OPPD Business News

Post by **Brad** » Mon May 16, 2005 7:30 pm

OPPD to double size of Elk City Station power plant

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=1412193

Post by **Coyote** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:38 am

J.D. Power and Associates Reports:
Satisfaction with Electric Utility Companies Increases Despite Volatile Energy Prices and Sluggish Economy

Overall satisfaction with electric utility companies has increased in 2008, marking the first time since 2005 that the industry has improved, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2008 Electric Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction StudySM released today. Omaha Public Power District ranks highest among midsize utility companies in the Midwest. Louisville Gas & Electric follows Omaha Public Power District in the segment, while Kentucky Utilities closely follows Louisville Gas & Electric to rank third.

freedomfighter · Post by **freedomfighter** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:31 pm

They do great in providing service and keep prices low. Â The OPPD board is another story. They have gone green whacko. We already have alternative energy in the form of nuclear power yet they trying to push this absurd idea of windpower.

Also, it would help if OPPD got on the back of the other utilities to clear the lines of tree branches.

Post by **Coyote** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:51 pm

Maybe no more:

Nebraska utility is phasing out some coal units, and it won’t cost that much

The Omaha Public Power District in Nebraska announced on Thursday that it will retire three coal units in the next two years at its North Omaha plant and transition two other units to natural gas within a decade.

The three coal units will be retired by 2016, the public utility said. Another two units at that plant will get updated pollution controls by 2016 as well, and will transition to burning natural gas by 2023. OPPD will similarly retrofit its Nebraska City coal-fired station and implement new energy-efficiency programs to reduce demand.

The utility said the changes would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 49 percent, and cut nitrogen and sulfur oxide emissions by 74 percent and 68 percent, respectively.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:45 pm

I've heard from an inside source at OPPD that next year OPPD will be making some budget cuts. Not sure what they will cut, but it's my guess it will be some of their educational programs, I.E Powerdrive (For those of you who don't know, high school kids build cars that run off of car batteries and race them around the state in the spring).
I wonder if the Fort Calhoun fiasco managed to drain their budget that much, surely they have to be turning a profit every year, right?

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:00 pm

I imagine retiree pension/benefits are a drain enough.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:50 pm

Apparently they aren't considering reducing the 1000 or so employees earning 6 figure salaries.

jessep28 · Post by **jessep28** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:49 am

nativeomahan wrote:Apparently they aren't considering reducing the 1000 or so employees earning 6 figure salaries.

I've never understood the Republican mentality that employees of public or semi-public institutions need to be earning a below market wage.

Post by **BRoss** » Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:32 pm

jessep28 wrote:
nativeomahan wrote:Apparently they aren't considering reducing the 1000 or so employees earning 6 figure salaries.
I've never understood the Republican mentality that employees of public or semi-public institutions need to be earning a below market wage.

Their mentality is "screw the government, the private sector can do it better and cheaper," which is complete BS.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 12:15 am

Once upon a time... the premise was, public sector employees were warranted a pension, to compensate for their mediocre salary. Today, they have a salary commensurate with the private sector, low deductible/premium health benefits, and the usual pension, the rest of us in the private sector were stripped of, years ago. It just isn't sustainable.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Sat Sep 13, 2014 7:37 am

Stargazer wrote:Once upon a time... the premise was, public sector employees were warranted a pension, to compensate for their mediocre salary. Today, they have a salary commensurate with the private sector, low deductible/premium health benefits, and the usual pension, the rest of us in the private sector were stripped of, years ago. It just isn't sustainable.

Although there are salaries that possibly equal to private sector salaries, in my view it just seems the ones on top. I have been in education for 34 years and have a Masters degree and am a long ways from a so called 6 figure salary. Also 9-10% of my monthly salary goes into the pension fund. So I really hate generalization

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:40 am

In plans going before OPPD board this week: 4 percent rate hike and rate restructuring

Proposed timeline
Jan. 1, 2016: Average 4 percent general rate increase
June 1, 2016: The monthly service fee for residential customers would rise from $10.25 to $18.
Jan. 1, 2017: The flat service fee would rise to $25.
Jan. 1, 2018: The flat service fee would rise to $30.
Jan. 1, 2019: The flat service fee would rise to $35 a month. Over the course of the changes, the usage rate will have fallen 28 percent.

My wife and I are usually pretty conscious about our electric consumption and are rewarded with a low average monthly bill of around $55-60. Looks like I am not going to care as much in the future if the proposed rate change takes place.

Under the plan, with a service fee of $35 a month, a high-usage residential customer who used 1,200 kilowatt-hours a month would see their average monthly bill drop from $137 to $127. Conversely, a low-usage customer who used only 500 kilowatt-hours a month would see their bill go up $10, from $63 to $73.
Average users — 850 kilowatt-hours a month, or a bill of $100 — would see little or no change, Monroe said.

