Response from the Mayor

The City manager’s office have provided a stock response to citizen concerns. Here is the latest example of citizen emails to the City, their responses, and our response to their responses. Please read through to our response, that’s where stuff gets interesting! In a nut shell, the City is saying, “trust us”, but their rhetoric doesn’t add up, and falls short of the potential of the Fort Collins community.

---

Dear City leaders,

I'm writing in support of the Solar Farmer's Market concept. I believe that it is a good idea, and that we should be investing in the future by raising the goals for solar and for VPP, and by finding ways to share the  sustainable wealth that we can generate in this community. Please do your best to aggressively pursue this goal as I believe that it is in the interests of our community and our earth.

Regards,

(name withheld to protect the innocent)

City "Leaders" Response

Thank you for your email to City Leaders.  Your email has been received by each member of City Council and City staff leadership.

City Council and City Manager Kelly DiMartino appreciate you sharing your thoughts.  Due to the high volume of emails received by City Council, you may not receive an additional response, but if Councilmembers have personal thoughts or additional requests based on your email, you may hear from them directly.

Our Climate Future (OCF) has several energy focused goals to advance toward our emissions reduction goal and 100% renewable electricity goal. One of those goals, recently referenced during a community campaign, is to provide 5% community electricity from “local” distributed energy resources (DERs) by 2030, primarily driven by installation of new, residential and commercial owned solar arrays on the distribution system. This differs from “utility scale” solutions, which, in the simplest terms, is clean electricity delivered through transmission resources to Fort Collins substations by Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). 

The local goal was developed as part of a larger strategy for reducing emissions from electricity use, including by driving more energy efficiency and encouraging electrification. At the time the goals were developed, Fort Collins local DERs accounted for approximately 1.5% of community electricity, and therefore the goal represented an increase of 233%. At the end of 2024, local distributed generation accounted for approximately 3.42%, and on track for achievement of the 2030 goal. 

The establishment of the 5% goals was informed by an analysis of local solar rooftop potential (availability of physical space), economics – including available and/or uncertainty of tax credits and incentives, and local resources available to drive solar, including Utility incentives and available workforce. Staff have confidence the existing and forecasted Utilities budget has the right levels of incentives and infrastructure to achieve the existing goal. An expansion of the goal would likely require additional resources that we do not believe are the best use of funds at this time. 

Unlike other cities referenced in the campaign, City of Fort Collins has a municipal owned, not-for-profit generation and transmission authority in PRPA to help with utility scale solutions, which are often more cost effective than local solar solutions. The recent PRPA Integrated Resource Plan, identifies that distributed generation is likely to reduce base energy needs by 6% by 2030. This alignment ensures future utility scale deployments are “right sized” for our community electricity needs. For reference, the Black Hollow Solar Project, which broke ground on July 10, 2024 and will be fully operational in 2026, brings in 257 MW of new solar, or approximately 6x the capacity of distributed solar in Fort Collins. 

Along with both local and utility scale generation solutions, Utilities and PRPA are building and optimizing the systems and equipment necessary to operate a virtual power plant (VPP). The VPP, among other uses, will help manage the community load and help optimize use of intermittent clean energy resources. For example, during times of the day with high renewable resource availability (and likely associated lower cost) the VPP will call on electric vehicles to charge, hot water heaters to heat, batteries to charge, etc.  

PRPA also has planned increases in new renewable generation starting in 2025 and each year to 2030. When considering the renewables included in our distribution grid and the mix provided from PRPA, our community’s annual electric usage comes from approximately 50% non-carbon resources (wind, solar and hydro). By the end of the decade, the City and PRPA expect that number to be closer to 90%.

At this time, staff recommendation is to maintain the existing OCF local distributed generation goal while continuing to work with PRPA to optimize non-carbon resources deployment as well as the deployment of a regional VPP. 

Thanks again for writing. We appreciate you taking the time to do so.

Our Response the City’s Response

Hi (CforSE member), 

Thanks for writing to the City. And for reading our response! It's about 1,100 words.

It appears the City won't be doing much of anything before the election this November, which underscores the importance of this election, and getting fresh faces on city council. We can elect three, or possibly four, new people (out of seven on council). This is an important opportunity to return progress and leadership to Fort Collins.

