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.

07.02.20
by

Vision Lights On! New Report Confirms Perche Creek Risk

Again we have been lucky to have a cool Spring. As hot weather arrives, though, it’s time for another reminder that our Council unnecessarily placed our electric service at risk when it voted to “pause” the transmission line planned for the Southwest, with no alternate plan in place.

Now yet another consultant has confirmed that yes, the Perche Creek substation is overloaded. In a presentation sent to the Integrated Electric Resource and Management Plan Task Force, the engineering firm assisting the task force (Siemens) confirms that the substation has exceeded its firm capacity (in fact is currently operating at 150% of firm capacity at peak temperatures) and that its associated feeders are overextended.

As we have pointed out before, this puts us at risk for serious outages. A failure at Perche Creek would affect everyone in Columbia. Note that both the McBaine Water Treatment Plant and the Gillespie Bridge Sewer Treatment Plant are served by the Perche Creek substation. Due to the failure to build the transmission line, these facilities are not backed up the way Water & Light had planned or would like to them to be.

The pandemic has given us ample illustration of the fact that when those in leadership positions ignore or deny latent but serious risks, the potential harm to citizens increases. When the line was paused it was on-time, on-budget, and fully funded. During the last five years, we have paid millions in increased rates (which were approved but not “paused” by the Council) without getting the promised return.

It is unlikely that at this point we will be able to fix our electric infrastructure without paying out millions more. We should, however, be able to get a full accounting of what the Council’s “pause” has cost us, put in the infrastructure needed to ensure the reliability of key services, and adopt procedures to ensure that the Council cannot in the future so easily and heedlessly derail key projects that the public has already approved and paid for.

04.14.20
by

Community Is An Idea We Haven’t Figured Out Yet

This post was written by a senior at Battle High School, William Henderson, who has been interning over this last year at The Communications, Center, Inc.  It was shared before the schools closed due to Coronavirus.  Please read through and consider contributing to those in your community who have been hit hard by this pandemic through the links posted at the end.

Columbia is still struggling to become one community and I think the catalyst of this problem is division among the city. There is a clear division between the  Southwest and Northeast sides of town. The Southwest side of Columbia is viewed as the “good” part of Columbia while the Northeast is viewed as the “bad” or “ghetto” side of town. The 2017 redrawing of the district lines only enhanced this narrative by increasing the number of free and reduced lunch students in schools on the Northeast and decreasing the number of these students on the Southwest side of town. This lessened the overall wealth of families of schools on the northeast side of town and in turn decreased the schools’ access to social and economic capital

Coming from the northside things are fundamentally different. We grow up with this chip on your shoulder because everyone makes us out to be somebody that we aren’t at all. Every single person you meet from the Southside or the Westside of the city has these predisposed negative ideas about us, that make us feel as if we are less-than. We have to work extra hard for people to acknowledge us as good hearted people who can contribute to the community because we are seen as troublemakers or hoodlums by everyone that doesn’t live where we live.

Constantly surrounding young boys and girls with the idea that they are lesser versions of a human just because they don’t live on the same side of town as you results in a negative self-image, that in turn causes self-destructive behavior among adolescents growing up in these places that are looked down upon. Surrounding young children who are like sponges; with these hurtful ideas will cause them to believe them to be true. When this happens the kids give into the narrative that is already placed upon them and they become everything that people who know nothing about them, deem them to be.  They live into the expectations pushed on them instead of growing into their potential.

This is where the separation of Columbia happens. When people that live on the North and East sides of town resent the ones living on the South and West sides because they push the narrative that those people on the East and North are the only reason the city has any crime at all. Everyone in Columbia  chooses to isolate themselves because we are afraid. Our fear stems from the lack of accountability that we have as a community, we’re always looking to be able to point a finger, instead of realizing that we have a problem internally and working to fix it. It seems to me that nobody actually wants improvement, they just want their way of thinking to be proven right. We focus too much on what we think everybody else is doing wrong, instead of appreciating them for what they’re doing right. Everybody wants to feel secure and comfortable and stay divided in their own collective groups, but improvement stems from being uncomfortable. We have to stop being scared of each other and find the courage to change if we want to improve on the issues we have as a city.

