What will CWLP look like in 20 years? Ensuring the city will have plentiful and reliable power is key for the wellbeing of the city. And because the City of Springfield owns the utility, this question is doubly important to residents. The city council wants to make the best planning decisions possible, and so earlier this year work began on an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
The IRP is a report that will help guide CWLP and the city as they decide how much capacity the power plants will have in the future, and what energy sources they will rely on. Because these decisions will have major ramifications for Springfield for decades to come, the city wanted to have as much public oversight as possible. As part of this process, the utilities committee was given a presentation on the progresses of the IRP so far. Part of the presentation was responding to public comments from the last meeting and listening to concerns from the current one.
How does the IRP work?
IRPs rely on very complicated economic models. They must first find all of the expenses the utility has now, and then predict how all of them are going to change over the coming decades. With more than 750,000 line items in the budget, that is easier said than done. This includes costs for fuel, personnel, regulatory compliance, new equipment and maintenance of old equipment.
Just as importantly, future usage patterns need to be predicted. CWLP needs to know how much power it needs to be able to produce before it can answer how it will actually do it. During the last IRP process in the early 2000s, the experts got this part wrong. Demand is 23 percent lower than the models projected, and so the other decisions that were made ended up being wrong.
The model is based on both facts and assumptions. Small changes in the assumptions can have major impacts on the final results. To create the most accurate prediction possible, nine different scenarios are being considered. These will look at what high coal prices, carbon taxes, or better renewable options will mean for the industry.
But models are impacted as much by what they leave out as by what they include. Items that are considered “out of scope” for the IRP model include health impacts, the coal ash ponds, and the proposed second lake. These factors all impact the real costs of coal-fired power plants. Most of the new public comments focused on the omission of these elements from the IRP. The decision not to include them struck some as a thinly-veiled effort to shift the outcome of the final report.
The IRP has also suffered from delays. While the report was authorized to take six months and be ready at the end of the year. Instead, it will be presented in mid-March. This delay was caused by The Energy Authority (TEA), the company assisting with the IRP, bumping CWLP down in the priority queue. While some delays are understandable, the council noted that they had only been informed of this delay the day of the meeting.
Still, the council is more concerned about getting reliable information than a fixed timeline. Previous resource plans did not age well. The city decided to add Dallman Unit 4 in the mid 2000s based on research about how the economics of power were supposed to play out. Higher prices and demand meant protecting the rate-payers from market volatility was going to be particularly valuable. It was also believed that CWLP would be able to sell excess power on the market for a profit. However, those projections did not pan out. By 2008, energy use entered a period of “unprecedented decline,” and the price of power collapsed. Overall, energy demand is 23 percent lower than projected, and average prices are down 40 percent. While this is not to second guess those decisions, the inaccuracy of the previous analysis still has major ramifications for CWLP and the city today. So it is a good sign that the city council is doing what it can to ensure this IRP is more accurate.
The next meeting to discuss the IRP will be the quarterly utility committee meeting in January. There is no set date for that meeting yet.
LIVE | Springfield City Council Meeting September 17th
This is the live feed for the Springfield City Council meeting for September 17th, 2019. The zoning for a new homeless shelter in Ward 2 is up for discussion. Regulations for recreational cannabis are also up for passage after discussion last week.
The proposed location homeless shelter has drawn significant public discussion, and the council chamber is standing-room only. The discussion of the shelter begins at ~22 minute mark of the video.
Update: The city council voted 8-2 to approve the zoning for the Helping Hands facility. Aldermen Gregory (Ward 2) and Turner (Ward 3) opposed.
Jacksonville hears proposals for municipal solar arrays and park grants
Several new projects may be coming to Jacksonville. The Parks and Lakes committee discussed two state grants to improve local recreation. A 50-50 matching grant could provide up to $400,000 to help restore the Nichols Park pool.
A second grant would provide funds to be used on the lakes. The committee decided that fixing the boat ramp area for Lake Mauvaisterre was the best use of the grant. Although lots of work has been into the lake, many boaters are reluctant to put their boats out due to the poor conditions of the launch ramps. Other projects were considered, but fixing the main point of entry for the lake was considered a prerequisite for any other recreation project.
Both projects depend on a successful grant application, which will be submitted in the coming weeks.
Next, Joe Christian from Simpleray came to discuss potentially adding solar arrays to the city’s water plants. These plants require large amounts of power and solar is one possible way of cutting down on these costs. They also have considerable amounts of open space, making them plausible candidates for solar arrays.
The proposal calls for a 25 year deal with Simpleray, where they would install and operate the arrays, and sell power to the city. They want a locked-in rate that is currently below the market price. Based on Simpleray’s cost projections for electricity, the city could save over $2 million over the duration of the deal. At the end of the deal, the city would buy the arrays, which are projected to last for at least another ten or fifteen years.