You probably received the above response from the City Manager's office, and noticed that, while there is a lot of spin, they don't answer your questions. I've combed through their email to distill some important points about the City's approach. There's a lot to unpack here, if you can stick with it, you'll see their correspondence says as much about City governance as energy policy.

Their missive starts by telling you that council members will get back to you, when and if they feel like it. Previous council members would at least offer the courtesy of signing their name to the stock response and sending it from their own email account. Councilwoman Emily Francis is running for Mayor, but not responding to constituents. Councilwoman Tricia Canonico is also running for Mayor and sending a response without actually reading your emails. Unlike past councilmembers, current councilmembers do not seem to think constituent correspondence is important.

The author (unidentified) then goes on a rambling paragraph to tell you that the local solar goal is 5%. What they don't tell you is that the first goal was 2% by 2030. When it became apparent (2018) that goal would be surpassed in 2020, Councilman Horak asked if it could be raised. The response was basically a shrug, and "how about 5%?" Now we are on track to pass 5% in 2027. No wonder they have confidence they can achieve that goal. 

A Fort Collins Utilities staff member told me directly that FCU only considered a superficial evaluation of local solar potential that did not include all the parameters mentioned in their response. That person told me specifically that economic factors were not considered. Denver, Boulder, Holy Cross Energy (Glenwood Springs to Vail), United Power (DIA to Mead) and the National Renewable Energy Lab ran their own analyses and came to very different conclusions, higher goals, and already higher results. Here's a great podcast on the topic of local energy potential:  https://www.volts.wtf/p/envisioning-a-more-democratic-bottom?utm_source=publication-search

I have to laugh when our mystery author mentions "best use of funds". Believe it or not, council does not consider cost/benefit or return on investment when budgeting climate funds. If they did, they would have to address what the City Manager said in 2022, that rooftop solar on City buildings has a 10% annual return on investment for the City. I challenge City staff to find a better use of our climate tax dollars! Instead, they are spending City climate designated funds on things like replacing gas utility carts with electric carts. That might be a worthwhile use for vehicle funds, but it is an insanely expensive way to reduce climate pollution when compared to solar, and is definitively not the "best use of funds". 

Next the author turns to PRPA. She/he/they (?) claims PRPA is "often more cost effective than local solar." Fort Collins forecasts 6% annual rate increases under PRPA's plan. That means electric bills are increasing at twice the rate of inflation, over 75% in ten years! Rooftop solar is already cheaper than current electric rates, and projected to stay level or continue decreasing in cost over five years (despite Trump efforts). When they say utility scale solar is cheaper, they mean it is cheaper for PRPA. PRPA buys solar for ~3 cents/kWh. Fort Collins residents pay ~14 cents/kWh for PRPA solar. Rooftop solar is in the range of ~8-10 cents/kWh. We can generate power cheaper than they sell it to us.

City “leaders” want us to buy power from PRPA, not generate and share it amongst ourselves. This agenda is demonstrated in the same paragraph where they state that distributed generation will decrease needs by 6%, "aligning" with PRPA's deployments. They said the quiet part out loud! (Well, not out loud, more like they shouted into a box of obfuscation that is their response to you, hoping that you will get bored or confused, and give up.) They are purposefully limiting local generation's potential to 6% so as to "align" with their priorities. That is the truth of why their local solar and VPP goal is only 5%. They want us to buy electricity from them, not generate and share it amongst ourselves.

The next paragraph talks about VPP (Virtual Power Plant). That goal is also a woefully inadequate 5%. They mention that PRPA's version of VPP will "help manage the community load." They left out that their version doesn't include local solar generation or electric vehicle to grid (V2G) potential to put power on the grid. V2G is storing solar power in cars during the day, and using it on the grid at night. Every EV will be V2G in a few years, but Fort Collins is pretending this won't exist.  Again, they want us to buy power from PRPA, not generate and share amongst ourselves.

The mystery author wraps up by stating that PRPA will get us "closer to 90%" renewables by 2030 and that we should just trust them. Your question of how Fort Collins plans to reach their goal of 100% is never answered because they have no intention of achieving their goal. City council members have called the 100% goal "aspirational" and said that because it was passed by a previous council, they have no obligation to support it. This is likely at the behest of PRPA. PRPA has been doing a lot of directing of City "leaders" lately. For example: taking over the Fort Collins DER/solar program, not allowing an audit of the plan to build more gas plants, and refusing state level review of resource planning.

