City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
City Council  
City Hall  
Conference Room  
1A/1B  
Monday, May 4, 2026  
4:30 PM  
Pre-Council  
701 E. Broadway  
Columbia, MO  
I. CALL TO ORDER  
Mayor Buffaloe called the meeting to order at approximately 4:33 p.m.  
7 - Buffaloe, Foster, Peters, Carroll, Sample, Elwood, and Hartman  
Present:  
Electric Integrated Resource Planning  
Attachments: Electric Resource Plan 2026  
Erin Keys introduced herself as well as the staff and contractors that will be discussing  
generation and capacity needs for the next twenty years.  
What drives an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is what the future load looks like, which  
helped them identify what was needed in the long term. The contractors conducted a  
quick overview on some of the key terms that would be discussed in this presentation  
and what it means. Greg Labbe, consultant, mentioned that they ran an additional 6  
seniors on what the future could look like.  
Council Member Betsy Peters arrived at approximately 4:36pm.  
Labbe described the Project Teams and the city staff that assisted with the project.  
Labbe described the Integrated Resource Plan Development. TEA suggested that these  
projects be conducted every three years. IRP’s in the past had been done every 5-10  
years.  
Labbe explained capacity, which is how much energy the market needs to support a  
peak event. That one time in the day where the energy is screaming. Examples that were  
given were 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock. It is the one time at one hour to ensure that the lights  
never go off.  
Labbe discussed the Planning Reserve Margins and how much energy needs to be  
produced to be able to handle all peak hours. This is standard for all energy markets and  
producers. He discussed the various accreditations for the different types of electric  
generation (e.g. Thermal, Renewable, Gas, Nuclear, etc).  
Labbe gave a few examples that explain how the peaks and maintaining the current level  
of service during peak hours during the winter and summer accreditation. The idea of a  
resource plan is to analyze the less cost options. Labbe factored in the different types of  
energies, and explained that some energies are more effective than others. Labbe  
explained that Solar and Wind are not as predictable, but that they still get some  
accreditation.  
Labbe explained that the IRP model includes load forecasts, existing resources data,  
new resource cost, fuel price projections, environmental regulation and reliability  
standards.  
Labbe explained the load forecast, noting that the load has increased over time. He  
identified where COVID occurred in the graphs.  
Labbe stated that we sell and buy energy through the MISO market. He mentioned that  
energy revenues play into this as well. Labbe then turned it over to Marquees Kimmey,  
portfolio manager.  
Kimmey discussed the resource options as well as the modeling of the various energy  
sources. He walked the council through the modeling in Columbia’s portfolio. Kimmey  
showed the summer load balance and where Columbia’s customers get those various  
energy solar. Columbia is currently below the Summer Load Capacity and is expecting  
to have a serious drop in the year 2040. Columbia is expecting some retirement for the  
energy producers that support Columbia. Gwen Corches, Assistant Utilities Director,  
emphasized that this is an assumption and not guaranteed to happen.  
Kimmey displayed the winter load balance. Mostly these assumptions are to fix the  
summer load because it has a considerably higher peak compared to winter.  
Kimmey moved on to the Base Case and what the model is planning for the upcoming  
resource balance. Kimmey said the constraints are resources and time to get contracts  
and those plants built or producers built.  
Kimmey mentioned that 120 MegaWatts wind and 30 MegaWatts solar will achieve 40%  
carbon-free energy by 2040. Kimmey mentioned the biggest challenge will be the  
lead-time needed for energy to come online. Labbe explained that it takes more time for  
energy to come online because of the constraints from COVID and tariffs. Batteries used  
to be made in less than a year, and now it is taking 2 to 3 years to get them built.  
Council member Nick Foster asked if new tech is included in these forecasts and Labbe  
mentioned that the LSMR are the ones included, for example 4-hour batteries, flexible  
natural gas, and renewables. Foster also about the coal retirements that they are  
anticipating. Kimmey mentioned that Siksten’s retirement is in 2028. Crum mentioned  
that they were conservative by using the timeline on what the earliest date these coal  
plants could retire.  
Council member Valerie Carroll asked what kind of conditions they are taking into  
account, weather, energy users, etc. Labbe mentioned that both of them are included in  
these projections. They are not assuming any large loads in the base case. Labbe  
mentioned direct loss of load studies, which are where these margins are set. They do  
include weather events, but not a significant load increase (large user), such as a data  
center. Labbe mentioned that a lot of places are requiring large load users (e.g. data  
centers) to bring their own capacity. Labbe mentioned that large technology companies  
are investing heavily into SMRs. Municipalities and other energy companies are not able  
to afford to build SMRs at an affordable price.  
Council member Christina Hartman asked if accreditation changes based on what ISO is  
regulating it. TEA said that it does change going by ISO, but they currently use MISO  
standards.  