If the board approves the general rate hike, an average OPPD residential user with a $100 monthly bill would see an increase of $4. The higher rates still would be 7.1 percent below the regional average and 16.9 percent below the national average, Easterlin said.

TLGJames · Post by **TLGJames** » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:41 am

This is going to hurt all the low energy users bad. In the spring/fall, my electricity bills are literally around 35 bucks.

daveoma · Post by **daveoma** » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:00 am

Shouldn't they reward people who are using less energy? WTH?

Post by **Brad** » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:17 am

Are there different rates for Commercial, Industrial, and Residential?

Post by **nebugeater** » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:39 am

Brad wrote:Are there different rates for Commercial, Industrial, and Residential?

Yes there are.

The different business Rates are linked from this OPPD page.

http://www.oppd.com/business/economic-d ... mparisons/

And the residential rates.

http://www.oppd.com/residential/residential-rates/

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:54 pm

In an era where the prevailing trend is to encourage energy conservation, this is completely backwards. I fully understand that utilities with fixed distribution networks need a steady base revenue to maintain their distribution infrastructure, but this new rate proposal drastically reduces the incentive to use less electricity.

Some of the articles have touched on the minimal changes to commercial and high-volume users. This is going to disproportionately affect small residential customers and people on low incomes (who are more likely to live in small houses/condos/apartments and use less electricity). I can just about guarantee you this will cause my bill to go up, and we live in a 1500SF single-family home. I guess my effort to convert to more efficient appliances and lighting was a poor investment.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Thu Nov 19, 2015 3:04 pm

Seth wrote:In an era where the prevailing trend is to encourage energy conservation, this is completely backwards. I fully understand that utilities with fixed distribution networks need a steady base revenue to maintain their distribution infrastructure, but this new rate proposal drastically reduces the incentive to use less electricity.

Some of the articles have touched on the minimal changes to commercial and high-volume users. This is going to disproportionately affect small residential customers and people on low incomes (who are more likely to live in small houses/condos/apartments and use less electricity). I can just about guarantee you this will cause my bill to go up, and we live in a 1500SF single-family home. I guess my effort to convert to more efficient appliances and lighting was a poor investment.

I am feeling the same way. Lets hope they rethink the changes and at least even them out a little more. I know that the world isn't built on being fair and I am sick of people always thinking it should be, but in this case it only makes sense that if you use less power, you would pay less. Obviously, if we use less electricity our bill will still be less than if we used more, but proportionately it is going to go way up. I can't believe that within 3-4 years, the fixed fee will go from $10.75 to $35.00.

I love one of the comments I saw posted on facebook about this. It stated OPPD arguing that their revenue stream hasn't increased to the point where they need it to be, and the person commented saying "my revenue stream has been basically flat for the past 5 years, so I want to be able to raise money like OPPD"

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:49 pm

Was told that this price structure change is actually partially the fault of the more energy efficient houses are becoming. Their revenue from usage charges have dropped, but they still have to support all the infrastructure. They simply cannot afford the installation of new infrastructure on the fringe and upkeep on the current infrastructure with their slumping revenue stream.

U R my Helix · Post by **U R my Helix** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:08 pm

This must be my fault entirely.
Over the years:
I invested in new energy efficient windows.
I over insulated the attic and installed new siding with an energy barrier underneath.
I installed a new high efficiency furnace.
I make it a habit to turn off the lights when I leave the room.
I replaced many of my old light bulbs with the new twist bulbs even though they cost 15 times more and burn out in 6 months.
I replaced my old water heater with an energy efficient tank less model.
I even drive a hybrid car.

The rate increase will reverse any of the savings on these items and I don’t know why I bothered.

So sorry OPPD that you are not earning enough money, this is all my fault, I apologize.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:25 pm

Just passing along what I was told. They did also say that in the 90's the OPPD leaders were told about this issue happening in the future and they basically said meh. This part seemed more opinion than fact so I didn't include it in my first comment.

Post by **nebugeater** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:46 pm

U R my Helix wrote:This must be my fault entirely.
Over the years:
I invested in new energy efficient windows.
I over insulated the attic and installed new siding with an energy barrier underneath.
I installed a new high efficiency furnace.
I make it a habit to turn off the lights when I leave the room.
I replaced many of my old light bulbs with the new twist bulbs even though they cost 15 times more and burn out in 6 months.
I replaced my old water heater with an energy efficient tank less model.
I even drive a hybrid car.

The rate increase will reverse any of the savings on these items and I don’t know why I bothered.

So sorry OPPD that you are not earning enough money, this is all my fault, I apologize.