The head of PRPA's public relations department is paid over $500k per year. PRPA's PR budget, while kept secret, is certainly over $1 million/yr. In the past, PRPA has directed the Mayor to let their PR team respond to concerns from citizens. Some folks believe the PR in PRPA stands for Public Relations Power Authority. You might ask, "Why does an entity with a monopoly and no customers other than the cities that own it have a PR budget and advertise on local radio?"

I wonder ... Could our mystery author be White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt? Well, CforSE is not the White House press corp. We will not ask softball questions. We will not accept BS answers. We will speak truth to power (pun intended)! We will continue to inform voters and hold our elected officials accountable to the high standards that Fort Collins deserves. Thank you for doing your part and advocating for sustainable energy policy supporting our local economy, environment, and community standard of living. Your voice and support are critical to the effort!

It's time for a change of leadership! If you, or someone you know is considering running for City office, now is a great time. There is a team and resources available to support candidates who share our values.

---

In response to constituents asking the City to maximize DER and Vehicle to Grid electric vehicles, Mayor Arndt wrote:

"Thank you for writing to me. I’ll copy the interim Director of utilities here who can get you a complete answer on our solar plan, our commitment to our climate future, and our DER strategy. I think you’ll find our plans to be of some of the most advanced in the country as we’ve been committed to clean energy future earlier than the most municipalities I know.   

As Mayor of Fort Collins, I was selected to attend the COP 28 in Dubai last fall. One of 10 United States mayors. This is in recognition of our work date in the clean energy space, and our commitment to the future.  In January I was elected to an international board for communities committed to clean energy. I only say this to point out that Fort Collins is on the forefront of these issues and we’re working hard to make sure we meet the future demands of climate change.

Thank you for caring about our community.

Kindly,

Jeni Arndt, Mayor of Fort Collins

970-413-3146"

My response:

At least she's acknowledged that citizens have concerns. She doesn't address them or commit to learning more about them, but she knows you exist. Weird grammar aside, she is correct that Fort Collins was early to the game in setting goals, and we got accolades and recognition for doing so. Unfortunately, when it comes to taking action, Fort Collins is at the back of the pack (https://coloradosun.com/2024/01/04/platte-river-power-authority-greenhouse-gas-reductions/). Jeni's message is "Don't worry. We got this." But they don't.

Jeni's flight to Dubai produced 5.6 tons of CO2. She came back with an application for a $50k grant for "youth engagement". I haven't been able to find any info on the grant or what "youth engagement" means, but I'd be surprised if this grant leads to 5.6 tons of CO2 reduction. 

Despite being elected to an international board and claiming commitment, the Mayor can't address your concerns. Instead she passes your concerns to the interim utility director, who passes the buck to the energy services manager, who says the same thing as Jeni, but with more detail. There is one new addition to the renewable energy program this year. They added home batteries to the solar rebate program, which is great if you are in the market for home batteries, but doesn't have any meaningful impact on the plans to build more gas plants. Denver is taking real, meaningful action to reach their goal of 30% DER by 2030. Jeni doesn't seem to know that this is happening, but she's convinced that Fort Collins' goal of 5% makes us a leader.

Rather than throw our hands in the air and give up, CforSE is going to step up the communication. We are planning to attend as many Tuesday evening council meetings as possible to speak during public comment. Council has a much more difficult time ignoring us in public with the cameras on. 20 or so folks speaking on the same topic gets their attention!

Would you like to join us on a Tuesday evening (first and third Tuesday of the month) at City Hall? The time commitment is from 6:30 to about 8pm. You will have a maximum of 2 minutes to speak. Honesty, it's kinda fun. Nobody judges anyone's public speaking. There is a real atmosphere of camaraderie among us citizens in the audience. Let me know if you can make it, and we'll make plans.

Hopefully the leadership that you and other citizens are showing will inspire the Mayor to step up and lead Fort Collins into a bright renewable energy future.

