CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, June 12, 2026

Mike's quick, weekly no-nonsense look at civic affairs in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri. This week, Mike takes a look at how the City of Columbia spent a $3.2 million more to purchase energy from renewable sources than it would have had to pay just buying from the market, shares news of a massive new hi-rise student housing complex planned near the MU campus, has an update on the I-70 work, and introduces the three candidates for the open fourth ward seat on the city council.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Columbia has spent years telling residents that renewable energy is part of the city's future. But the newest city report shows the future is getting more expensive. In 2025, Columbia Electric customers paid about $3.46 million more for renewable energy than comparable non-renewable power would have cost. And a new warning is emerging over customer-owned solar and net metering. From Como Buzz.com, this is the Como Buzz Insider Briefing, a weekly look at the decisions, documents, and debates shaping Columbia and Boone County. This week, Columbia's renewable energy program moves back in front of the city decision makers with new numbers showing higher costs, missed goals, and growing concern over how solar credits affect the electric utility. Then on the briefing board, a major student housing project is planned near campus in downtown. And Modot says Columbia's I-70 bridge work is moving faster than expected after the Providence Road demolition. Coming up later, three candidates are now running for Columbia's open fourth ward council seat in the August 4th special election. But we begin with electric rates, renewable energy, and the cost of a public policy that is now getting harder to explain. Columbia's renewable energy program cost electric customers about $3.46 million more in 2025 than power from non-renewable sources would have cost. That comes directly from the City of Columbia's Utilities 2026 renewable energy plan. The plan was presented this week to the Water and Light Advisory Board. It's expected to move to the City Council in July. The report is important for three reasons. First, Columbia missed its renewable energy target for the third year in a row. Second, the cost of the program rose again. And third, the city is now pointing to a future financial issue that has not received much public attention. Customer-owned solar systems operating under net metering. So let's start with the basic picture. In 2025, Columbia generated or purchased 284,780 megawatt hours of renewable energy. That amounted to 22.57% of the city's adjusted electric system load. The city's renewable energy standard called for 25%. So the city paid a premium for renewable power, but still did not hit the percentage target. That's not a small distinction. A renewable standard is not just a statement of values, it's a policy that shapes how the city buys electricity, how it manages long-term contracts, and how much risk it asks ratepayers to carry. The city's ordinance does include a cost limit. Renewable energy can be added only if electric rates do not increase more than 3% above what rates would be if Columbia bought or generated all of its power from non-renewable sources. For 2025, that rate impact limit was about $4.79 million. The actual premium was about $3.46 million. So the city stayed under that legal cap or that ordinance cap, but that does not make the cost meaningless. It means the program remained within the allowed limit while still costing millions of dollars more than the alternative. Over the last 11 years, city records show that Columbia has spent $32.2 million more on renewable energy purchases than it could have spent on other available power. That is the larger issue. These are not one-time expenses, they are cumulative policy costs inside an electric utility that already faces pressure from rising power costs, capacity concerns, infrastructure needs, and ratepayer frustration. Columbia's renewable portfolio remains heavily dependent on wind, and wind is now tied to another problem: transmission congestion. The city says it told Crystal Lake to stop generating in the third quarter of 2025 because congestion caused the price to fall below the negative production tax credit price. In plain English, the market conditions got so upside down the Columbia would have had to pay more than the contracted price. That reduced production from both Crystal Lake contracts. This is where the renewable discussion moves beyond slogans. It's not simply a question of whether renewable energy is good or bad. It's a question of whether the contracts, transmission system, timing, and market rules are working for Columbia ratepayers. The city's own plan says future congestion costs from Crystal Lake are likely to grow and could persist until long-range transmission projects enter service in the late 2020s or early 2030s. That means it's not likely to disappear next year. It is a structural risk, and it is landing at the same time Columbia is trying to decide what its renewable goals should look like going forward. The Water and Light Advisory Board and City Staff have recommended changing the renewable energy standard. One recommendation is an incremental goal of 40% renewable energy by 2035. That approach follows guidance from the Energy Authority, a city consultant that found value in setting step-by-step renewable goals rather than relying on a single target in one year. That may be more realistic, but it also raises a basic question for city leaders. How do you set a higher renewable goal when the city is already missing the current target and paying a premium for the power it is buying now? The answer may be that the city needs a better policy. It may be that the goals need to be adjusted. It may be that the public needs to hear a clearer explanation of what these choices cost. But the answer should not be silence because there's another issue now moving into the report. Net metering. Net metering is the billing arrangement that allows customers with solar systems to receive credits for electricity they send back to the city's electric grid. A homeowner or business with solar panels may generate more electricity than it uses at certain times. When that electricity goes back onto the grid, the