in the consultants’ assessments of the need and the company’s ability to replace coal-fired plants with more renewables and greater efficiency.

“Investing in significant quantities of wind, solar, and battery storage is a robust and low-risk action for OPPD to achieve net zero targets,” the company’s consultant wrote. More specifically, the authors said OPPD could be confident in developing 1,100 megawatts of solar, 500 MW of wind capacity and 150 MW of battery storage by 2030.

However, the modeling reports parted ways on a couple of issues, most notably timing and the future role of natural gas.

The Omaha Public Power District in the past few years has accelerated its transition to renewable energy. The board of directors has been tilting increasingly toward renewable power as customers — who elect the directors in this public-power state — have chosen directors with clean energy agendas.

In 2019, the board adopted Power With Purpose, a commitment to reduce carbon emissions from the utility’s power generation. It calls for adding between 400 and 600 MW of solar capacity, along with 600 MW of new natural gas capacity. Both are under development.

Crabtree said the main message of Sierra Club’s Synapse study was the imperative to act quickly, even though the utility has given itself nearly 30 years to reach net-zero. A faster transition means a larger total reduction in greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, Crabtree said.

“We set out to demonstrate to them that there are feasible pathways to retire their coal by 2030 and decarbonize their generation even more by 2035, and Synapse’s modeling makes that case,” he said.

Kennedy said the E3 modeling indicated that earlier implementation probably would be only modestly more costly than later implementation, but that speedy action “may pose implementation and integration challenges.”

As for future use of natural gas to generate electricity, Synapse concluded it’s unnecessary, and that renewables and battery storage in sufficient quantities, along with aggressive reductions in energy use, can meet customer needs at all times.

By contrast, modeling for the utility found a need across all scenarios for some natural gas. E3 models indicated that with the continued growth of wind and solar, the squeeze on the power supply will shift from periods of peak demand to times when the sun and wind aren’t delivering.

To fill in the gaps, E3’s model chose to convert the Nebraska City Station’s 1,345 MW of coal capacity to natural gas for every pathway to net-zero. The timing varies, however. It would convert one unit between 2030 and 2040, and the other unit between 2035 and 2045.

Although the Sierra Club and other clean energy advocates want electricity free of fossil fuels, Crabtree said the gap between their vision and OPPD’s modeling is smaller than it might appear. The E3 modelers conclude that a very modest increase in gas capacity should suffice. Crabtree calls that a “striking similarity” to Sierra Club’s no-gas position.

“Some states have scores of new gas plants, Texas in particular. Their answer to shedding coal is to build new gas. That’s not what OPPD is doing here.”

Moreover, modeling indicates that the refueled units would run only very occasionally, well below a 10% capacity factor. And typically, Crabtree said, plants converted from coal to gas aren’t run for more than a decade or so.

The E3 modelers said emissions could be further reduced by blending natural gas with some hydrogen, which does not emit carbon dioxide.

The authors write, “Study results indicate high potential with this approach, but there is still a lot to be learned as this market develops.”

Each consultant designed a number of scenarios to reflect varying combinations of coal, natural gas, renewables, and storage. E3 focused on various ways to reach net-zero by 2050, OPPD’s desired endpoint. Synapse modeled generation mixes stemming from a half dozen coal and gas scenarios, ranging from business as usual — the greatest proportion of fossil fuels — to scenarios with one or no new gas plants and no coal generation.

Although E3 projected out to 2050, Synapse only modeled through 2035 because, Crabtree said, “We do not believe that going that slow will have the impact we need to address the climate crisis. There are feasible pathways to retire their coal by 2030 and decarbonize their generation even more by 2035.”

Both modeling exercises began by assuming reduced energy consumption due to greater efficiency. The utility’s consultant assumes yearly energy savings of slightly less than 1%, in keeping with the recent results of the company’s efficiency efforts, or a projected reduction of about 22% between 2025 and 2050.

Synapse, by contrast, envisions energy use falling by 1.5% annually by 2025 and by 2.0% yearly by 2030. In 2035, the model forecasts consumption leveling off at about 16,000 GWh rather than 18,000 GWh in the OPPD reference load.

To meet those ambitious targets, OPPD would have to become one of the most efficient utilities in the country, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Dan York, the council’s senior fellow for utilities and local policy, said only five utilities in the country manage to reduce energy consumption by more than 2% yearly. Annual reductions of 1% are typical, he said.

OPPD plans to incorporate modeling findings into an integrated resource plan that it intends to file with the Western Area Power Administration in February. Then, the utility will conduct feasibility studies of specific supply- and demand-side options identified in the decarbonization study.

Omaha utility and environmentalists agree on the path to net-zero — but not the timeline is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Correction: The docket in which stakeholders are seeking access to MidAmerican documents was opened by the Iowa Utilities Board to examine issues found to be outside the scope of an earlier docket related to environmental compliance for its coal plants. An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the docket’s origin.