---

Here’s that response from FCU:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding our Community’s renewable electricity efforts. Fort Collins’ City Council adopted the Our Climate Future (OCF) plan in 2021, which is a community guide to help create a carbon neutral, zero waste, and 100% renewable electricity future, while also improving community equity and resilience (fcgov.com/climateaction). The plan includes multiple goals, with the following two directly related to renewable electricity:

• Provide 100% renewable electricity by 2030 with grid and local sources

• Provide 5% of community electricity from local distributed renewable sources by 2030

The OCF plan also identifies foundational strategies to advance the installation of renewables locally in Fort Collins. Included in these strategies, Fort Collins Utilities launched “solar boost” incentives in early 2024, enhancing existing programs with increased incentives for new local residential solar and battery storage systems (fcgov.com/solarrebates). This will support our continued progress toward the above 5% local renewable goal, with the Community already achieving 3.2% in 2023 (up from 2.6% in 2022 and 2.2% in 2021).

Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), our local generation and transmission provider for delivered electricity, also has planned increases in new renewable generation starting in 2025 and each year to 2030. When including the renewables included in our distribution grid and the mix provided from PRPA, our community’s annual electric usage comes from approximately 50% non-carbon resources (wind, solar and hydro). Utilities has a commitment to the ongoing adoption of efficient building equipment to reduce overall electricity consumption, and supports incentive programs and policies that enable all electric buildings in our future.

I am also happy to share that Utilities has regularly collaborated with CSU / Energy Institute for many years. Included in the collaboration is the recent development of a real time community solar model that will help conceptualize solar generation in our community, and how this energy may impact Platte River Power Authority in a future energy market ( link here: https://apps.fcgov.com/community-solar-generation/). Additionally, Utilities seeks to partner with CSU on a data analysis exercise related to increasing the opportunity for level 3 electric vehicle charging in Fort Collins.

Finally, I’d like to share the attached presentation of the steps being taken to deploy a comprehensive Virtual Power Plant here in Fort Collins. PRPA and Utilities are partnering to deploy the necessarily software to support community wide DERs, which is foundational for our future energy supply.

Thanks again for writing, and we’d be happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Brian Tholl 

(he/him/his)

Energy Services Sr. Manager

Fort Collins Utilities – Energy Services

Here Brian acknowledges that Fort Collins DER goal is only 5% by 2030. He doesn’t mention that Denver’s goal is 30% and that academic research suggests 45% of US electric demand could be met with rooftop solar. He mentions that progress has been made over the years on renewable energy, which is true and good, but doesn’t address the questions or requests of the constituents. If you’re in the market for home batteries, then FCU’s new battery rebate program might be good for you, but it doesn’t move the needle much on preventing new gas plants. The mentioned collaboration with CSU is a joke. The graph provides very little useful information and the links to potentially useful information don’t work. He doesn’t mention that FCU turned down CSU on collaborating to create a VPP, or that FCU blocked a developer from implementing vehicle to grid and VPP in their new neighborhood. The presentation that he attached demonstrates that the utility is concerned with managing VPP, not maximizing potential.

They are responding to citizen request with public relations and a dog and pony show. Fort Collins residents need and deserve better leadership from our local elected officials.

Solar on Schools

5/31/2025 Update: PSD has announced plans for solar projects at Rice, Bamford, and Eyestone Elementary Schools, to be installed in the summer of 2026! This is a great next step. We’d like to thank Trudy Trimbath and Dave Montoya for their efforts. CforSE looks forward to continuing our working relationship on the journey to maximize solar potential to save money, reduce pollution, and teach students about the solar industry.

Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association is currently building a solar carport at Livermore Elementary to provide power to the school and small surrounding community. This is a micro-grid to buffer against outage risk caused by transmission constraints to the community. The projects demonstrates that PSD can partner with a utility for mutual gain, and that distributed solar provides added value to the local grid. Let’s encourage more of this!

Key Points:

• Poudre School District (PSD) was first introduced to the idea of maximizing solar benefits for schools in 2016, but took no action.

• In response to CforSE member’s requests in 2022 Poudre School District (PSD) commissioned a solar feasibility study identifying six projects that could save PSD $270,000 per year.

• Progress was stalled until CforSE reengaged in Sept. 2024. Now PSD is planning to meet with the Colorado Energy Office to discuss next steps, and has committed to quarterly progress reports with CforSE starting in January.

• If the Mill Levy (property tax increase) passes in the 2024 election, then PSD will have more staffing resources available to work on solar. They have committed to pursuing solar with or without the Mill Levy.

