05.01.26
by

More Transparency Needed On Utility Rates

The City Council is starting to consider rate increases for water and sewer and solid waste services.  The Water and Light Advisory Board has already recommended a 10% increase in water rates for fiscal year 2027.  How do we know that those increases are actually needed? Or if they are fair?

Transparency, equity, and accountability have been key themes on this blog since the development of the 2016 “Are We An Us?” dialogue guide in 2016. Ensuring these values are reflected in CIty governance requires citizens to be vigilant and to ask hard questions as the City Council makes decisions that affect us all.

We talked with Jim Windsor, the retired Assistant Director for Utilities for the City of Columbia, about what questions citizens should be asking to ensure that rate increases are actually needed, and that rates are fairly set.

CC: Welcome Jim. I know people are concerned about rate increases, especially as costs continue to rise in many areas. What should we be asking to ensure that any rate increases are actually necessary and that rates are set fairly?

JW:  There are two issues that I have raised with the Council that utility customers could be asking questions about. These relate to intragovernmental fees and transfers that are not being adequately reviewed, and the costs of annexing the water plant which, it turns out, are much higher than represented at the time the decision to annex was made.

CC: Let’s take those separately. Tell us more about the intragovernmental transfers. 

Intragovernmental Transfers

JW: Utility customers are paying for millions of general fund expenses through intragovernmental fees and transfers.  These costs get little scrutiny, yet they lead to  increased utility rates.  

These intragovernmental charges for general fund expenses are in addition to the  “PILOT” (payment in lieu of taxes) charge that the water and electric utilities already pay to the general fund.  Several of these charges are questionable. 

For example, portions of the Deputy City Manager salary is assigned to the utilities even though that position does not supervise or manage utilities. Utilities also heavily fund charges like Building Utility Charges, Building Maintenance, Public Communications and Janitorial Services. Water & Light currently pays about 30% of the General Administrative Fee and the Public Communication Fee. In total, utilities pay 70% of those fees.  Some departments, like the fire and police departments, pay nothing.

When setting rates, these charges are then counted as “administrative costs” of the utilities and then are loaded onto base rates.  The base rate is the minimum amount a customer pays before even using any service like water, electricity, or sewer. I calculated the minimum base charges paid by  a residential customer for the five city utilities.  The range is $67.65 to $112.41 with the difference being the size of water meters and size of roll-carts. Because of these additional intragovernmental charges, our rates are higher than they need to be.

It is very hard to review these costs. The amount and type of such transfers are not broken down for the City Council when it is asked to raise rates and so there is little review. Nor do citizens have much of an opportunity to question these costs. That lack of transparency invites a practice of using the utilities as a “cash cow” to fund government activities without transparency or accountability for the growth of costs. 

CC: What changes would you propose?

JW: First, we need real transparency on these charges and then a fair methodology for assessing charges to all departments, not just loading them on the utilities.

Second, I would suggest that these government administrative costs should be recovered through taxes which would more fairly distribute costs among the city residents that benefit from city services. This alone would result in lower utility rates. 

Of course it is easier just to fold these costs into utility rates rather than to pass a tax increase. Yet when we load them onto rates we create an inequity in that a significant amount of the “city growth” is in areas served by Boone Electric and water district services, rather than city utilities.  The utilities that serve those areas do not pay these fees. Yet their customers are benefiting from city services and not paying their fair share of administrative costs for the services they receive. And customers, particularly low income customers within the city are paying more than their fair share.  So from an equity perspective we really need to discuss the difference between what “taxpayers” fund and what “ratepayers” fund. 

The City Council is currently considering a sales tax increase and can address these issues, and correct needed allocations both among funds and between taxes and rates as it does so. 

Annexation

CC: Can you summarize for us the issue of annexation of the water plant?

JW: When the City Council was persuaded to annex the water plant in 2019,  it was assured there would be “no fiscal impact.”  There has in fact been a significant fiscal impact. I have explained elsewhere that annexation was unnecessary, and that Council can and should mitigate the impact of the annexation on water rates.

CC: How can Council mitigate this impact?