customer receives a credit. That is the basic concept. It encourages customer-owned solar, it reduces the customer's bill, and it adds renewable energy to the local system. But for the utility, the economics are more complicated. The city estimates that net metering reduced potential revenue by about $631,000 in 2025 because the utility did not sell that power to customers. That is separate from the smaller renewable rate impact assigned to net metered solar. The renewable plan says net metered customer solar added about $69,500 to renewable rate impact. But the larger issue is the estimated $631,000 in power the utility did not sell because customers generated their own electricity under net metering. This matters because an electric utility has fixed costs. The city still has to maintain poles, it has to maintain wires, it still has to maintain substations, it still has to keep the system available when the sun is not shining or when a customer needs power from the grid. When a customer buys less electricity from the utility, that customer's bill goes down. But the system's costs do not go away in the same proportion. Someone has to pay for the grid. That is the central tension with net metering. It can be good for the individual customer who can afford to install solar, it can help increase renewable generation. But if the credit structure is not aligned with the actual cost of serving these customers, the financial burden then shifts to the other ratepayers. That is not speculation, that is the warning now appearing in the city's own materials. The Prime Group, in an analysis cited in the city's electric cost of service study, warned that net metering could become a substantial renewable cost to the city if credits remain at the current retail rates. The renewal plan says the risk is not likely to affect the overall renewable energy cost right now, but it could become significant in the future when viewed through the broader cost of service. That phrase matters. Cost of service is the core utility question. What causes costs, who benefits, and who pays? In 2025, Columbia had 150 new customer-owned photovolactic installations or expansions. Customer-owned solar capacity grew from 6.16 megawatts to 7.89 megawatts. Net metered production represents only 0.64% of Columbia's electric portfolio, so it's still a small part of the system. But the trend line is what matters. If customer-owned solar keeps growing, and if the city continues crediting power at retail rates, the revenue effect will grow with it. That does not mean the city should punish solar customers. It does not mean customer-owned solar has no value. It means city leaders need to be honest about the cost structure. A utility is not just selling electrons, it is an operating system. And the system has to be paid for whether the electricity comes from a wind farm, a landfill gas facility, a solar panel on a roof, or a power purchase on the market. There is another future risk in the plan: Ironstar Wind. Ironstar is expected to come online in 2029 after construction of the Green Belt Express transmission line. Columbia's current agreement costs for 35 megawatts of wind energy from western Kansas. That project is expected to produce about 122,640 megawatt hours annually for Columbia. That would be about 9.4% of the projected electric systems total in 2029. Utility staff has asked for up to an additional 18 megawatts, which could bring the total purchase potential to 53 megawatts. But the city's own plan says that once Iron Star begins generating, Columbia will be obligated under current agreements to buy more energy than the city's load requires. That would force the utility to sell excess energy on the open market. That's another risk. If the market price is favorable, the city may be able to manage it. If the market price is unfavorable, ratepayers could be exposed. The plan also says adding additional power purchase agreements would increase that risk. At the same time, city officials are evaluating three unsolicited proposals for solar power purchase agreements. And staff is drafting a revised renewable energy ordinance based on guidance from the Water and Light Advisory Board and the City Council. So the next phase is not just technical, it's political. The council will have to decide how aggressive Columbia should be, how much cost is acceptable, and how much risk should be carried by electric customers. There is a way to have this discussion responsibly. It starts by separating goals from accounting. A city can value renewable energy and still ask whether a specific contract is too expensive. A city can support customer-owned solar and still ask whether net metering shifts fixed costs to other rate payers. And a city can set long-term environmental goals but still acknowledge that electric customers are already facing higher bills. The problem comes when those questions are treated as obstacles instead of basic public oversight. Columbia's renewable program is now at a point where the public deserves a clear explanation. Not a slogan, not a moral luxure, not a spreadsheet buried in a meeting packet, a clear explanation. How much more are ratepayers paying? What are they getting for it? Why is the city missing its target? What risks are coming next? And how will the city protect customers who do not have the money to install solar panels, absorb higher bills, or follow complicated utility policy? The renewable energy plan gives the council an opportunity to reset the conversation. The city can still pursue cleaner energy, but it has to show its work because when the premium reaches millions of dollars a year, when the target is missed again, when congestion is cutting production, and when net metering begins to show up as a cost of service issue, this is no longer just an environmental policy discussion. It's a rate payer discussion. And in Columbia, that means it's a household budget discussion. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from Como Buzz.com. Now to the briefing board. Two other developments that matter this week. First, a major student housing project is moving into the city review process near the University of Missouri campus in downtown. The proposal is known as Theory Sterling University. It would replace a full block of existing housing with a new two-tower development of seven and eight stories. The site is northwest of University and College Avenues. It's bounded by Matthew Street on the west, Packlin Street on the north, College Avenue on the east, and University Avenue on the south. The applicant is seeking to rezone about 2.91 acres from multiple family dwelling to planned development. A traffic study describes the project as about 308 apartments and 970 beds. The project would replace existing student-oriented housing on the block, including University Place apartments, graduate and professional apartments, and several houses along Packwin Street. The project comes with several design exceptions. The most visible is height. The proposed maximum height is 85 feet. That is taller than the existing University Place building, but shorter than Packwin Tower north of the site. The plan also proposes fewer parking spaces than standard multifamily rules would normally require. City staff is recommending approval. It's expected to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If it advances, the council will have to decide whether the project fits the city's goals for infield development, housing near campus and downtown, and neighborhood compatibility. Second, Columbia's I-70 bridge closure remains disruptive, but Modot says crews are moving faster than expected. Eric Kapinski, MODOT's improved I-70 program director, says demolition of the Providence Road Bridge over I-70 was completed in less than 24 hours after crews shut down both eastbound and westbound lanes of the interstate on the weekend of May 29th. That was a major closure. It affected traffic across Columbia and Mid-Missouri. But Kapinski says the contractor brought in enough equipment and crews to tear down the bridge and reopened the structure in record speed for a demolition of that size. The Providence work also included removal of a pedestrian bridge. Kopinski credited drivers for following detours and staying out of the construction zone, which he said helped the work move faster. The contractor is Emery Sappin Sons. Kopinski said the Columbia-based company is off to a fast start on speed, progress, and quality. The St. Charles Road Lake of the Woods overpass is also ahead of schedule. The bridge was demolished more than a month ago, and crews poured the deck bridge this week. But Kopinski cautions that a poor deck does not mean the road immediately reopens. There is still tie-in work and finishing work that could take another month to month and a half. Modot's current target is to reopen St. Charles Road Lake of the Woods Bridge around mid-August. The goal is to get it open before the University of Missouri students return and before the first Mizzou football game. Weather remains the biggest wild card. Kopinski said repeated heavy downpours have been schedule killers for construction crews across mid-Missouri. The Providence Road Bridge is expected to take a little longer. Modot's current target for reopening Providence is around the end of September. That work is more involved because crews are also dealing with ramps and other elements at the location. There is also a wider traffic issue on the horizon. Modot is watching possible World Cup traffic connected to the games in Kansas City. The agency does not currently expect a major impact on I-70 in mid-Missouri, but Kolpinski says MODOT is coordinating with World Cup leaders and transportation partners. The basic message from Modot is this: the closures are painful, but the work is moving. And if the weather cooperates, two key Columbia crossings should return later this summer or early fall. Coming up, the fourth ward race is now set for Columbia City Council. Three candidates are seeking the seat in the August 4th special election. The vacancy opened when Councilmember Nick Foster resigned before moving to Atlanta with his family. The candidates are David Sorrell, Ryan King, and Sharon Jones. Sorrell is a former Columbia Utilities Director. He's running on his experience inside city government and says Columbia needs to focus on core services, including police, fire, and infrastructure. King is an attorney and member of the city's Housing and Community Development Commission. He's emphasizing infrastructure, city finances, and affordable housing. Jones is a civil rights attorney, registered lobbyist, and chair of the city's Planning and Zoning Commission. She is arguing that the City Council needs to take a stronger role in setting policy direction on growth and planning. The winner will join the council at a consequential time. The city is facing budget pressure, utility cost questions, public safety funding debates, major development decisions, and long-term infrastructure needs. A candidate forum is scheduled for Tuesday, June 23rd at the Mid-Missouri Board of Realtors on Bernadette Drive in Columbia. The forum begins at 5.30. Before that, Columbia Police Chief Jill Schlute and Councilmember Jackie Sample are scheduled to discuss the city's proposed one cent sales tax for public safety at 5 o'clock. We will be watching both. The story that ties this week together is cost, the cost of energy policy, the cost of growth, the cost of infrastructure, the cost of delay when city decisions do not keep pace with city needs. On renewable energy, Columbia is no longer dealing with an abstract policy goal. The numbers are now specific. $3.46 million in added cost in 2025. $32.2 million over 11 years, a missed target for the third straight year, transmission congestion that reduced wind production, a future wind contract that could require the city to sell excess power on the open market, and a net metering issue that raises hard but necessary questions about who pays for the fixed cost of the grid. That does not mean Columbia should abandon renewable energy. It means Columbia should stop pretending the cost discussion is secondary. Ratepayers are entitled to know what they are paying for, what risks are ahead, and what choices the council is making on their behalf. You can read the full reporting on all these stories at Comoobuzz.com. We will continue following the renewable energy plan as it moves toward the City Council in July. The student housing proposal as it moves through planning and zoning and the city staff and the I 70 bridge work as reopening dates come into clearer focus. For ComoBuz.com, I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening. I'll see you next week.