Community isn’t about what you’re used to, it’s about embracing change in order to improve the lives of those living within it. We will never be able to obtain the goal of a community if we continue to separate ourselves from one another. True cooperation from everyone from every side of town is the only way we will be able to change what is the “norm” for us. Believing in each other is a necessity because trust is the backbone of what we all want to achieve. This idea of coexisting may not be something we’ve quite grasped just yet but we are so close to beginning the creation of a new Columbia, a Columbia where everyone loves one another and isn’t separated by things like location of residency.

One Community, One Columbia.

The Coronavirus has highlighted the deep inequities in our system.  Throughout the country Afican Americans are dying at faster ratesthan others, reflecting the effects of both racial injustice, poverty, and inequalities of access to healthcare. Columbia has set up funds to help your neighbors. Please give as generously as you can.  If you need help try the resources listed here.

03.08.20
by

Will You Be Able To Keep Your Electric Service?

Tad Johnsen, our Water and Light Director, is retiring after many years of working to ensure the reliability of our electric system.  His final report  to the Water and Light Advisory Board contained some concerning statements.

Referencing the Council’s recent focus on renewable energy, he stated:

In the future, electric utilities will need to make the transition from the provider of electric service to providing the different electric services consumers want.

This raises several questions, including the following: Who will bear the cost of these different “options”? How will this affect our service reliability? Who makes a decision to move from a full service menu that provides broad benefits throughout the community to an a la carte set of options desired by some but may be costly to all?  Who is deciding what “consumers” want? Will the community be allowed to vote before there is a change?

Unfortunately, we can’t count on the Council to decide what will best ensure safe and reliable electric service at reasonable rates.  Ever since the Council “paused” a proposed transmission line with no alternative plan in place,  it has avoided talking about that issue.  Over 60% of voters approved the proposed transmission line.  That line, had it been built, would have helped assure basic reliable electric service at a reasonable cost for many years to come. Instead, we have paid millions,  associated with the Council’s delay.  The Council does like to talk about “renewable energy”. However, as we have previously explained, “renewable energy” is not a substitute for adequate transmission despite the efforts of various Council members to suggest that it is, and it is not always cost effective. 

Mr. Johnsen also cautioned:

As we push towards increased levels of renewable energy in our resource mix, we need to understand the impacts to market risk and potential impacts to electric rates these changes may have.

We do need to understand these risks,  Unfortunately, the Council has been less than transparent about the ongoing costs of its actions.

Mr. Johnsen further stated that the current Integrated Electric Resources and Master Planning process will likely affect the structure of electric service rates.  He also pointed out that the planning for implementation of the Council’s recently adopted Climate Action and Adaptation Plan “could have an impact on how all of Columbia’s Utilities provide services in the future.”

He expressed the hope that

the impact of these changes will be evaluated from different perspectives, including short term and long term financial costs, environmental impacts, and quality of life effects.

We hope so too. Although given the Council’s past lack of transparency on this issue we can’t assume that will happen.  So if you care about safe and reliable electric service, the time to get involved is now.  One way to prepare is to take one of the classes that Osher is offering on understanding your electric service.  Taking this class can help you better understand, monitor, and weigh in on emerging issues.  You can register for one of two sections, one on Monday afternoons (March 9-April 6) and one on Tuesday evenings (April 14-May 5).

02.19.20
by

Learn About Your Electric Service!

Matt Pitzer, responding to a KOMU report regarding “forgotten funds” for water service, stated “When we ask for a bond issue that’s going to lead to a rate increase then we should do what we said we were going to do.” Mayor Treece criticized Water & Light for not “keeping promises they made.”  Yet both have stood in the way of proceeding with the needed changes in our transmission infrastructure.  This despite a public vote approving the related bond issue and a 3% rate increase that has been in place for several years now.  How might we hold Council accountable when it is responsible for the change or misdirection of funds voted by the public? A change that has cost us millions to date? How might we require an  accounting of the overall costs incurred?