• We will continue to work with PSD, and engage public support, to see the process through to completion.

Please send a quick email to Superintendent Brian Kingsley thanking PSD for taking steps towards maximizing solar potential. Tell him that you look forward to updates from CforSE throughout the process. Please include anything else that you would like to say on the subject.

Thank you!

Superintendent Brian Kingsley: bkingsley@psdschools.org

Contact me for more info or to get involved: cforse.fred@gmail.com

---

Benefits of schools going solar:

• Reduce pollution. PSD might be able to bring over 25 MW of solar to the local grid. That’s the equivalent of 5,000 average sized home solar arrays!

• Save schools money. Denver Public Schools are saving over $1 million per year through their solar program. That’s money that goes right back to the classroom. PSD can do the same!

• Prepare students for solar jobs. High schools in Pennsylvania are using their solar projects to get students solar certificates so they are ready for the job market upon graduation. Solar jobs pay well and we need a lot of workers in the industry to meet national climate goals.

Latest responses from PSD:

9/12/23 - In a meeting with CforSE director Fred Kirsch, energy guru Bill Althouse, PSD energy manager Trudy Trimbath and PSD Operations Director Jeff Connell, we discussed the exciting potential of maximizing solar, electric busses, and building efficiency to turn PSD’s electric bill liability into revenue generating energy assets. We all also expressed our displeasure with the quality of the McKinstry solar feasibility study. The study excludes any building without a brand new roof and is riddled with incomplete calculations and a + or - 20% confidence interval, casting serious doubt on the validity, and usefulness, of the conclusions.

3/7/23 - McKinstry presented to the board their plan for a comprehensive energy study of PSD facilities, including evaluation of solar at 51 sites. This study should be complete by year’s end. See above youtube clip for details.

10/23/22 - PSD has completed the RFP for the solar feasibility study and will be presenting recommendations to the Board for choice of contractor on December 13th. We will be there (please join us) to advocate that the study be thorough and lead to timely action getting solar on roofs.

6/14/22 - Facilities Director Matt Bryant presented a preliminary plan to the board of education to commission a feasibility study to determine best practices for solar and a path forward. This is what we’ve been asking for! Now that they have stated intent, we need make sure they follow through with action. Matt did not provide a timeline for getting the feasibility study. He also left out the slide in his presentation about how solar could save PSD money. We are asking for both of those things and hope to hear back soon.

Here’s the link to the presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFbopmLcVRc My comments begin at 1:06:34. The presentation begins at 1:38:50.

5/24/22 - I met with Super Intendent Brian Kingsley and Facilities Director Matt Bryant today to learn about PSDs current solar projects and discuss their plans for the future. I also alerted them to a study that had been done for PSD in 2016 that explored their rooftop potential. The study identified 7 MW of projects ready to go at that time (about the size of 1,300 residential solar arrays). They were unaware of this study’s existence. The researcher has since reshared the study with them.

In addition to 25 kW of rooftop solar, PSD is also invested in either Xcel or PVREA solar gardens (Matt wasn’t sure which). Matt is interested in investing in more solar garden investment and putting solar on the bus shed, and in a remote location. He does not want to do rooftop solar out of concern that it might cause leaks and prevent access to HVAC and other rooftop equipment.

Matt’s concerns have long been addressed by standard solar practices and building codes. Bethke Elementary has had rooftop solar since 2009 with no known leaks or other problems. CSU has tons of rooftop solar. Denver Schools have over 40 rooftop solar arrays. Leaving out rooftop solar would potentially leave out millions of dollars in savings for PSD.

From Matt Bryant, 1/19/22

Dear Sascha,

My name is Matt Bryant. I am responding as the Executive Director of Operations, on behalf of Superintendent Kingsley, regarding your communications received by District personnel. We appreciate your inquiry and realize the importance of renewable energy to our community.

Poudre School District (PSD) has an exemplary record of reducing non-classroom operating costs through efficiency improvements and energy design standards, including community solar programs through Xcel Energy and PVREA. PSD is interested in renewable energy options, including but not limited to community solar gardens and site-based solar arrays. PSD is always interested in building relationships with community partnerships to identify funding sources for renewable energy options.