JW: This gets a bit technical so stay with me.  As I noted earlier, the water and electric utilities pay a “PILOT” charge to the general fund. This charge is a combination of a gross receipts tax (that appears on your bill) and a property tax (that is paid from utility rates). The water utility is being charged the combined property tax rates for all Boone County taxing entities (not just the city rate). Since water utilities have a significant amount of infrastructure compared to the revenues they bring in, this way of charging the PILOT represents a significant drain on the water utility’s financial resources. The annexation has increased the property tax for the water utility by over $300,000 per year

This way of charging the PILOT is also inequitable in the way costs are distributed among the utility companies. The water utility currently is paying more property tax PILOT than the electric utility and is five times smaller. Sewer and solid waste don’t pay a PILOT.  With the completion of the almost $40 million improvements to the water plant, the water utility will in the future be charged an additional $800,000 to $900,000 per year if no change is made.  That cost will then be passed on to water utility customers through their rates if the Council does not act.

Although the annexation was presented as having “no fiscal impact”, it appears to have been designed to increase city revenues without the scrutiny that either a rate or tax increase would require.  While the annexation cannot be undone, the Council could, and should, mitigate the effects of this error. It can do so by setting the property tax rate for the water plant at only the Columbia rate. Since the revenues raised by the water PILOT are not shared with other taxing entities, it makes no sense for the taxes of those entities to be included in the calculation (other than to artificially extract more revenue). Both Ameren and Boone Electric pay a PILOT based only on the city rate.  Limiting the PILOT to the city tax rate would eliminate most of that $800,000 to $900,000 increase, which would otherwise occur later this year.  

CC:  So what might a concerned citizen do?

JW:   If we are serious about the affordability of utility rates, fair rates, and governmental accountability, we will ask for full transparency on this issue. Contact your Council member, share this post, and ask that these charges be reported and reviewed before any changes in rates are made. You can also share this information with your neighbors and ask that they do the same.

CC:  Thank you Jim for sharing your knowledge and helping us unpack this.

02.15.26
by

Delay Creates Reliability Risks

Generally when utilities identify vulnerabilities in their systems, they plan to build the infrastructure needed to strengthen the system. That was once the way we planned too. That planning is how the need for the transmission line was first identified.

Unfortunately, due to the Council’s “pause” on construction, we quietly shifted from planning to build reliable infrastructure, to planning to use rolling blackouts if needed to protect the overall grid. This shift in standard and corresponding increase in risk has been documented in the Annual Transmission Assessments that Water & Light is required to prepare and provide to the Northern Electric Reliability Corporation in December of each year. These reports are also provided to the Council each year, and yet each year the Council continued the delay.

I began requesting copies of the Annual Transmission Assessments in 2016, with confidential data redacted. I received those reports regularly through 2023, although with each year, more and more material was redacted as risk grew and more and more areas that might be affected by rolling blackouts were identified. Between 2016 and 2023 the identified contingencies and potential areas for load shedding grew in number with every report, and the extent of that change can be seen in comparing the 2016 and 2023 reports.

When I requested the 2024 and 2025 Annual Transmission Assessments, the City refused to release them, even in redacted form. The response provided simply stated that “After review by the Legal Department, the transmission assessment has been found to be a closed record in its entirety under sections of the Missouri statutes 610.021(14), (19), and (20) which states: RSMo, the Federal Power Act, security measures and operational guidelines the disclosure of which would impair the City’s ability to protect the security or safety of persons or real property, and existing or proposed security systems and structural plans, the public disclosure of which would threaten public safety and the public interest in non disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the record.” This denial can be viewed as further evidence that the failure to build the transmission line has continued to increase our risks.

Ongoing delay will only further erode our reliability. As the now retired head of Water & Light told Council in 2024 “. . . these improvements are necessary if shedding load is not an acceptable option for reliable service to customers. I do not believe that load shedding is a responsible service for our customers. The transmission upgrades are needed now to ensure long-term reliability to customers.”

The facts have not changed over time: the transmission line is needed, and building the transmission line along the Nifong/Vawter School route is the most cost effective, highest value route to ensure the reliability of our electric service. We need to invest in this infrastructure now, and reduce our risk.

02.12.26
by

The Transmission Delay Has Been Costly

Since the pause the City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on reviews by consultants, all of whom failed to identify a better alternative, and all of whom one way or another confirmed the need and the route. Yet Council previously has been unwilling or unable to put construction of the line back on track.  It now has another opportunity to do the right thing, and allow the construction of the line along the Nifong/Vawter School Road to move forward.

