Tag Archives: transmission line

06.19.26
by

Learn About Your Electric Service!!!

Electricity is a complex service to provide. And in today’s world it is a necessary service. We all want service that is reliable and affordable. So what does it take to get there?

Our electric utility is providing an excellent opportunity to learn about how your electric service works, what it takes to keep it going, and the various factors that affect reliability and affordability. You can attend their informational event titled “The Grid: From Generation to Your Meter” on June 25 at the ARC (1701 West Ash Street). There will be two sessions, each with the same information. One will run from 1:30 to 3:30 pm. The other will run from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. Refreshments will even be provided.

As citizens we are often called to weigh in on questions relating to how our electricity gets generated or delivered. The journey to building a needed transmission line as chronicled in this blog is a case in point. Informed citizens make wiser choices! So plan to attend a session and bring a neighbor.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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
09.27.18
by

Transparency and Transmission: Getting to Real Facts

Which of the following factors should weigh most heavily as we make decisions about our electric service: engineering realities, $$$, political pride, or public protest?

Our Water & Light utility knows how to ensure reliable service. This is evidenced by its earning the Diamond Level Reliable Public Power Provider designation from the American Public Power Association earlier this year. This is the highest level of this award, which recognizes operational excellence.

Yet at least three of our council members – all of whom opposed the building of the transmission line known as Option A – have expressed a lack of trust in our staff and criticized them for past planning. (See for example, Council minutes 1/16/18, pp.29-30; 3/5/18, p.18, 3/9/18, p. 14).

The Council cancelled Option A with no alternative plan in place. The monies raised for the construction of that line are being redirected elsewhere as some on the Council suggest maybe no line will be needed.  (Council Minutes, 1/2/18, pp. 12-13). Various Council members have also offered opinions on how the system might be engineered in the context of appointing a special energy planning task force, and directing it to study a range of issues. (Council Minutes, 3/5/18, pp. 17-21; 3/19/18, pp. 13-18). There is some evidence that staff may be reluctant to speak up and clearly share their concerns. (Council minutes, 7/16/18, p. 32).

When it comes to making good decisions about our infrastructure, we need to ensure that relevant information is widely shared with the public, and done so in an accurate, timely, comprehensive and easily understandable way. That is unlikely to happen if we downplay the expertise of our staff, rewrite the history of a project, or fail to discuss openly the costs and risks associated with delay.

The Chamber of Commerce in endorsing a recent proposal to issue bonds to improve our water and sewer system, pledged that going forward it would work to ensure greater transparency and accountability on infrastructure projects. Let’s hope the Chamber follows through.

11.07.16
by

Information and Misinformation – 3

In this post we look at three additional claims made by members of the public who questioned the Option A transmission line route during our forums.

The first was the suggestion that W & L was investing in transmission for the benefit of Boone Electric customers. The fact is that one can’t simply eyeball the landscape and determine who is and is not a city customer. We learned that, for the last 30 years, electric service has been governed by a territory agreement between Boone Electric and the City. Although there is a section of southwest Columbia that is served by Boone Electric under that agreement, W & L is required to provide, and does provide, service to customers on either side of that section.

Representatives of W & L further explained to us that the electric distribution systems of Boone Electric and the City are not compatible. This is because they are operated at different voltages, opposite phase rotations, and different phase angles. This makes it practically impossible for the City to serve Boone Electric customers or for Boone Electric to serve City customers.

W & L representatives also noted that although growth in southern Columbia is primarily due to new residential development, there has been a lot of new commercial development as well. This includes all the businesses along Grindstone and Nifong. Some of the biggest commercial loads have been for medical centers which use use a lot of electricity for all their equipment.

The second misconception raised in the forums related to the thought that the City might be able to avoid building new transmission lines through better energy efficiency or conservation. We also asked W & L about that, and here is the response:

“In the 2008/2009 time frame we greatly increased our electric efficiency programs according to the utility cost/benefit established in our Integrated Resource Plan. From 2008 through 2015, the cumulative reduction in the electric load was estimated to be 38.86 million kilowatt hours with a total peak reduction of 5,891 kilowatts.

As a result our electric load projections have been modified from a 2% annual increase to a 1.25% annual increase. Renewable resources like solar help lower the electric demand during the day but the production starts dropping off as our electric peak increases (peaks happen around 5 to 7 pm). Note that large amounts of electricity can’t be stored for an economical price.

Although energy efficiency, controlling the demand, and new solar resources are great achievements for our community, they simply won’t solve the problem of a second feed into the Perche Creek substation or the overloading we already have at our existing substations. ”

Third, we asked about the various claims, made during the forums, that “Option A” was the “most expensive” option. “Expense” is actually a complicated issue that requires consideration of different time frames, and benefits gained. W & L shared with us information (also shared with the City Council) indicating that Option A, while initially more costly in nominal dollars, also provides more capacity and resolves issues for a much longer period. That means it is lower cost, or higher value, over time.

You can review this, and other information related to the transmission line issue, on an archive webpage created by Water and Light to help keep the public informed.