Future of power line project still up in the air

Columbia Missourian

COLUMBIA — In the next month, Ameren Missouri is scheduled to release the results of a study that could help resolve a 10-year electric debate over a high-voltage power line project in Columbia.

The power line project has stalled while Ameren works on the study of so-called Option E, which would place the power lines east and north of the city and possibly have Ameren and the city share transmission lines and routes.

In a June work session, the Columbia City Council decided to explore Option E. It negotiated a contract with Ameren for the study, which began in January. The report from Ameren should be complete sometime in May, Mayor Brian Treece said.

"My decision-making triage is that if Ameren determines that it is viable, then the city engineers need to determine if it is financially feasible," Treece said. "If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then we need to have an interested parties meetings with stakeholders along potential routes to determine how to proceed."

Option E would start on Ameren right of way in the north then bring power to south Columbia on lines east of the city, but exactly where it would run remains unknown until the Ameren study is complete, Community Relations Director Steven Sapp said.

"We don't want to put time and resources into the last leg of routing those transmission lines if we don't even know if the first leg is a viable option," Sapp said. "We are waiting to see what happens with the Ameren study before we move forward with anything else."

History of the project

City staff originally presented three options to the City Council for the route of the lines. They were known as Options A, B and B-2. The options identified the need and routes of high-voltage power lines and substations that would serve south Columbia's utility needs. The options, according to previous Missourian reporting, were: 

• Option A: A 161-kV line running along Providence Road, Grindstone Parkway, Nifong Boulevard, Vawter School Road and Scott Boulevard. 

• Option B: A 69-kV line connecting the Mill Creek substation with the Grindstone Parkway and Hinkson Creek substations. 

• Option B-2: Similar to Option B, but a section of the line would have been moved to a city-owned property near the Waste Water Treatment Plant.

• Option A was presented as the best option when consultants came in to determine the engineering options in 2008, Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser said.

"I've always felt that the staff had a preconceived idea that Option A was going to be what we are going to work towards, because every other option that was ever laid out on the table was always presented as inferior to Option A," Nauser said. "From a logical standpoint, that made sense, but from a political and community standpoint, it did not make sense."

Some parents of students attending Mill Creek Elementary disliked Option A, which would have run the power lines near the elementary school. They feared the possible health risks of leukemia associated with electromagnetic fields emitted by high-voltage power lines, according to previous Missourian reporting.

City staff wasted time by prioritizing Option A over any other options, said Detelina Marinova, a Columbia resident and parent of a child attending Mill Creek Elementary.

"Now they are saying it's going to be a delay," Marinova said. "Well, the delay is due to them because they didn't do due diligence to figure out that the option they were suggesting is a no go option."

Option A was the only option originally on the table. Others arose only after the council opted to explore other routes, Assistant Director of Columbia Water and Light Ryan Williams said. 

"It was staff's opinion that Option A was the better engineering solution over Option B," Williams said. "We've been working on Option E (since it was proposed by the mayor)."

Residents pushed back against Option A, including circulating a petition that gathered more than 1,200 signatures, according to previous Missourian reporting. City Council voted to look at other routes in November 2015.

"The original plan, Option A, was very controversial because it went through existing residential neighborhoods, passed by schools, nursing homes and churches and was not well-received by the community it was intended to serve," Treece said.

Necessity vs. impact

Option E would serve the electrical needs of Columbia and reduce the community impact compared to previous options, Treece said.

"It made sense to look at where we have existing power lines with our partners in the utility industry, and we identified Option E, a fifth option, that would explore whether the city of Columbia could add our 161-kilovolt lines onto existing high-voltage corridors," Treece said. He added that it would be a good thing if Ameren, Boone Electric Cooperative and the city could work together.

Any new electrical project would need to connect a 161-kV line to the Perche Creek substation and create a new load-serving center in the southern portion of the electrical service territory. Option E doesn't necessarily address both those issues, Williams said.

"Option E addressed the (interconnection) issue, but we haven't really discussed how we are going to solve the load-serving issue," Williams said. That problem would be addressed after talks with Ameren.

Looking at community impact is essential, but making sure the electrical grid is up-to-par is also necessary, Fourth Ward Councilman Ian Thomas said.

"There is still the question of providing additional capacity in south Columbia," Thomas said. "One of the elegant things about Option A was that it actually accomplished both of those electric utility goals in a single project. However, I didn't really like Option A because of the higher cost and property impact."

Nauser said she's always thought the power lines should go on the perimeter of the city. "Obviously, you can't put in something like that in and it's not going to impact somebody, but you have to minimize the impact."

Williams agreed that a project of this magnitude will have impact no matter what. "We're going to have the same issue moving forward, it's just going to be a different set of citizens," Williams said.

Marinova said Option E is the best yet.

"It does not run through established neighborhoods, it impacts the least amount of people, it goes around town, it's not going to impact schools, hospitals or people's homes," Marinova said. "Also, (there is) the financial cost savings that could be achieved because for most of the route there is established high-voltage power lines, established structures and poles, so there's the opportunity to run a second line without investing in the excessive cost to construct all of this from scratch."

All options must be considered, Treece said.

"I think we should look at how Columbia is growing and imagine Columbia 10, 20, 30 years from now and locate that substation in a place that is best going to serve that growth," Treece said. "I think it's worthwhile that while we are looking at Option E to also have all those other options on the table as well."

Eroded trust

The debate surrounding the power line has created a contentious relationship between some community residents and city government.

A petition was circulated in April and May of 2016 to recall Nauser after she voted to hold another public meeting for the power line project, according to previous Missourian reporting.

"They didn't let the process play through, which was unfortunate because if Option E works, it will be a far better option for the residents of the Fifth Ward and still accomplish our ultimate goal of reliability and addressing redundancy in our transmission lines," Nauser said.