Columbia's Electric Transmission Line Project Overview . . . . . . .. Option A Mill Creek to Grindstone (161 kV) Legend City Limit Line MKT I Katy Trail Mill Creek to McBaine (161 kV) Mill Creek to Perche (161 kVMILL CREEK substation lNls(uSQN bslabon ommne Legend City Limit Line -- MKT I Katy Trail Mill Creek to Grindstone (69 kV) Mill Creek to Hinkson (69 kV) - Existing 69 kV Route Future Demolition McBaine to Perche (161 kV) Option B-2 Legend City Limit Line MKT I Katy Trail McBaine to Perche (161 kV) Mill Creek to Grindstone (69 kV) Mill Creek to Hinkson (69 kV) -- Existing 69 kV Route Future Demolition OPTION A: Uses 161 kilovolt lines. This option provides the longest term solution for electric load growth. Uses developed right--of-way corridors and is easiest option to main- tain. This option provides greater reliability with fewer possibilities for power outages than the other options. No disadvantages from an engineeringlutility standpoint. OPTION B: Uses 161 and 69 kilovolt lines. This route is the shortest in length, utilizes some existing transmission line paths and solves the current fed- eral reliability requirements. Since this route uses some lower-voltage lines, it will support electric load growth for a shorter period of time, and can be overloaded more easily. This route contains more cross--country paths which are more difficult to access and maintain. OPTION B-2: Uses 161 and 69 kilovolt lines. From an engineering standpoint, the advantages and disad- vantages of this option are the same as option B. How- ever, it is longer in length and has more angles than so will be more difficult and expensive to build and maintain. Easement costs are expected to be lower for this option since the route includes more city--owned property. The route runs parallel to a section of the MKT trail and crosses it three times. Columbia Water 8: Light 0 - GoColumbiaMo.com - (573)874-7325 Columbia's Electric Transmission Line Project Overview Columbia Water Light needs to build new transmission lines in the southern part of our community to reliably deliver electricity and meet federal reliability standards. The transmission lines will connect the new Millcreek substation on Peach Court with existing substations. Transmission lines move energy from where it is produced to substations, which lower the voltage for distribution lines to carry the power to homes and businesses. After gathering input from those living in the area, three possible routes to run the lines were developed: Options A, B, and B2. Maps of the routes are on the reverse of this page. Estimated Costs Potential Rate Impacts of Constructing Electric Transmission Lines Option A Option Option B-2 Estimated years before more Note; lmPT0Veme"t5 are needed Electric system projects are paid Miles of 161 kilovolt lines 12.07 6.99 9.84 through utility rates. not through tax . . . revenues. Easement costs could add Mlles of 69 kllovoll lmes 2'97 2'97 6-10% to the costs listed in the table. Total construction cost: overhead $13,135,117 $10,151,122 $12,229,788 The Cost estimates are based on Using Total construction cost: underground $91,898,566 $75,833,448 $97,532,778 voter approved bond funds which are Cost/Customer each month for 20 years: $1.18 $0.91 $1.10 the lowest Opllonr pald Overhead back over a period of 20 years. Cost/Customer each month for 20 years: $8.26 $6.82 $8.77 underground Underground VS Overhead Lines: Underground electric lines are less noticeable, less susceptible to physical damage like bad weather, and don't require the regular tree trimming overhead lines do. However, burying transmission lines is more complicated and expensive than distribu- tion lines due to the high voltage of the lines. The construction process causes property disturbance, the permanent removal of all nearby trees and shrubs, and restricts future land development over and near routes. Underground lines are more expensive to maintain and the electric lines have half the service life of overhead lines. Survey Results WHAT FACTOR IS MOST IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE FINAL 1. Reliable electric service: 9,232 or 16.2% Option provides longest-term solution: 8,724 or 15.3% Least cost to build/minimize rate impact: 7,207 or 12.6% Proximity to residential homes (this includes apartments): 7,158 or 12.5% Environmental impact (trees cleared, wetlands disturbed, etc.): 6,725 or 11.8% Negative aesthetic impact on city, neighborhood, or recreational areas: 6,655 or 11-.7% Proximity to schools, day cares, churches, hospitals, and/or nursing homes: 6,419 or 11.3% Proximity to commercial businesses: 4,927 or 8.6% SELECTION MATRIX RESULTS The preferences and concerns were entered into an algorithm in a selection matrix that assigns them a score according to their importance. Because most decision factors are negative or unfavorable, the option receiving the least negative score is determined to be the most publicly favorable. The results of the selection matrix are very close. The final scores for all three options are within a single percentage point difference from each other. 0 Option A: --36,341 0 Option B: -35,739 0 Option B-2: -35,528 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS Given the necessity for this project, if you must choose, which option would you prefer to see implemented? Option A: 1,210 or 76% Option 8:271 or 17% Option 8-2: 104 or 7% Raise rates for undergrounding lines: Yes: 847 or 53%, No: 738 or 47% Columbia Water 8: Light 0 0 GoCo|umbiaMo.com - (573)874-7325