Iowa’s largest electric utility is appealing an administrative ruling that it must share long-range resource planning documents with environmental groups and other stakeholders who agree not to divulge confidential information.

MidAmerican Energy filed the appeal on Dec. 8, the day it was expected to comply with a Nov. 23 order from the Iowa Utilities Board giving three environmental groups and two large customers access to company information.

The utility’s challenge is the latest volley in a broader fight over transparency and accountability surrounding MidAmerican’s clean energy transition. Despite being a national leader in wind power, the company continues to operate five coal-fired power plants that critics suspect are not economical or necessary.

“MidAmerican has been working to slow down this process and avoid outside input or additional oversight of its plan,” said Michael Schmidt, an attorney for the Iowa Environmental Council, one of the groups seeking access to the utility’s documents.

A spokesperson for MidAmerican said the information at stake is “proprietary and legally protected,” and that its release could hurt the company’s competitive advantage — and, by extension, harm customers.

Environmental and customer advocates are in the dark about the utility’s long-range plans in part because, unlike most states, Iowa does not require utilities to regularly file what’s known as an integrated resources plan. Those dockets typically provide a forum for utilities, state regulators, and other stakeholders to debate load forecasts and generation plans.

In the absence of those routine planning dockets every couple of years, the main opportunity stakeholders have to debate a utility’s direction happens around rate cases, which can be infrequent. MidAmerican hasn’t sought a rate case since 2013 and is not expected to do so anytime soon.

The current docket, in which the access to documents is in dispute, follows a conversation about the utility’s compliance with coal plant regulations. Iowa utilities are required to file plans every other year that explain how they will keep their coal-fired power plants in compliance with state and federal environmental regulations over the following two years. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the state’s Office of Consumer Advocate must sign off on the plans before regulators approve them.

In MidAmerican’s most recent coal compliance docket, the consumer advocate asked whether the most cost-effective way to comply with regulations might be to shut down coal plants and invest in other generation sources. The office eventually proposed a settlement with MidAmerican in which its coal plan was approved but a new, docket was opened to discuss broader issues about the utility’s long-range generation plans.

The Iowa Utilities Board rejected the settlement but opted to open a new docket to address issues beyond the scope of the coal docket. That’s where the action has taken place since May. The Sierra Club, Iowa Environmental Council, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center joined the docket, along with Facebook and Google, which operate large data centers in MidAmerican’s service territory.

In a typical contested case, such as one for determining rates, all of those joiners would have access under a nondisclosure agreement to view confidential information submitted by the utility as part of its case. In this case, though, the utility argues that the purpose is only “information gathering.” Because of that distinction, it argues, outside parties should not be privy to proprietary information.

A staff lawyer for the Iowa Utilities Board, without ruling whether it was a contested or informational case, concluded that MidAmerican should be required to privately share the information with the environmental and customer groups. The utility has now appealed and is asking for an administrative law judge to intervene, saying the proposed order contains errors.

“At every step in the process, MidAmerican seems to be as resistant as possible,” said Josh Mandelbaum, an attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center, which wants an opportunity to analyze and provide feedback on the utility’s plans to the utility board.

MidAmerican spokesperson Tina Hoffman said the company is simply trying to maintain the privacy that the law allows. 

“In this matter, we contend the documents at issue are proprietary and legally protected that, if disclosed publicly, could impair MidAmerican’s competitive advantage, increase project costs borne by customers, and ultimately disadvantage our customers,” Hoffman said. “MidAmerican is properly and appropriately engaging the board on this matter, as the law allows.”

Responses to MidAmerican’s appeal are due Dec. 22.

In Iowa, a lack of long-range planning dockets leaves utility critics in the dark is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Iowa clean energy advocates are eager to see the impact of a new voice on the Des Moines City Council in a critical year for the city’s energy future.

Indira Sheumaker, a 27-year-old Black Liberation Movement activist, defeated a two-term incumbent for one of the city’s six council seats. She focused her campaign on racial justice and police reform. She also spoke in support of clean energy.

Supporters expect Sheumaker to take a bolder stand for clean energy and energy equity than her predecessor would have as the city negotiates a new franchise agreement in 2022 with utility MidAmerican Energy.

Sheumaker agreed.

“I’ll be much more aggressive,” she said. “I see the urgency in making big changes now. It’s going to impact my future.”

In January, the Des Moines City Council adopted one of the nation’s most ambitious clean energy targets, aiming to achieve 100% 24/7 carbon-free electricity by 2035. As opposed to net-zero, in which cities or companies can offset daytime power use with cheap nighttime renewable credits, 24/7 involves matching generation with the hours the city actually consumes power.

