This is great information for everyone. American Electric Power explains the pieces of a distribution system in language we all understand.
Special thanks to American Electric Power (http://www.aep.com).
You can reach Dawson Public Power District at (308) 324-2386, http://www.dawsonpower.com; or on Facebook, keyword search dawsonpower
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Future of Power Costs in Nebraska
Looking at the kilowatt hour rate by state shows that Nebraska ranks 10th lowest in the nation. The Energy Information Administration (the source most used for comparing rates in all energy sectors) cites Nebraska’s average rate is 7.21¢ per kilowatt hour. Lowest on the scale is Wyoming which charges an average of 6.08¢ per kilowatt hour. As a nation, the average kilowatt hour cost is 9.82¢. Conversely, the state with the highest cost of electricity is Hawaii which charges an average of 21.21¢ per kilowatt hour.
About 60% of Dawson PPDs operating costs are wholesale power purchases. That means Dawson Power customers may see a 4% (estimate) increase in their rates simply based on NPPDs increase. We are also affected by rising fuel costs so there may be an adjustment to our projection as we do a cost of service study later this year.
Like Nebraska, Wyoming’s chief source of power is obtained through coal plants. Actually, 45% of our nation derives its electricity from coal; 23% is from natural gas; 20% from nuclear; 7% from hydro plants, 4% from renewables and 1% all other.
The EPA is expected to enact several key regulations in the coming decade that will have an impact on the U.S. power sector, particularly the fleet of coal-fired power plants. Because the rules have not yet been finalized, their impacts cannot be fully analyzed. Rest assured, any ruling by EPA will impact electric rates negatively because the EPA is focusing on our nation’s largest source of power…coal.
At a recent meeting hosted by Nebraska Public Power District, the general expectation is that NPPD will raise the wholesale cost of power by 6.5% for 2012. NPPD explains (click link) why the rate increase is necessary. In addition to other factors, they are citing a 75% increase in fuel costs as being the primary driver 
behind the increase.
behind the increase. About 60% of Dawson PPDs operating costs are wholesale power purchases. That means Dawson Power customers may see a 4% (estimate) increase in their rates simply based on NPPDs increase. We are also affected by rising fuel costs so there may be an adjustment to our projection as we do a cost of service study later this year.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The POWER to Kill
Part of our job at Dawson PPD is to educate people about electrical safety. Sounds simple enough, but that’s the sort of thing that nags at you late at night when you can’t sleep. It is a fine line… Do too much educating and you become the dreaded hall monitor with your pointer finger waving in the air. On the other hand, if you don’t push safety education enough, someone may lose their life.
The other day I read an article about two high school students in Illinois who lost their lives trying to save a raccoon that had crawled into a piece of irrigation pipe. They raised the pipe in hopes of freeing the rodent, but when it came into contact with a power line they were electrocuted. In that instant, life changed. Two families lost their sons. Classmates lost their friends and had to face the harsh reality that “it COULD actually happen to them.” Had the young men not heard about safety near power lines or was it a momentary lapse in judgment with a catastrophic consequence? We (the employees of Dawson PPD) don’t want a similar accident to happen here.We love to be able to teach electrical safety to people of all ages. We’ve talked to county roads department employees and students all across ‘Dawsonland.’ Perhaps one of our favorite opportunities is the Farm Safety Day Camp in North Platte where we can teach 400 kids about electrical safety. As we explain electrical safety, we tell the kids to pass the message on to their friends and families.
Several years ago, I talked to a young man who had heard the electrical safety message at a farm safety event. His name was Patrick. While doing spring field work, Patrick got a little too close to a power line with the farm equipment he was using. He knew that he was safe in the tractor that he was driving. He stayed in the tractor until a lineman came and made sure the line was no longer energized. We know that Patrick got the message. He shared his story with others in hopes that it would keep them safe too. Although we would rather that people didn’t run into power lines or our poles, we need more people like Patrick that know what to do if it does happen.
So, please don’t “tune out” when Dawson PPD promotes electrical safety. We’ll try not to nag… but this stuff is important. It can be the difference between life and death.
Marsha Banzhaf, Public Relations Coordinator
Dawson Public Power District
Dawson Public Power District
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
WATER - A FRESH LOOK AT A TOUGH PROBLEM – THE WATER BALANCE APPROACH
I am not a water expert in any way. But I do know that water is extremely important to everyone in Nebraska. In the past, Nebraskans were fortunate in that we had just about all the water available that everyone needed. Well, that changed with the latest drought. Now, we have competition for limited water resources. Under the compact agreement, Nebraska must deliver sufficient water to Kansas for compliance, even in water short years. This has become an extremely volatile issue for everyone in the Republican River valley. On the Platte, the endangered species act will require an ever larger amount of water to meet compliance issues. In both cases integrated resource plans have been developed by the natural resource districts and the department of Natural Resources and if river flows are not sufficient, water limiting and irrigation shut-down is expected.