The delay has been costly to the public, and further delay will only cost us more. In addition to the consulting costs, we lost millions in sunk costs. We incurred significant costs associated with work to strengthen various points in the system some of which may not have been necessary had the line been built. And in the interim, the costs of construction have also increased. Although it is hard to quantify all of the additional costs incurred, some can be clearly captured. These include:

Sunk costs lost due to “pause”:$4,400,000
Ameren Study$    10,000
Quanta Study$    97,500
Burns & McDonnell Study *$   95,000
Siemens Study$  358,000
Black & Veatch 2025 estimates $  133,650
Increased costs of construction (line only)**$12,108,934
Total for this subset of the costs of delay$17,203,084

The pause has also raised our risk, and eroded the reliability of the system. You can read more about that in the next post.

The Nifong/Vawter School route is not only the best route from an engineering perspective, it is estimated to cost $10,592,899 less than the alternate Chapel Hill route also being considered by Council. And that is only taking into account the costs of the transmission line itself. When the costs of moving and building associated distribution is taken into account, the Nifong/Vawter School route is $21,163,959 less than the alternate route.

Let’s stop wasting our money. Build the transmission line on the Nifong/Vawter School route.

*Note that neither the Quanta nor the Burns and McDonnell studies, both of which affirmed the need for the line, were discussed by the Council at a public meeting despite the fact that public presentation to the Council was part of each contract.

** This is the difference between the current Black & Veatch estimate for the Nifong/Vawter School route of $30,108,934 and the original cost of $18,000,000 at the time bonds were issued.

02.10.26
by

Will Council Choose The Right Path?

The transmission line is back before City Council, 10 years after Council issued an ill-advised “pause” on this key piece of infrastructure.  Council reviewed the issue again at its February 9, 2026 work session. Staff’s recommendation continues to be to build the line along the Nifong/Vawter School Road route.

Ten years ago when Council “paused” the transmission line, that line was on budget and on time. The project had been approved by wide margins in a 2015 election. As the City said when asking for that vote, and as remains true now, the line is needed to ensure the long term reliability of our electric service.  The City had issued bonds to raise the money to build the line, and also had raised electric rates by 3% to pay off the bonds.  

Yet just a few months later, the Council suddenly paused construction. Council did so for purely political reasons. No engineering study, no cost benefit study, and no other evidence supported the pause. Council did this because one neighborhood, unhappy with construction in their area, packed a meeting.

As will be explained in our next post, the pause has been costly. Significant time, energy, and funds were wasted over the years as Council minimized the need for the line and cast about for alternatives. Yet the need for the line is a reality that has not gone away, and the Nifong/Vawter School Road route remains the best alternative.

At its work session on February 9, 2026 the Council considered estimates for two possible routes:  A new route that would go through residential neighborhoods along Chapel Hill, and a route that would closely follow the originally proposed Nifong/Vawter School Road route, which adheres to the street right-of -way. Staff has consistently explained over the last 10 years why the Nifong/Vawter School Road is the route that best met the needs of the system now and in the future.  The newest estimates confirm that the Nifong/Vawter School Road route is also the least cost and highest value route. 

Ten years of delay hasn’t changed the reality that we need a transmission line. Lines aren’t built overnight and starting this work is overdue. Constructing line along the Nifong/Vawter School Road route costs $21,163,959 less than the alternate Chapel Hill route. Urge you council person to follow the facts, and approve the construction along the Nifong/Vawter School Road route.

06.13.24
by

Decisions On Transmission Line Needed Now

The Council has spent eight years trying to avoid accountability for its decision to “pause” a much needed transmission line project which was on time and on budget when paused. Now that issue is coming back before the Council, as is detailed in this article from the Columbia Missourian.

It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that, of the options studied, the most cost-effective route and the route that provides the most reliable service to customers is very similar to the route of the “paused” line. In fact the alternate options that the Council asked be considered were projected to be $8 to $12 million higher than the route recommended by Staff.

Staff advised Council that new transmission infrastructure was needed in 2007. That need only grew as the new infrastructure was planned for and approved by the voters. That needed infrastructure would have been completed and in place now if not for Council’s interference. Instead, as a result of the pause, load shedding (i.e. black-outs has become our electric system’s official contingency plan for meeting federal regulatory requirements. This puts us all at risk.

[*Note: You can compare the 2016 Annual Planning Assessment with the 2023 Annual Planning Assessment to see the growing risk. Note that the blacked out material indicates a system vulnerability. The Mill Creek substation and related transmission line project paused by the Council was designed to address these issues so we would not need to rely on electric service interruptions to meet federal requirements.]

