Tag Archives: energy

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.

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.

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.”

11.19.19
by

Transparency, Electric Service, And Focus

Municipal utilities exist to provide reliable service to city residents at affordable rates.     A Staff memo presented to the City Council on November 4, 2019 supported a 20-year contract at $4.5 million a year for a “utility scale” solar generation resource.  Part of the rationale was that this contract could help the City meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the climate change plan that the City Council recently decided to adopt.  The City would plan to resell most of the energy it obtains under the contract in the wholesale market to offset its cost.  Here is the specific language in the Staff memo:

Our current renewable rate impact methodology is an incremental cost impact model which works with the assumption that renewable generation provides needed capacity, does not exceed current load and can be absorbed by the existing dispatchable resources. When the level of renewable resources has the potential to operate outside of these assumptions, additional impact assessments should be considered.  It is important to know that at some point we would be producing more energy relative to our load, depending upon the reconciliation interval considered (i.e. hourly, daily or monthly). As renewable resources are added we will reach a point where the energy produced from our resources exceeds Columbia’s load.  This excess generated energy will be settled directly in the MISO energy market.

In other words, we will be buying more power than we need for providing electric service to users in Columbia. This appears to be a shift away from a focus on what is needed to provide electric service. The Water and Light Advisory Board is also considering how to advance climate change goals in the integrated resource plan for the electric utility by procuring renewable resources, and it is not clear that they are giving equal consideration to more traditional approaches.

The purchase of renewable resources to meet goals other than the provision of service can be very costly for those who pay the rates for utility service, as this cautionary story shows. Citizens deserve clear and easily accessible information on the options being considered. Only when all appropriate options, including purchased power and other traditional resources are evaluated for cost and reliability and risk can we properly weight the trade-offs and decide what best meets the need for efficient, reliable and cost-effective electric service. We are not getting this kind of information.

Ask questions and be vigilant. It’s your utility and you pay the costs.

10.18.19
by

Vision Lights On! More on Transparency and Transmission

Following various public comment and expressions of concern, Council requested a “report on the electric capacity and load serving reliability of the Perche Creek substation” which it received at its meeting on October 7, 2019. The report does not focus on the specific loads in the area, although it notes those are being studied.  The report does note that

“There is some concern that recent load patterns may not be representative of a ‘worst-case’ for the City.  The City has not experienced extended temperatures of 105 degrees or greater since it set its all-time peak in the summer of 2011.”

Even though the report focuses on potential loss of only one transformer and does not address a complete outage at the substation, it does reference its “Load Shed Plan” for certain contingencies.  Under that plan “[r]esidential customers are targeted to be shed first while critical services such as hospitals, fire stations and the water and wastewater treatment plants are shed last.”

At least two citizens with extensive experience in the field have submitted responses to the Council pointing out issues ignored in the report. You can review those responses here (first response) and here (second response).

In other developments worth noting, the Integrated Electric Resource and Master Plan Task Force, which was appointed by the Council, issued an RFP requesting, as part of the scope of work, a review of the existing standards of reliability. This tracks the concern we noted in an earlier post that the City might look to justify the deferral of needed investment in its transmission infrastructure by simply changing the methodology traditionally used to ensure reliability.  In July of this year the Council also approved a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) which includes the following recommendations: (i) “moving towards 100% renewable electricity generation”, (ii) elimination of the current limits on rate increases caused by the purchase of more expensive renewable sources, and (iii) using storage batteries and community microgrids to support grid resilience and promote reliability (see pp. 48-49). The plan did not include any analysis of the costs or effects of these recommendations. The first two of these recommendations were among the CAAP priorities that were also reviewed by the Council on October 7, 2019.

So where are we going with our electric service?  Will we have an true open discussion of the trade-offs between cost, reliability, and available options or will some options like the transmission line simply remain off the table?  What is our risk tolerance?  And will we have a full accounting of the costs associated with the Council’s hasty decision to “pause” the transmission line in 2016, including an accounting of costs associated with opportunities lost when a project that was approved by the voters, on-time, and on-budget, was simply set aside.

 

07.10.19
by

Vision Lights On! Transparency, Transmission, and Summer Heat

Although the words “transparency” and “infrastructure” were used a lot in the recent mayoral election, there was little discussion of the inadequate electric infrastructure on the southwest side of Columbia. June was thankfully cool.  But as the summer heats up, the risk of outages returns.  As we have noted before, we have an aging substation serving much of the southwest side and more than one transmission line at risk (lacking needed redundancy) in the summer heat.