This course of action will end up having devastating results on the agricultural economy in Nebraska. In the Dawson Public Power service territory, the Platte River is considered over allocated from Elm Creek west to Southerland. If in a given irrigation season the quick response wells are shut down (those within 2 1/2 miles of the river), at today’s rates the District would lose $3.8M in revenues as a direct consequence of that action. Every rural Dawson customer and most businesses we serve in that portion of the valley will have substantial negative impacts as well. This appears to be the path we are now going down.
Recently, I had a chance to listen to a gentleman by the name of Frank Kwapnioski who is promoting a concept called the water balance approach to managing our water resources. This is not a new concept, it has been successfully used in China and elsewhere. In essence it takes all of the current data, water studies and water models currently being used and incorporates this information into a comprehensive basin wide approach to water management. It looks at all consumptive uses in the basin on all parts of the basin, not just irrigation and stream flows. This concept will look at all the water going into the basin, how that water is being used, and how much leaves the basin.
As I said at the beginning of this article, I am not a water expert, but I feel the path we are now on will lead to negative results for too many in my part of Nebraska. I believe the water balance approach to managing our water resources is fresh new look and deserves a fair hearing to determine its merits. It sure can’t hurt.
Robert Heinz, General Manager
Dawson Public Power District
 |
| Ogallala Aquifer |
This course of action will end up having devastating results on the agricultural economy in Nebraska. In the Dawson Public Power service territory, the Platte River is considered over allocated from Elm Creek west to Southerland. If in a given irrigation season the quick response wells are shut down (those within 2 1/2 miles of the river), at today’s rates the District would lose $3.8M in revenues as a direct consequence of that action. Every rural Dawson customer and most businesses we serve in that portion of the valley will have substantial negative impacts as well. This appears to be the path we are now going down.
Recently, I had a chance to listen to a gentleman by the name of Frank Kwapnioski who is promoting a concept called the water balance approach to managing our water resources. This is not a new concept, it has been successfully used in China and elsewhere. In essence it takes all of the current data, water studies and water models currently being used and incorporates this information into a comprehensive basin wide approach to water management. It looks at all consumptive uses in the basin on all parts of the basin, not just irrigation and stream flows. This concept will look at all the water going into the basin, how that water is being used, and how much leaves the basin.
As I said at the beginning of this article, I am not a water expert, but I feel the path we are now on will lead to negative results for too many in my part of Nebraska. I believe the water balance approach to managing our water resources is fresh new look and deserves a fair hearing to determine its merits. It sure can’t hurt.
Robert Heinz, General Manager
Dawson Public Power District
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thank a Farmer!
Compliments of Monsanto....we're all thankful for different things...at different times. Collectively, our farmers deserve a huge round of applause!
Monday, November 1, 2010
We're Different! We're Looking Out For You!
Dawson Public Power District is different from other businesses you deal with. To tell you the truth, I like being different. And the fact that you’re reading this article shows you like that difference, too.
We’re different because we’re Looking Out for You. Now, more than ever, that’s important because we need to work together to keep your electric bills affordable.
Congress did not pass a comprehensive climate bill last year. In January the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began regulating greenhouse gasses—an action made possible by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, followed by rulings allowing the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to curb carbon emissions. Policies dealing with coal ash and even more stringent controls on other power plant emissions could also lead to higher costs. It’s hard to predict the future, but one thing seems certain: government regulations are going to increase the cost of doing business.
New regulations won’t be the only culprit. Prices for fuel, materials, and equipment will continue to rise.
We’re committed to keeping you informed about policy changes that will impact your electric bill through channels like the Rural Electric Nebraskan and the Dawson Dynamo (customer newsletter), FaceBook and this blog. We’re going to do everything we can to keep your electric bills affordable.
To accomplish that, we’re controlling costs through innovation. Our energy efficiency programs like incentives for improving energy efficiency in your home or business and online home energy audits to help you manage your energy use.
Nationally, public power districts are meeting customers’ power needs with a diverse fuel mix, including renewable energy.
While we’re affordable and innovative, above all else we’re customer focused. No matter what comes our way we’ll continue to put you, our customers, first. Dawson PPD is controlled by an elected board of directors and locally operated. As a customer, you have a voice in how your public power distric operates. You have the opportunity to vote in the general election for the board members that represent you.
Customer control means we are accountable to those we serve. Costs are rising for all of us, but when it comes to your electric bill our rates are set simply to cover the cost of doing business, not to generate profits for distant stockholders.
The bottom line? We exist only to serve you and meet your needs for safe, reliable, and affordable power.