If you are using the CFL ( Compact Fluorescent Light) bulbs next time try a LED. I have been buying LED's for some time now and never had one fail yet. They should last for years. After researching options when I started the process I am buying Phillips bulbs only. They are slightly more but from the reviews I read they are worth it. Have bought most of mine at Home Depot or Amazon.com and watch for discounts and not been too bad off. Worth the investment to me.

jessep28 · Post by **jessep28** » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:50 pm

U R my Helix wrote: I replaced many of my old light bulbs with the new twist bulbs even though they cost 15 times more and burn out in 6 months.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but are the CFL bulbs which are failing in months cycled on and off quickly? Florescent bulbs work best if they are kept on for at least fifteen minutes. Otherwise there can be a significant reduction in rated lifespan. For rooms that don't need lighting for more than a few minutes like a bathroom, I would just use an old fashioned incandescent or LED.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:12 am

jessep28 wrote:
U R my Helix wrote: I replaced many of my old light bulbs with the new twist bulbs even though they cost 15 times more and burn out in 6 months.
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but are the CFL bulbs which are failing in months cycled on and off quickly? Florescent bulbs work best if they are kept on for at least fifteen minutes. Otherwise there can be a significant reduction in rated lifespan. For rooms that don't need lighting for more than a few minutes like a bathroom, I would just use an old fashioned incandescent or LED.

That is good to know. I have heard a lot of bad reviews of CFL bulbs, but I have had no problem with mine. The ones I have used are generally on for a longer period of time though.

Post by **Brad** » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:44 am

nebugeater wrote: If you are using the CFL ( Compact Fluorescent Light) bulbs next time try a LED. I have been buying LED's for some time now and never had one fail yet. They should last for years.

My dad had one fail, called the manufacturer and they said it must have been a defect and sent him a new one for free.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:57 am

As criticism mounts to pull plug on plan, OPPD's rate restructuring in flux

Under pressure to reject a rate restructuring that would increase bills for customers who use less electricity, Omaha Public Power District officials will modify their plan in an attempt to address concerns.
The OPPD board is set to vote Dec. 17 on a proposal to raise the flat monthly service fee for the district’s 355,000 residential and small commercial customers while lowering the rate charged for actual use.

OPPD management’s proposal will be different from what the board saw in November, CEO Tim Burke said Tuesday. He declined to detail the changes because they weren’t final, but he said officials are trying to minimize the financial hit to low-income customers who don’t use a lot of power.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:29 pm

There are some good points in the article, and (surprisingly) good views in the comments section. The way OPPD is presenting this appears very poorly-managed. They act just like they're throwing up their hands saying "70% of our costs are fixed" with no mention of efforts to adjust that ratio by managing their network better. I think there's also something very telling in their positioning to keep unit rates ($/kWh) down, because it makes great propaganda everytime a scandal comes out, or people start questioning their executive pay. How the intermediate figures in your bill are divided is irrelevant without considering the total cost.

The claim that higher users shouldn't bear higher costs for the distribution network is also specious. The cost of delivering more electricity is higher. The marginal rate for additional power is going to be smaller, but saying that it's fixed is just wrong.

The bottom line is that OPPD and other utilities are behind on adapting to a new environment where usage is flat or declining, and their purpose is going to be based more on distribution and leveling the supply and demand. I fully believe that the rate structures will need to be updated to fit this new model as more small-source generation connects to the grid, but this current proposal does nothing to look forward to solve this problem, instead, it just shifts more cost on low-use customers to prop up their current, outdated system.

Omaha_corn_burner · Post by **Omaha_corn_burner** » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:06 pm

I haven't really heard how people who oppose the plan want this all to be resolved. There are basically 3 options:
1) lower the fee and raise rates
2) keep fee the same and raise rates
3) raise fee and raise rates

What do the majority of people want? I guess option 1 is the "most fair" to consumers.

Also if you really oppose the plan, are you able to pay OPPD to disconnect you from the grid, remove your account and then generate your own electricity? It would be extreme and hurt your house resale value, but OPPD would not get any more money from you.

daveoma · Post by **daveoma** » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:31 am

I don't think it has to come to that, but I think there's a point to be made that if you use more electricity then you should be charged accordingly.

I think they should be more forward thinking and offer deals with homeowners who use small wind turbines or solar panels like buying excess electricity generated by the home.

TLGJames · Post by **TLGJames** » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:24 pm

Omaha_corn_burner wrote:I haven't really heard how people who oppose the plan want this all to be resolved. There are basically 3 options:
1) lower the fee and raise rates
2) keep fee the same and raise rates
3) raise fee and raise rates

What do the majority of people want? I guess option 1 is the "most fair" to consumers.

Also if you really oppose the plan, are you able to pay OPPD to disconnect you from the grid, remove your account and then generate your own electricity? It would be extreme and hurt your house resale value, but OPPD would not get any more money from you.