Most of us are used to purchasing insurance or taking proactive, protective steps when faced with a significant risk of loss.  That is essentially what voters approved in 2015 when voting for bond funds that were to be used to fix our inadequate electric infrastructure in south Columbia.  That is what the City Council was doing when it first approved the construction of a new, strategically located, substation and transmission line, and then issued bonds, and approved a related increase in rates. The new substation and connected lines were to have been finished by now.

Unfortunately, in January 2016 the Council chose to “pause” construction with no alternative plan in place.  In effect, the City Council canceled our insurance even though we have continued to pay the bills through the increased rates.  We also paid approximately $200,000 for studies which confirmed both the substation overloading and the fact that delays are costing us significantly.  Yet these studies and their implications were never publicly addressed.

Instead, the Council has added additional load by approving construction of the Westbury subdivision, sidelined our experienced staff on planning issues by referring these to a citizen commission whose members are appointed by the Council, and allowed an exodus of experienced line workers (who work to restore service when outages occur) by not paying competitive salaries. These actions only increase the risk and the need to find solutions.

What the Council does like to talk about is renewable energy.  Although renewable energy resources serve an important role in our electric system, they do not eliminate the need for investment in our transmission facilities. Ensuring adequate and reliable electric service presents many complex issues and easy answers are usually wrong. Accurate information and attention to engineering realities are needed if we are to find a way forward.

As we meet the candidates for City Manager, consider the following:  Is there a candidate who is willing to challenge the Council when it fails to consider issues that affect our health and welfare?  Or when it oversteps the bounds of our Council – Manager form of government? Or when it works to undermine our professional staff? Who is willing to talk openly and honestly to the public about both costs and risks associated with infrastructure needs and failures?  Who might move us forward?

 

03.09.19
by

Vision Lights On! Ignoring Reality

On February 4, 2019, the City Council voted for yet another development on the Southwest side. That development would place additional stress on already overloaded electric infrastructure in this part of town. Before voting, they received the warning copied below from a retired Water & Light executive.  Of course it was ignored.

Why should we be concerned about our electric infrastructure?  Keep reading! And join in Vision Lights On!

Good Morning,
Because the City Council has failed to address the electric load issue in the south part of Columbia, further development puts all southern Columbia residents at risk of outages, particularly during the summer peak season.  All development should be stopped until that issue is addressed.
I do not live in the area impacted by this overloading (or development) and I can not attend the Council meeting tomorrow night but I wanted to make you aware of this issue since it is not being addressed.
The proposed development would receive power from the Perche Substation.  That substation is loaded over 150% of design capacity.  The electric system requires redundancy.  Substations should never be loaded to the point that if one transformer fails, the load can’t be switched to another transformer.  At the Perche Substation, that point was reached several years ago and if something happens now a prolonged outage would occur.
The bond issue, that citizens passed by a large majority in 2015, would have addressed the issue by building a new substation in south Columbia; off-loading the current overloading; and, built a second transmission line to the Perche Substation (currently there is only one transmission line to Perche).  The original plan would have had the work completed by late spring 2017.
Currently there is no decision on what is to be done to address the overloading across south Columbia, yet development continues without addressing the consequences.   A study was completed several months ago that showed that the “Option E”, proposed by the mayor, would have cost nearly double the original Option A; however, that report has not been publicly discussed and nothing is being done to address the issue.
The only way this development could be serviced without attaching to the Perche Substation would be to build an “express” feeder from the Harmony Substation.  That would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe over a million) more than connecting to Perche.
I am retired now, but was responsible for forecasting electric system load.  Some Council members insist that the load hasn’t grown and therefore there isn’t an issue in southern Columbia.  There are two major flaws in that argument:
1. The historic system load occurred when the actual temperature reached 105 and the nighttime temperature never got below 80.  The recent highest summer temperatures have not exceeded 100.  Until similar high temperatures occur the actual system load can only be projected.
2. The forecast is for the “system” not for individual substations.  To be connected to the larger national grid, electric utilities have to forecast how much energy will flow into their system (transmission system) during peak conditions (subject to fines for failure).  Forecasting loads on individual substations (the distribution system) is not regulated and was not done.  As I stated previously Perche is well beyond design criteria that allows redundancy in the system.
This development should not even be discussed until the City Council addresses the electric system overloading in south Columbia.
A local attorney, with electric utility experience, has been attempting to educate the public on this issue.  For more information go to the following link
Jim Windsor
Assistant Director of Utilities – Retired