As you can see, we’re different. We’re working together to keep your electric bills affordable. We’re controlling costs through innovation. And we’re continuing to put you, our customers, first. No matter what the future brings, one thing is certain. We’re Looking Out for You.
Gwen Kautz (assisted by Straight Talk through NRECA)
We’re different because we’re Looking Out for You. Now, more than ever, that’s important because we need to work together to keep your electric bills affordable.
Congress did not pass a comprehensive climate bill last year. In January the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began regulating greenhouse gasses—an action made possible by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, followed by rulings allowing the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to curb carbon emissions. Policies dealing with coal ash and even more stringent controls on other power plant emissions could also lead to higher costs. It’s hard to predict the future, but one thing seems certain: government regulations are going to increase the cost of doing business.
New regulations won’t be the only culprit. Prices for fuel, materials, and equipment will continue to rise.
We’re committed to keeping you informed about policy changes that will impact your electric bill through channels like the Rural Electric Nebraskan and the Dawson Dynamo (customer newsletter), FaceBook and this blog. We’re going to do everything we can to keep your electric bills affordable.
To accomplish that, we’re controlling costs through innovation. Our energy efficiency programs like incentives for improving energy efficiency in your home or business and online home energy audits to help you manage your energy use.
Nationally, public power districts are meeting customers’ power needs with a diverse fuel mix, including renewable energy.
While we’re affordable and innovative, above all else we’re customer focused. No matter what comes our way we’ll continue to put you, our customers, first. Dawson PPD is controlled by an elected board of directors and locally operated. As a customer, you have a voice in how your public power distric operates. You have the opportunity to vote in the general election for the board members that represent you.
Customer control means we are accountable to those we serve. Costs are rising for all of us, but when it comes to your electric bill our rates are set simply to cover the cost of doing business, not to generate profits for distant stockholders.
The bottom line? We exist only to serve you and meet your needs for safe, reliable, and affordable power.
As you can see, we’re different. We’re working together to keep your electric bills affordable. We’re controlling costs through innovation. And we’re continuing to put you, our customers, first. No matter what the future brings, one thing is certain. We’re Looking Out for You.
Gwen Kautz (assisted by Straight Talk through NRECA)
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Strangulation By Regulation
We usually try to write our own blog, but when I ran across this article...I had to share it (with permission from the author). It is written by someone within the agricultural community and tells us how EPA plans will negatively affect every farmer and rancher in America. Kudos Mr. Sheely!
(As written by Ted Sheely - Oct 7 2010) ... When the Environmental Protection Agency thinks about farmers, it must have in mind the lyrics from that song by Kansas: “All we are is dust in the wind.”
That’s because the EPA wants to regulate the dust that farmers produce as they run combines through their fields and drive down gravel roads.
Federal bureaucrats seem to have forgotten that food production is a challenging business--and yes, sometimes it kicks up a bit of dust.
What’s next? Regulating backyard gardeners who grow the flowers that make the pollen that causes neighbors with allergies to sneeze?
Don’t be surprised if it comes to that. As Democratic senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in a recent hearing, the EPA makes a habit of threatening farmers and ranchers with “burdensome, duplicative, costly, unnecessary, or, in some cases, just plain bizarre” regulations.
Farm dust is a perfect example of federal overreach. Nobody has shown that farm dust is a public-health hazard. Judges have determined that the research is “inconclusive” but they’ve stopped short of blocking the EPA’s draconian rules.
Frustration with the EPA is bipartisan. Republican congressman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma agrees with Sen. Lincoln. He called the EPA “an agency gone wild” and warned that “if the EPA is allowed to continue down this path, the only choice for many farmers and ranchers will be to stop farming altogether.”
This is a crystal-clear example of a federal government that doesn’t have its priorities straight. Unemployment is sky-high. The challenges of joblessness are especially severe in rural America. Shouldn’t our overlords in Washington strive to get people back to work? At the very least, they shouldn’t go out of their way to make life more difficult for struggling families in these hard times.
Yet that’s what the EPA seems designed to do. My own experience with the agency is a tale of chronic frustration. It can feel as if EPA has a boot planted to my throat, trying to choke the life out of me.
"Why has an American agency decided to declare regulatory war on such a large swath of American people?” asked Gerald Simonsen of the National Sorghum Producers at a forum in Washington last week.
I know exactly what he’s talking about. Friends of mine who grow corn are worried about the future of atrazine, an important crop protection tool.
I have my own hassles with the EPA. The latest involves irrigation. Here in California, water is at a premium: We just don’t have enough of it. Federal regulations are a big part of the reason why, but that’s another story. The bottom line is that we have to use water with maximum efficiency so that we can grow the food that Americans need.