As the Director of Utilities recently stated, “. . . these improvements are necessary if shedding load is not an acceptable option for reliable service to customers. The transmission upgrades are needed now to ensure long-term reliability to customers.” And although these upgrades are needed now, and even if the Council were to act now, it could still take another 5 to 10 years to actually get another line in place due to the need to plan, acquire regulatory approvals, and then actually construct the line.

We also agree with the Director’s conclusion that “Upgrades should be initiated to reduce the potential that load shedding becomes a reality and to ensure system reliability is in place for the community.” If you too care about reliable electric service, urge your Council member to stop delaying, and allow Water & Light to proceed with its preferred option.

11.29.21
by

Renewables, Reliability, and Transmission

How do you feel when the lights go out? As was stated in the last post, easy answers are rarely wise answers, especially when complex systems are involved. In addition to raising our costs, the current push for a “100% renewable standard” in Columbia could also adversely affect our reliability of service.

Renewable resources do not function in the same way as dispatchable resources, and this can have unintended consequences for keeping our lights on. This was a lesson learned from the rolling blackouts in California in August of 2020. As we move towards cleaner energy, we should do so in a way that keeps the lights on and at a reasonable cost. This means better understanding the changes in planning assumptions and analysis that are needed to accommodate a shift to renewable resources, monitoring the use of those resources in the real world, and adjusting as needed.

Proponents of the “100% renewable by 2030” standard are also setting up a false dichotomy between the use of renewables for producing energy and the need for new transmission infrastructure. Like other production resources, renewable resources require an adequate transmission and distribution infrastructure. And climate change also increases the need for a resilient transmission infrastructure. Our costs of improving that infrastructure only increase with delay, and those increasing costs will make it more difficult to make the investments that renewable advocates seek.

11.20.21
by

Renewable Energy: At What Cost?

Easy answers are rarely wise answers, especially when complex systems are involved. So it is with the current push to move to a “100% renewable standard” in Columbia. That move could significantly raise our costs of electric service.

In general, using renewable resources costs more (average costs reported in the 2021 Columbia Water & Light Renewable Energy Plan were $36.51.MWH for renewable and $25.86/MWH for non-renewables). In recommending a move to a “100% renewable standard”, the Integrated Electric Resource Master Plan Task Force failed to present any analysis of the cost of doing so, although it did acknowledge that cost might be an issue. And many of those who appeared at the recent public comment session – backed by the Sierra club and the Climate and Environment Commission (CEC) – pushed for an even more aggressive standard of “100% renewables by 2030.” Again there was no discussion of the cost.

In order to meet this more aggressive target, we would be buying additional resources that we do not currently need to provide electric service to customers. As is laid out in the Siemens Integrated Resource Plan that was prepared for the task force, CWL is already overbuying resources to meet renewable goals. In fact, it is showing a “long position” through 2030. The additional costs of overbuying to meet renewable targets are not fully covered by the amounts received when the existing resources that are then displaced are resold. And if market rates at the time of sale do not meet planning projections — as happened in Texas when a municipal utility followed that same strategy – our costs to meet more aggressive renewable targets will be even greater than projected.

The Sierra Club of Texas has acknowledged that the move to incorporate more renewable energy into a municipal portfolio can be costly, and that affordability of electric service must be a key criterion in determining an appropriate plan. They also emphasized that any such plan must be the result of a robust and public engagement process. Both of these factors – affordability and sincere public engagement – have been missing in Columbia’s push to renewable energy. 

In 2004, voters in Columbia approved the existing renewable energy ordinance that set targets for acquiring renewable energy. These targets were specifically subject to a cost cap. That is, the cost of acquiring the renewable resources to meet the stated targets could not cause electric rates to increase more than 3% . The Task Force’s draft report that was provided for public comment reflected the CEC position that this cap could simply be removed by Council fiat and without putting the issue again to the voters. In approving its final set of recommendations, the Task Force correctly acknowledged the importance of maintaining affordable rates, and acknowledged the cap on increases. If there is to be a move to more aggressive renewable targets, the costs of that move should be fully disclosed, and the question of how to proceed should be again put to the voters.

10.23.21
by

Yes, New Transmission Infrastructure IS Needed


The most recent consultant hired by the City, Siemens, has once again affirmed what has been reported on this blog over the last few years – new investment in our transmission and distribution infrastructure is overdue. Substations are overloaded, there are feeder lines that have no adequate back-up at times of system peak, and certain neighborhoods, as well as our wastewater processing facilities, lack back-up in the event of an outage (See e.g., pp. 17-20, 53-54, 56, 60, 77, 130, 107, 114-120, 130, 154, 175-176, 183, 186, 190).