Electricity is one of our most critical services.  More of us need to be informed in order to understand the decisions made and their consequences for cost and reliability of service.  Osher is offering a class that can help you understand the issues affecting your electric service so that you can better monitor and weigh in on emerging issues.  You can register for one of two sections, one on Monday afternoons (March 9-April 6) and one on Tuesday evenings (April 14-May 5).

01.12.20
by

Requesting Transparency for Transmission

Below is the text of a statement provided by Jim Windsor (retired Assistant Director of Utilities) at the City Council meeting on January 6, 2020.  If we want a more open and honest discussion of our electric service issues, we will have to continue to ask for it.

“Recently, five members of the Columbia City Council signed a letter that stated in part “we expect open, honest and transparent government.” As a citizen, I commend the concept; however, as a ratepayer of the electric utility, I question its validity.

Over 10 years ago, the first interested parties meeting regarding a new substation and the first Council work session on a proposed transmission line were held. That was followed by multiple interested parties meetings; council work sessions; reviews of multiple Option A routes; the development of Option B routes; more input from
residents; more council work sessions and discussions; a community review and
selection process; and, of course money being paid to consultants.

This lengthy process resulted in the purchase of property for the substation and the
selection of a route, called Option A, to connect the new substation with the Perche
Creek substation.

It also resulted in a bond proposal that was presented to voters in April of 2015.
Approximately half of the total bond proposal, as outlined in the information presented to voters, was related to the transmission and substation projects.The April 2015 bond proposal was approved by 68% of voters, bonds were initially sold
worth about half of the total bond authority and rate payers received a 3% rate increase to pay for the principal and interest on the bonds.

City staff moved forward with purchase of the required substation transformers and
other equipment needed to build the new substation and connect to the Grindstone and Perche Creek substations. City staff also brought forward an authorization to proceed with the transmission line.

It was at that point that a group, unhappy with the results of the lengthy public process, came to the Council in opposition to the transmission project. In January of 2016, four years ago, the Council placed the transmission line on hold. What has happened in those four years?

The mayor suggested a different route called Option E.

Burns & McDonnell was paid $100,000 for an in-depth study of Option E and that study was completed in July 2018. Public presentation to Council was part of the contract scope-of-work but never occurred. The study shows Option E would cost a minimum of $10 million more than Option A and included a list of multiple issues that could drive the cost much higher.

Quanta was hired for an electric distribution study and was also paid $100,000. That
study was completed in July 2018 and included a public presentation as part of the
contract. That presentation never occurred. The study shows that five substations
exceeded 100% of their capacity should they lose one of their transformers. Perche
Creek substation is the most in danger at 160% and that occurs at 97 degrees.

Staff sent Council a synopsis of the Quanta report after I raised the issue earlier this year. When a member of Council asked when the last time a substation transformer had failed, staff indicated it doesn’t happen often and it had been several years. That’s true, the last time it occurred was in 2012, when the summer temperature was over 100 degrees. Summers have only reached 97 since then.

The fact that the two reports were not publicly discussed can be blamed on the previous city manager. In the spirit of open, honest and transparent government, I ask the City Council and new city manager to require those consultants to complete their contracts and publicly explain their studies.

In early 2019, the Council approved the Westbury Village development which could add over 2 megawatts of load to the already overloaded Perche Creek substation. In June 2019, the Council accepted the Climate Action Plan. That plan predicts higher summer temperatures, while also encouraging switching motor vehicle fuels and natural gas equipment to electricity. It also states that more frequent extreme weather
events increase the risk of longer, sustained power outages for the City’s electric
customers.

So, after four years, where are we –

  • we have yet another citizens committee and yet another consultant with a report due in September 2020. Let’s hope this summer doesn’t exceed 97 degrees.

Reports based summer temperatures at 97 degrees, really don’t address the issue. The
real issue is “what will happen to the electric distribution system when the summer
temperature reaches 105 degrees?” That was the temperature in 2011 when the last
system peak occurred.

Since policy will be developed that is based on the climate report then perhaps the
question should be “what will happen to the electric distribution system when the
summer temperature exceeds the previous Columbia record temperature of 113
degrees?”

I look forward to open, honest, and transparent government addressing these questions.”