I can’t afford to lose any water, so I save every last drop--even when I’m flushing the sediment from my irrigation tape. After the water cleans out my lines, it flows into a holding pond. From there, I can reuse it.
Recycling water is an example of sustainable agriculture at work. It allows me to get the most out of limited resources.
But the EPA may make me halt this practice. It’s worried that trace amounts of herbicide and pesticide possibly will show up in my holding pond.
So instead of seeing my recycled water as a source of life for a farm that grows food in a dry land, it may treat my water as a potential source of environmental contamination.
The coming micromanagement could be severe. Previous experience with the EPA teaches me that I should anticipate a worse-case scenario--and then assume that the result will be twice as bad.
I don’t want to pollute anything--and I certainly don’t want to pollute my own farmland, where I live and work. Nobody has a greater stake in my farm’s safety than I do.
I support sensible regulations. It’s the insensible ones that drive me batty. The problem is that the EPA often refuses to exercise common sense. Its one-size-fits-all approach is bad for everyone.
The only people it helps are the regulators who seem to think that their job is to produce a bumper crop in onerous new rules, without a care for whether rural America produces the food that our country needs.
About the author: Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He is a board member of Truth About Trade and Technology www.truthabouttrade.org
(As written by Ted Sheely - Oct 7 2010) ... When the Environmental Protection Agency thinks about farmers, it must have in mind the lyrics from that song by Kansas: “All we are is dust in the wind.”
That’s because the EPA wants to regulate the dust that farmers produce as they run combines through their fields and drive down gravel roads.
Federal bureaucrats seem to have forgotten that food production is a challenging business--and yes, sometimes it kicks up a bit of dust.
What’s next? Regulating backyard gardeners who grow the flowers that make the pollen that causes neighbors with allergies to sneeze?
Don’t be surprised if it comes to that. As Democratic senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in a recent hearing, the EPA makes a habit of threatening farmers and ranchers with “burdensome, duplicative, costly, unnecessary, or, in some cases, just plain bizarre” regulations.
Farm dust is a perfect example of federal overreach. Nobody has shown that farm dust is a public-health hazard. Judges have determined that the research is “inconclusive” but they’ve stopped short of blocking the EPA’s draconian rules.
Frustration with the EPA is bipartisan. Republican congressman Frank Lucas of Oklahoma agrees with Sen. Lincoln. He called the EPA “an agency gone wild” and warned that “if the EPA is allowed to continue down this path, the only choice for many farmers and ranchers will be to stop farming altogether.”
This is a crystal-clear example of a federal government that doesn’t have its priorities straight. Unemployment is sky-high. The challenges of joblessness are especially severe in rural America. Shouldn’t our overlords in Washington strive to get people back to work? At the very least, they shouldn’t go out of their way to make life more difficult for struggling families in these hard times.
Yet that’s what the EPA seems designed to do. My own experience with the agency is a tale of chronic frustration. It can feel as if EPA has a boot planted to my throat, trying to choke the life out of me.
"Why has an American agency decided to declare regulatory war on such a large swath of American people?” asked Gerald Simonsen of the National Sorghum Producers at a forum in Washington last week.
I know exactly what he’s talking about. Friends of mine who grow corn are worried about the future of atrazine, an important crop protection tool.
I have my own hassles with the EPA. The latest involves irrigation. Here in California, water is at a premium: We just don’t have enough of it. Federal regulations are a big part of the reason why, but that’s another story. The bottom line is that we have to use water with maximum efficiency so that we can grow the food that Americans need.
I can’t afford to lose any water, so I save every last drop--even when I’m flushing the sediment from my irrigation tape. After the water cleans out my lines, it flows into a holding pond. From there, I can reuse it.
Recycling water is an example of sustainable agriculture at work. It allows me to get the most out of limited resources.
But the EPA may make me halt this practice. It’s worried that trace amounts of herbicide and pesticide possibly will show up in my holding pond.
So instead of seeing my recycled water as a source of life for a farm that grows food in a dry land, it may treat my water as a potential source of environmental contamination.
The coming micromanagement could be severe. Previous experience with the EPA teaches me that I should anticipate a worse-case scenario--and then assume that the result will be twice as bad.
I don’t want to pollute anything--and I certainly don’t want to pollute my own farmland, where I live and work. Nobody has a greater stake in my farm’s safety than I do.
I support sensible regulations. It’s the insensible ones that drive me batty. The problem is that the EPA often refuses to exercise common sense. Its one-size-fits-all approach is bad for everyone.
The only people it helps are the regulators who seem to think that their job is to produce a bumper crop in onerous new rules, without a care for whether rural America produces the food that our country needs.
About the author: Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He is a board member of Truth About Trade and Technology www.truthabouttrade.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)