Very few people are complaining bout the proposed 4% hike. But literally every person in an apartment is about to get bent over backwards on this. Most months, my electricity bill isn't even 35 dollars. But I've also switched almost every bulb to an LED and try to be as efficient as I can be. I really rather it go to a completely usage based system with higher rates.

Trips · Post by **Trips** » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:11 pm

Another issue they are planning for is alternative energy. In Arizona and California you have to pay around $30/month if you have solar power and are still hooked up to the power grid. The more power you produce for yourself the more they charge you.

Nebraska is one of only 5 soon to be 9 states that also has a special yearly fee if you have an electric car.

Post by **Brad** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:38 am

Trips wrote:Nebraska is one of only 5 soon to be 9 states that also has a special yearly fee if you have an electric car.

But I would assume that's a fee to pay for Roads and no Electrical infrastructure...

Omaha_corn_burner · Post by **Omaha_corn_burner** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:06 am

Two people have voiced their opinion....so I guess we prefer higher rates but the fee to remain the same. I agree.

Omaha_corn_burner · Post by **Omaha_corn_burner** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:34 am

Omaha_corn_burner wrote:Two people have voiced their opinion....so I guess we prefer higher rates but the fee to remain the same. I agree.

I spoke with some people that were at the meetings and heard their proposals.
Sounds like my favorite plan is a 4% rate increase, and keeping the fee the same.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 1:29 pm

Well, it looks like they're making a token effort to quiet the uproar over this proposal. The latest is a $30 fixed fee instead of the original $35, and a 22% rate cut instead of 28%. Clearly they have their minds made up and are just tweaking the numbers so they can claim they responded to the feedback.

I wonder how this is going to come back around for the next board elections? I'm putting my money on flyers and ads touting "22% rate cut".

GRANDPASMUCKER · Post by **GRANDPASMUCKER** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:48 pm

Seth wrote:Well, it looks like they're making a token effort to quiet the uproar over this proposal. The latest is a $30 fixed fee instead of the original $35, and a 22% rate cut instead of 28%. Clearly they have their minds made up and are just tweaking the numbers so they can claim they responded to the feedback.

I wonder how this is going to come back around for the next board elections? I'm putting my money on flyers and ads touting "22% rate cut".

Recycling and energy conservation is all just a bunch of talk in our country. That is why GrandpaSmucker has never wasted his time jacking around with the recycling tub at the curb. Its not because I am lazy. I don't save beer cans and pop cans either(what a joke get a life!). I also drive big gas guzzlers. Out of one side of its mouth the government tells us to conserve and recycle and out of the other side of its mouth it has programs like they had during the "Stimulus" where they paid thousands of people to have their running cars destroyed. When in Rome do as the Romans do and right now in reality the Romans don't care at all about energy conservation.

Linkin5 · Post by **Linkin5** » Thu Dec 17, 2015 6:52 pm

GRANDPASMUCKER wrote:
Seth wrote:Well, it looks like they're making a token effort to quiet the uproar over this proposal. The latest is a $30 fixed fee instead of the original $35, and a 22% rate cut instead of 28%. Clearly they have their minds made up and are just tweaking the numbers so they can claim they responded to the feedback.

I wonder how this is going to come back around for the next board elections? I'm putting my money on flyers and ads touting "22% rate cut".

Recycling and energy conservation is all just a bunch of talk in our country. That is why GrandpaSmucker has never wasted his time jacking around with the recycling tub at the curb. Its not because I am lazy. I don't save beer cans and pop cans either(what a joke get a life!). I also drive big gas guzzlers. Out of one side of its mouth the government tells us to conserve and recycle and out of the other side of its mouth it has programs like they had during the "Stimulus" where they paid thousands of people to have their running cars destroyed. When in Rome do as the Romans do and right now in reality the Romans don't care at all about energy conservation.

cdub · Post by **cdub** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:12 am

Penalizes low income folks who can least manage such a required increase?
Check
Completely removes incentive for typical users to conserve to keep their rate low?
Check
Benefits corporate type users at the expense of individuals?
Check

That's 3, you're out OPPD...

daveoma · Post by **daveoma** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:01 am

cdub wrote:Penalizes low income folks who can least manage such a required increase?
Check
Completely removes incentive for typical users to conserve to keep their rate low?
Check
Benefits corporate type users at the expense of individuals?
Check

That's 3, you're out OPPD...

I wonder what consequence this will have when the OPPD board is up for re-election.

Spork · Post by **Spork** » Fri Dec 18, 2015 10:06 am

What most people don't seem to realize are ALL the costs that go in to delivering a utility to your house. With ever increasing environmental regulations and the push for "clean power", the cost to bring that to a home and keep it reliable goes up. Just because you use less power than me, doesn't mean you don't want that power to be there when you want it reliably. That inccurs a cost. MUD did it and I don't recall low income people dying of thirst because they can't pay their water bill.