Water & Light told us that new investment was needed back in 2013 when it first proposed the new transmission line known as Option A and the Mill Creek substation. But after that line was approved by voters, bonds issued and work begun, the City Council “paused” that work, without an alternate plan in place. In the almost five years since that pause was put in place, the risks of service interruptions and outages has steadily increased. During that same period, we have spent over $500,000 in consulting fees* to confirm what Water &  Light told us, and what politicians denied. New investment is now urgently needed.

The Siemens plan, which was prepared for the council-appointed Integrated Electric Resource Master Plan Task Force, confirms the urgent need for new investment. And it reviews numerous options for that investment — new lines, new transformers, battery storage, etc. However, it avoids any straightforward comparison with the paused option. Despite the lack of that comparison, it does appear that we will pay more for these options than we would have paid had we completed the paused line.

How much more will we pay? We may never know. That question simply wasn’t asked by the Integrated Electric Resource Master Plan Task Force that commissioned the report. And what might be the best way to engineer our system for safety and reliability, and provide the highest value to those of us who pay for service? The Task Force didn’t ask that either.

If you agree that politicians should be accountable, and that the costs of their decisions should be clearly documented for the public, you can provide feedback to the Task Force at: online comment form.

*(Quanta – $97,500, Burns & McDonnell – $95,000, and Siemens $358,000).

05.10.21
by

Transmission 2021: Still At Risk

Poor planning and failure to invest in needed infrastructure, combined with severe weather, resulted in the rolling blackouts throughout Texas this winter. Poor planning, failure to make needed investments, and severe weather led to the California blackouts in the summer of 2020. In each case lives were lost and disrupted, and the costs of addressing the catastrophe were enormous.

The same combination of factors is putting our electric service here in Columbia at risk. First, poor planning: in 2016 our City Council “paused” a needed transmission project that was on time, on budget and approved by voters, refused to revisit the decision, and for the last two years has been deflecting questions to various consultants, boards and commissions, even as it approves additional loads. Second, failure to make needed investments: Our system continues to deteriorate as we hold off on needed investments. Perche Creek substation has been overloaded in hot weather for several years. Other substations are now overloaded in hot weather as well. Several feeder lines are not inadequately backed-up for extreme heat. Third severe weather: because we failed to make the needed investment, we lack the necessary redundancy to ensure the resilience of our systems should we have a very hot summer.

Simply put, we are vulnerable to extreme heat. We have been blessed in recent years with cooler summers. The high last year was 92 degrees and occurred on August 25. Yet the risk of a major failure and related outages goes up as the temperature rises. What will happen when the temperature reaches 105 degrees, as it did in 2011? Or 113 degrees, the previous record temperature for Columbia? Are we confident we won’t experience these temperatures in the future here in mid-Missouri? Just because weather extremes may be “rare” doesn’t mean we should ignore the risks they present.

Because the transmission line wasn’t built, our current contingency plan for dealing with a significant transmission failure is rolling blackouts. This is documented in the Annual Transmission Planning Assessment that is required by federal law. This annual report was once available in full for public review, but is no longer. As rolling blackouts replaced transmission investment as our contingency plan, the annual assessments are available only in a heavily redacted form, and discussed only in closed session. The stated reason for this is that “disclosure of this information would impair the City of Columbia’s ability to protect the security or safety or persons or real property.” (See for example minutes of the Integrated Electric Resource and Master Plan Task Force, 2/16/21 p. 2). Secret discussions weren’t necessary back when building the transmission line addressed the contingencies. That they are required now should tell us something: What we don’t know can hurt us.

Adequate, safe and reliable electric service should be a priority for all citizens. Our leaders are being neither straightforward nor transparent on the risks and costs associated with a system failure. We deserve better.

02.07.21
by

Stopping Gun Violence

Battle High School Wake Up! Interact Club has partnered with the school district’s Parent-Community University to host discussions on gun violence in our community. You can view two videos exploring the causes and consequences of gun violence here. After viewing the videos you can sign-up to join in an on-line dialogue exploring solutions and next steps. This dialogue will be held Feb. 17, 2021 from 5:30 to 6:30 pm. Subsequent opportunities for discussion will be posted on this blog as events are scheduled.

Watch the videos, share the flier, sign-up and join the dialogue. Help us build a stronger community.