Kimmey introduced the winter load base case, mentioning it meets and is slightly over in  
some of the years. He mentioned that there is no change in the build out compared to the  
base case for summer. Kimmy showed the annual costs incorporated into the base case.  
They will be using these base cost numbers compared to the other scenarios.  
Hartman asked about including the cost of destruction of resources. Labbe said that  
would have included destruction costs but that would be dependent on the city’s plans,  
however, it is not included unless the model suggests that they close a resource early.  
Labbe said that decommissioning cost would not be included if it was not Columbia’s  
asset. Kimmey added that those additional costs would not affect the overall action plan  
that they are proposing.  
Kimmy showed the table for the resource balance chart from where all the storage. He  
mentioned that the model was solved to meet Planning Reserve Margin for capacity at a  
20 year cost of $1436M in 2026 dollars.  
Kimmey mentioned that the portfolio will become short energy after Sikeston retirement  
in 2028, a market assumed to serve the unmet load. Corches emphasized that they are  
focusing on capacity in these slides. Labbe pointed out some increased energy  
production in later years in their model.  
Kimmey reviewed some scenarios to the base case and how that will affect Columbia.  
Kimmey started off with Scenario 1a- removal of bilateral capacity after 2029. This would  
add more batteries and flexible natural gas compared to the base case. There is a mix of  
batteries, flexible natural gas and wind. He then went to explain the built out, comparing  
the costs to the base case. Comparatively this would increase costs by $19M compared  
to the base case.  
Moving onto Scenario 1b- this is similar to 1a but adds 10 percent higher Planning  
Reserve Margin. Kimmey mentioned that it would have larger margins but the resources  
would stay about the same. This would be a much greater increase compared to 1a at  
about $71M increase.  
For Scenario 2, they limited the battery tolling, renewable purchase power agreements  
and bilateral capacity. No flexible natural gas or self-build resources were used in these  
scenarios. Winter battery capacity value drops from 80 percent to about 30 percent by  
2040. Hartman asked if there is desegregation of the battery in the winter or is it about  
capacity. Labbe mentioned that value goes down over time. He explained that batteries  
do not operate as well in the winter. He explained that as more and more batteries come  
on the system, you won’t be using them all at once.  
Council member Vera Elwood asked about renewables and purchasing capacity. Labbe  
said that the scenarios used renewable energy but for the PPA then they could still  
purchase coal and natural gas.  
TEA Energy reviewed a few more scenarios for renewable energy and the last scenarios.  
Scenario 3 went off the Small Modular Reactors and how it could provide a capacity of  
30%. They explained the connotations for the present value. Scenario 4 planned a high  
gas and power prices. This scenario would benefit solar and wind due to the cost.  
However, it is deeply infeasible and a decent amount of risk. It would be unlikely to build  
this much solar and wind to make this scenario possible. Although the prices decrease  
in the long term by ($63M) 4%, the initial cost increases by ($115M) 18%. Kimmey  
explained that this is a completely different scenario that they are planning for and has a  
significant amount of risk attached to it, even though there is a decrease in price, this is  
something that needs to be considered.  
The fifth scenario is the so-called Do Nothing Scenario. This would be if the city does not  
find replacements for power generation. It would not be good. This would increase costs  
by ($199M) 14%. Hartman asked if this is the current plan we were on and Kimmey  
confirmed. This demonstrates great risk longer term.  
For the final scenario, Kimmey mentioned that this is the most realistic scenario.  
Kimmey also displayed a graphic that compared all the build outs and costs.  
Kimmy emphasized batteries being built in the short-term and additional production in the  
near future. Carroll asked about the 2035 goal for 40% in the appendix. TEA Energy  
said that is something they are able to do.  
Kimmey stated overall that capacity is short through 2045, bilateral capacity may serve  
as bridge capacity. Natural gas is a potential option and a diverse portfolio helps meet  
capacity needs and emissions targets. By diversifying it helps reduce risk.  
Kimmey gave a brief overview of the action plan, planning for late 2020s and early 2030  
capacity needs. Mentioning that once a near-term plan is in place to look at the long  
term, considering a diverse portfolio, refreshing the IRP regularly and monitoring  
regulatory and market developments.  
Mayor Buffaloe mentioned that there will be a renewable energy work session in the  
future to explore this more. Corches mentioned that there is more to come and this is  
just an overview of some scenarios.  
Planning & Zoning Commission Interviews  
For each applicant, Mayor Buffaloe provided a brief overview of the commission before  
conducting the interviews. Each applicant had the opportunity to ask questions. The  
Mayor noted that decisions would be made at the May 18 City Council meeting.  
II. ANY OTHER ITEMS COUNCIL MAY WISH TO DISCUSS  
Council members discussed some of the items that would be removed from consent.  
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:49 p.m.  
III. ADJOURNMENT