The goal may be out of reach without buy-in from MidAmerican, which despite being a national leader in wind energy continues to own and operate five coal-fired power plants. The utility’s portfolio is expected to be an issue as the city negotiates a new franchise agreement, a multi-year contract that lays out the terms of the utility doing business in the city. 

Josh Mandelbaum, a clean energy attorney who was reelected to the Des Moines City Council last month, sees the franchise agreement as an opportunity to push MidAmerican to help the city meet its 24/7 clean power goal, something it likely couldn’t do without closing its coal plants. Sheumaker said she supports that strategy.

“I intend to push for that,” Sheumaker said.

Kari Carney, executive director of the environmental nonprofit 1,000 Friends of Iowa, expects Sheumaker to be a champion for clean energy and provide an important perspective on equity in the city’s clean energy transition.

“We’ve been trying to figure out how to make sure no one is left behind in the clean energy transition,” Carney said, “how to set up low-income solar, how to create inclusive financing, how to get landlords to do more around energy efficiency.”

Sheumaker is going to make “a huge difference” in the council’s approach to energy issues, said Jess Mazour, conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club’s Iowa chapter. She’s frustrated with what she sees as a lack of vision on the city’s energy policy. Traditionally, she said, the city has offered “option A” and “option B” when the council is debating how to move forward.

“Indira is going to introduce ‘Option C’ — an option no one else is talking about.”

In Des Moines, activist’s City Council win raises hopes for clean energy push is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

In September, Kansas’ largest electric utility walked back an earlier announcement that it would close a Lawrence coal plant by 2023 and build 700 megawatts of solar capacity by 2024. 

The utility, Evergy, is now proposing to keep one unit of the power plant open as a natural gas peaker, while scaling back its solar plans.

Clean energy advocates say the move undermines faith in a state-required stakeholder process known as an integrated resource plan, or IRP. The IRP isn’t binding, and Evergy says the shift represents a change in timeframe rather than ambition.

But advocates say what’s unique about this case is the utility is already departing from its IRP before it’s even been signed off on by state regulators.

‘Wrong as soon as it is finished’

Joe Daniel, a senior energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists who has testified about numerous integrated resource plans — including this one — said utilities not uncommonly seek to modify their resource plans in midstream, and for good reason. These proceedings can take a long time, and pertinent factors, such as the price of natural gas or state or federal regulations, can change.

“What I’ve never seen is a utility opening a new docket while their integrated resource plan is underway, and asking for approval of the resource plan in the other docket,” he said. In so doing, he wrote in testimony filed with regulators, Evergy “severely undermines the legitimacy of this IRP and erodes trust with stakeholders. … The Commission should reject the current IRP and order the company to restart the IRP process, including stakeholder engagement.”

The Kansas Corporation Commission has not yet responded to that request.

Evergy spokesperson Gina Penzig said the company decided it needed to postpone some solar projects because some of them “are less mature in their development and lacked clear cost and timing aspects related to land control and interconnection of the solar generation to the transmission system. 

“In addition, the solar supply chain faces some unique constraints.”

By 2032, the revised plan for adding renewables and closing coal-fired plants “will be in line with what was proposed in the IRP,” she said, although the transition will be slower.

Integrated resource planning is by nature “dynamic,” said Linda Berry, a spokesperson for the Kansas Corporation Commission. And due to changes in technology, the marketplace and other factors, an IRP “will be wrong as soon as it is finished. This is why there is an annual review for two years and a completely new IRP modeling process every third year.”

‘Finite resources’ to scrutinize utilities 

The difference between Evergy’s resource plan, filed on May 28, and the requests made in the “predetermination” docket, opened on Sept. 20, provoked an outcry among clean energy proponents.

Ty Gorman, Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal representative in Kansas, pointed to an absence of new evidence or analysis proving that maintaining one unit of the Lawrence plant to burn natural gas would be instrumental in the event of another storm like the one in February.

The resource plan envisions closing both units of the 487-megawatt coal-fired Lawrence Energy Center by 2023. The revised plan filed in September backs off from that and proposes closing only one unit, and operating the second unit occasionally using natural gas.

The renewables vision also was overhauled. While the integrated resource plan proposed adding 350 MW of solar in 2023 and again in 2024, the predetermination docket — which gives a utility a sense of whether it can charge ratepayers for a given expenditure — shrank the 2023 vision to 190 MW and postponed the second 350 MW piece until 2026.

Gorman said the predetermination docket’s revamped vision upended stakeholders’ role in the resource planning process, which Berry called “the primary value of an IRP. … It allows stakeholders a voice in what capital resource investments should be considered prior to the actual investments.”

Daniel said a predetermination docket “doesn’t have the type of stakeholder engagement that an IRP typically does.” Compared to an integrated resource plan, he said, it is likely to be every bit as — if not more — “opaque to the public.”