There are some concerns with the deal. Technical questions remain about facility planning. New structures are planned at the treatment plants, and any new solar arrays would need to be built around both current and future structures. There were also finical concerns. 25 years is a long commitment for a utility price. Even though it is below projections, no one knows what the price of power will be in the future.
The arrays themselves also had unknown costs. Since the city would take ownership of the arrays after 25 years, the city would be responsible for disposing of the panels once they reached the end of their usefulness. The Simpleray consultant was unsure how expensive it would be to dispose of the panels even under current regulations. Like many forms of electronic trash, it is not known what new rules may apply to solar panels in 25 or 30 years.
Simpelray was interested in moving forward quickly, because there are Federal incentives that will expire at the end of the year. Despite some interest from the council, Alderman Wankel pointed out that the city’s engineers will need to examine the plan, and it may need to go out for a bid. Special Studies is planning a dedicated meeting to discuss solar options in the near future.
Ward 2 retirement
Monday’s meeting was also the last for longtime Alderman Tony Williams. Williams was recently reelected in April, but is moving out of the ward. Mayor Ezard will appoint his replacement, but there is no word on who will be selected to fill the term.
You can watch the full workshop session in the player above.
City Council hears final arguments, recommendations in Ward 2 recount
The Ward 2 aldermanic race might set a new record for closest election that wasn’t a tie. The first full count showed Gail Simpson leading Shawn Gregory by a single vote. Gregory challenged the result and asked for a recount. Then the race got closer. After the recount, the recommendation of the hearing officer was to declare Simpson the winner by not one vote, but 0.361 votes.
During the recount, all of the ballots were inspected again. That further inspection revealed that some of the ballots had problems. A ballot that is not filled out correctly can be disqualified. One had two colors of ink, one was damaged and had to be reconstructed, and another had two candidates marked. These ballots were resolved on an individual basis.
But there were two sets of ballots that needed further discussion. The first were ballots where the election judge marked them in the wrong place. There is a line where the judge should put their initials so the tabulators know it is a valid ballot. Three ballots, all from the same judge, had marks near, but not on, the provided line. Two of them were for Gregory. They were not counted in the hearing officer’s recommendation.
Another group of ballots came from the Mary Bryant Home. The Mary Bryant Home is a community for the blind and visually impaired. Due to their conditions, many of these voters required assistance in filling out their ballots. To protect the integrity of the vote, especially with vulnerable populations, there are affidavits that must be filled out by the voter and the assistant to make the votes valid. For thirteen ballots, this did not happen.
However, the affidavits do not match specific ballots. To ensure voter privacy, the ballot cannot be directly tied to a specific voter. When the thirteen ballots were thrown out, each candidate had a proportional reduction in their count based on how well they did in each precinct. In the end, Simpson lost 4.278 votes, but Gregory lost just 2.639 votes. That closed the margin, but did not eliminate Simpson’s lead.
The real debate hinges on how comparable council members think these two types of errors are. John Mehlick, the hearing officer for the recount, considered both errors equally disqualifying. Although he stressed that he did not want to throw out any votes, he pointed out instructions were not followed on both. During his remarks to the council, Mehlick stressed that the council should demand “excellence” from its election judges and administrators.
Not everyone agreed with that logic. Questions from several aldermen suggested that they found the initials to be a far less serious breach of protocol than those on the affidavits. Others argued that disqualifying votes due to errors from election officials was not something they wanted to do, and argued both sets of ballots should be included.
The council’s decision
There are three likely outcomes the council could decide on. If both sets of ballots are eliminated, then Simpson wins. If both sets of ballots are kept, Simpson would still win. And if the affidavits are thrown out, but the initialed ballots are kept, then Gregory wins.
The choice is unenviable. Most of the time, standards are set without knowing how it will impact an election. Today, the council knows it is not just setting a standard to follow, it is also picking winners and losers in a democratic election. The Simpson team asked Alderwoman Turner to recuse herself due to her party’s endorsement of Gregory during the campaign. Turner agreed to this request, saying that if her stepping back would help the post-decision healing process in the community, then she would do so.
The rest of the council did not come to an agreement Tuesday night. Aldermen Redpath, Fulgenzi, Proctor, DiCenso, and Hanauer moved to accept the hearing officer’s recommendation, and declare Simpson the winner. Aldermen McMenamin, Conley, and Donelan, as well as Mayor Langfelder voted against, which prevented the motion from passing. Any motion will take 6 affirmative votes to pass.
The council will reconvene Thursday night to continue their discussion of the issue and come to an acceptable agreement. You can watch their full discussion in the player above, and read all of the documents from the recount here.