Tag Archives: planning

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.

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.”

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
12.24.18
by

Vision Lights On! Revisited

As a recent report from KOMU illustrates, Columbia is stuck in infrastructure limbo with respect to needed investment in its transmission lines and substations.  The report shows the council members who helped stop Option A, and who championed and then quietly abandoned Option E, deflecting questions by misquoting Water & Light and punting to a recently established committee whose chairperson stated it was not looking at transmission needs.

As has been explained in prior posts, we do need to strengthen our electric infrastructure now and also develop a clear plan for the future.  Ignoring this issue is like putting off buying auto insurance because there hasn’t been a crash “yet”.  Citizens deserve — but have not been getting — straightforward information, ongoing updates, and solutions that will keep the electrical infrastructure of Columbia up to par.

We invite those of you who are concerned and interested in finding a solution to join us in pursuing Vision: Lights On!  Follow this blog for future updates.

For those who are learning the history of this issue, here is an index of past posts on this topic.

Transparency and Transmission: Getting to Real Facts (9/27/18)

Transparency and Transmission: Option E Costs More (9/05/18)

More on Transmission (2/20/18)

Keeping An Eye On Our Electric Service (8/21/18)

Vision: Lights On! (2/26/18)

Our Infrastructure: Why So Little Energy Moving Forward? (7/11/17)

What Could Help Us Move Forward? (12/19/16)

Information, Misinformation, Statesmen And Politics (11/15/16)

Information And Misinformation – 1 (10/20/16)

Information And Misinformation – 2 (11/06/16)

Information And Misinformation – 3 (11/07/16)

You Can Make A Difference (10/15/16)

Improving Our Infrastructure – You Can Help! (9/19/16)

The Transmission Line: Many Questions (9/07/16)

09.05.18
by

Transparency and Transmission: Option E Costs More

The City Council did not have an alternate plan in place to ensure electric service reliability when in January 2016 it “paused” construction of the Mill Creek substation and related transmission lines. That project, which was intended to address load growth in the South and Southwest, was known as “Option A”.  Starting in mid 2016, the Council decided to study the possibility of instead building a transmission line in north Columbia. This proposal was dubbed “Option E”. Suggestions were made that Option E was likely to be less costly than Option A.  “Option E” did not, however, address the Mill Creek substation or the substation overloading that the new substation was intended to address.

In the fall of 2017, almost a year and a half after the “pause”, the Council approved, at a combined cost of almost $200,000, two consulting contracts related to electric service. The first, a contract to look at the engineering and estimated cost of “Option E” was awarded to Burns & McDonnell.  The second, a contract to review electric service loads and electric distribution needs, was awarded to Quanta Technology. Both consultants sent their final reports to the City in July, 2018. We recently received these reports  through an open records request.

The cost estimates provided by Burns & McDonnell show Option E to be over $10,000,000 more expensive than the “paused” line, known as Option A.

The report also calls into question other arguments made by Council members who voted to pause Option A. For example, the Burns & McDonnell report confirms that the staff’s choice of metal poles for a 164 kV line was sound. (As the report states on “wood vertical monopole construction is impractical, as structure loading would exceed the capacity of an H6 wood pole” (p. 4-5); and also observes on p. 4-6: “[s]teel generally has a longer service life than wood and is not subject to rot, woodpecker damage, or other premature structure deterioration”). The report also documents the fact that Option E, like Option A, would impact residential neighborhoods (p. 7-2).  Although the report concludes that the “proposed route is feasible,” it qualified that conclusion, stating “there are a number of route obstructions which will need to be addressed and will ultimately have additional costs that would not be recognized from an unobstructed route” (p. 9-1).

Even though the Quanta report focused on overall system loads and did not look at substation level forecasts, it identifies the Perche Creek substation as needing careful monitoring during July as well as the creation of “an offloading schedule that should be triggered in case category P1 operation conditions occur (e.g. transformer failure)”. Transformers are generally manufactured for a 20 to 30 year life.  The oldest transformer at Perche Creek was manufactured in 1968, and the most recent in 1997.  The other two were manufactured in 1983 and 1986.

Another concern raised by the Quanta report is its suggestion that the City might look at changing the methodology traditionally used to ensure reliability when calculating the load serving capacity of its substations.  The purpose of  substituting a new methodology would be to “provide the opportunity to defer substation investment” (p. 29). Quanta goes on to note that selection of an alternate methodology would be dependent on “the level of risk tolerance which they [Water & Light] have regarding substation operation.”

What is our risk tolerance when it comes to electric service outages? Our homes, our businesses, and our medical facilities are entirely dependent on reliable on electricity.  The costs of an extended outage would be significant.  How close do we want to come?  The question should not be how to defer needed investments for as long as possible, but to ensure reliable service, both currently and for the long term.  As we have stated before, we need a decision-making approach that that is more proactive, transparent, and focused on ensuring our infrastructure needs are timely met in a cost-effective way.  Suggestions for how we might improve on the current process are welcome.

08.21.18
by

Keeping An Eye On Our Electric Service

We have previously discussed the Council’s ongoing failure to address the overloading of the substations that serve the South and Southwest and also affect power downtown. The overloading has only gotten worse. In 2015 the Perche Creek substation exceeded its loading goal by 22%. In 2017, that number was 29%. In July of 2018, it was 48%. Perche Creek was not the only substation to exceed its loading goals in July. Blue Ridge, Rebel Hill, and the Power Plant all exceeded 100% of their loading goals. Hinkson Creek was at 99%.

Electric systems must have reserve capacity for times of high loads and/or problems with the system such as those caused by storms, to avoid outages. This overloading is a current issue, not one for future planning. We were lucky this year. What might have happened had we had longer stretches of extreme heat as we did in 2011?

Until put on hold by the City Council, installation of the Mill Creek substation was part of Water & Light’s contingency plan to keep the system up and running under adverse conditions. (Compare these 2016 maps which show the system without Mill Creek, and with its addition.)  “Load shedding” is a focus of the current plan. This was explained to the City Council in January 2018, although it did not draw much discussion. Where would outages occur? Depending on where the load needed to be dropped, outages would start with the circuits tied to that particular substation and after that, would occur on circuits identified “from a priority or community impact relationship.” (Minutes, January 2, 2018, pp. 13 and 14.)

How would your business, residence, or our community be affected by an extended outage? Is this a risk we are willing to simply live with? If not, speak up! Electric infrastructure takes time to plan and install. We have 11 months before next summer. This is an urgent issue that needs ongoing attention.  Can we develop an action plan for Vision: Lights On!?

05.21.18
by

Join The NAACP On May 22, 2018

Over the last few months, the Columbia NAACP has been leading a series of community engagement meetings on the topics of policing, equity, and civility. In between NAACP leaders have met with the police chief and City Manager for additional dialogue. This Tuesday, May 22, from 7 to 9 pm the NAACP  will again be hosting a forum at Second Missionary Baptist Church (407 E. Broadway).

At Tuesday’s forum you will hear an update on community policing and on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings.  After the initial presentations, break out groups will discuss and make recommendations on specific community topics including mental health, racial profiling, minority jobs and entrepreneurship, and civility and accountability.

Join in, share your thoughts and help make Columbia a better place!

WHAT:  Community Dialogue
WHEN:  Tuesday May 22, 2018, 7 to 9 pm
WHERE:  Second Missionary Baptist Church, 407 E. Broadway, Columbia, MO