Before stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the IRP process, Gorman said, Evergy crafted its revised vision “and changed what they had shared with intervenors. They went around the IRP process to make their energy plan.”

The integrated resource plan is a complex document that stakeholders invest in heavily, often paying consultants to scrutinize models and the assumptions that underlie them, for example. Critics of the plan typically represent entities that depend on donations, like the Sierra Club and the Kansas Climate & Energy Project.

While advocates can also intervene in the predetermination docket, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Kansas Climate & Energy Project have not asked permission to do so. Daniel said the Union of Concerned Scientists is still considering whether to invest time and money to try to shape the revised proposal in the predetermination docket. All three filed extensive comments about the integrated resource plan.

“We all spent money on lawyers, technical expertise and analysis,” Daniel said. “People have finite resources. The utility essentially uses ratepayer funds for all of their analysis. They can do all the analysis they want and ratepayers pay for it.”

Analysis is off the table for now. On Oct. 26, Evergy asked regulators to temporarily suspend the predetermination docket “to allow more time to develop some additional information necessary for the evaluation of its predetermination filing.”

On Nov. 2, commissioners granted the request.

Evergy’s conflicting power plans undermine stakeholder input, critics say is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Kansas City officials should know soon whether a second attempt to install solar panels at the city’s airport has wings.

A feasibility report is expected in the coming weeks for a plan to install a large solar array in a strip of city-owned land along the airport’s runways. City officials said the property could accommodate between 200 and 700 megawatts of solar capacity, though the size is likely to be around 300 MW.

The effort follows a canceled attempt last year to put panels on an airport parking ramp, and it comes amid a growing sense of urgency to meet the city’s climate and clean energy targets. The City Council postponed a 100% renewable energy goal for city operations to 2022 after missing its initial 2020 deadline.

“It’s going to take creative and innovative strategies if we’re ever going to make headway against climate change,” City Manager Brian Platt said. “We’re looking to lead by example — to be one of most sustainable and energy-efficient cities in the country.”

Platt began running city operations almost a year ago after serving as city manager in Jersey City, New Jersey. There, his team developed a 2.2-megawatt solar array that powers a public works facility and electric vehicle chargers. 

The recent climate compromises in the federal reconciliation bill show why aggressive climate action at the local level is needed, Platt said. He’s optimistic about Kansas City’s chances to go big on solar power. One thing solar requires is a lot of space, and “one thing we have in Kansas City is land,” he said.

If successful on the scale Platt envisions, the airport solar project would be among the largest solar projects in the country and perhaps the largest one within a major city’s boundaries.

“Incredible” is how David Golembeski characterized the scope. He’s a program manager for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. Cities typically have leased their land for arrays of 10 to 100 kilowatts, he said, but “more and more we’re seeing them above 1 megawatt.”

Besides providing power and reducing carbon emissions, Golembeski said large solar farms on public land can demonstrate to the community that “it’s not so scary” to go solar.

Platt thinks a solar project in the city’s backyard would help lower electricity costs and make its power system more resilient by reducing reliance on the broader power grid.

“We’re trying to take out the steps of where energy goes before it gets to your light switch,” he said. “If we can produce it here in Kansas City, that’s great.”

The city owns about 5,000 acres alongside and on the outer edge of two of the airport’s three runways. Development potential there is limited by strict height limitations, Platt said. One of the few viable uses — storage and distribution — is already under development on city land on the opposite side of the airport.

The feasibility study will address a wide range of questions, including how many of the acres are suitable for solar panels, how much power could be generated, what transmission and distribution investments would be needed, and whether glare would present a problem.

If it seems to be financially and technically doable, the city will need to make a partnership with the local utility, Evergy. The city could also decide to contract with a third-party solar company to develop the site and then sell the site or the power to Evergy.

Evergy spokesperson Gina Penzig said the company “has been in conversations with the city to explore solar at KCI and is aware of the feasibility study. Evergy is glad to offer information and support to our customers where appropriate when they are exploring sustainable energy goals. About half of the energy delivered to our customers is from emission-free sources and we are working to grow that.”

In the integrated resource plan it filed with state regulators earlier this year, the company said it intends to add 350 MW of solar capacity in 2023 and again in 2024.

Evergy and the city government abandoned plans for a 5-megawatt community solar array atop a six-story parking garage that will be part of a new airport now under construction. An engineering consultant warned that the project would create too much glare for air traffic controllers. The city is pursuing a community solar project elsewhere instead.

If glare becomes an issue again, Platt said he is confident of finding a solution, such as changing the orientation of the panels. He noted that airports across the country have devised ways to generate solar power.

“Unfortunately, all too often when things get difficult, everyone can point to reasons it won’t work,” Platt said. “But we in Kansas City are looking for the path to ‘yes,’ and the creative approach to solving these problems.”

Kansas City hopes its vision for airport solar will be ready for takeoff soon is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.