PSD is continuing work on the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) in which we address renewable energy and utilize available resources from public and private organizations in the development of energy efficiency projects. 

We appreciate the time your organization is dedicating to improving renewable energy projects for our community and including PSD in these plans. If you would like to discuss any alternative options including potential funding resources, please contact me.

From PSD Board Chairman Robert Petterson, 12/13/2021

Mr. Kirsch,

Thank you for contacting me about the possibility of solar on our schools.  Personally, I am a huge fan of solar energy and have put solar on the roofs of my last two houses.  And I would like nothing better than to expand the use of solar through PSD.

Having said that, the district is maxed out right now with the priorities we have.  These obviously include strong educational initiatives in the face of the pandemic and, for our operations team, completion of the projects promised in the 2016 bond, among other things.  Taking on even an investigation of solar would displace one of these other priorities, which we cannot do at this time.

I will keep your email and your strong interest in supporting us toward sustainable energy in mind for possible follow-up down the road.

Thank you again

Here is a response to our request for information from October 2021:

Dear Mr. Kirsch, 

I wanted to reach out after being made aware of statements that CFORSE made about the construction of PSD schools and solar energy. 

As I shared in our previous email exchange, the district is not seeking to install additional solar on school rooftops using funds leftover in the construction process or from any other source. This is an important clarification to CFORSE's statements that were shared with me.

That said, I am open to meeting with community partners to discuss possible future renewable energy options, such as covered parking with solar arrays or community/site-based solar gardens. PSD does not currently have an identified funding source for solar installations but would be interested in pursuing community partnerships or funding that would be available to PSD to address renewable energy options.  

Thank you, 

Matt Bryant

Executive Director of Operations

“Push into the future

In strength, courage, hope, and love.”

Attributed — Sir Francis Drake — 1577

---

Long Term Goal: Solar Farmers Market!

Email Action

To: cityleaders@fcgov.com

Subject: Solar Farmers Market

Say whatever you like in the body of your email. Our main request is that Fort Collins Utilities allow customers to trade electricity in a Solar Farmers’ Market.

---

Fort Collins Solar Farmers’ Market

A Solar Farmers’ Market (SFM) can help lower energy bills, reduce pollution, and keep money circulating in the local economy. A SFM is made up of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) located within the local community, for example: solar on schools, brewery biogas, electric vehicles, and smart water heaters. The DERs are networked together and managed through internet connections known as a virtual power plant (VPP). A SFM enables customers to choose to buy, sell and trade electricity with other DER owners in your community.

In 2023, Google hired Brattle Group to study VPPs. Brattle found that VPPs are 40-60% more cost effective than alternatives (Real Reliability: The Value of Virtual Power. Brattle 2023). Utilities, investment firms, and companies including Tesla are developing VPPs to harvest that value as profit. A SFM, on the other hand, retains that value as savings to the customers; bills go down instead of up! The more you bring to the SFM, the more you save, but some savings is realized community wide. This is important because, under the current system, electric rates are rising at twice the rate of inflation in Fort Collins. The City and Platte River Power Authority (PRPA, our electric provider) are projecting that, with their plan, electric bills will go up more than 75% from 2020 to 2030.

In addition, the money we send to PRPA to buy electricity largely leaves the community right away. This is called economic leakage. As much as 80% of the $250 million that Fort Collins residents send to PRPA every year is lost to leakage. With a SFM, the money we spend on electricity goes to the owners of DER: local schools, businesses, residents, churches and non-profits, City departments. The money circulates in the local economy two to three times. This is known as the local economic multiplier effect. In a SFM our electric dollars support the local economy.

Solar Farmers’ Markets pay for solar panels and electric vehicles (EVs). Batteries, including those in EVs, can charge when it is sunny or windy and electricity is cheap. They provide electricity back to the SFM when there is little or no solar or wind available. This value is so great that EVs can pay for themselves in a few years, if they are a part of a SFM. This is an awesome opportunity to cut pollution from cars, fleet truck, and school busses!

We won’t be able to provide all of our electric needs through a SFM. An attainable goal is 12% by 2030, growing to 50% by 2040. That’s enough to replace the methane power from PRPA, lower energy bills, and keep somewhere around $200-300 million dollars every year circulating in the Fort Collins economy! Unfortunately, our city “leaders” believe and support everything that PRPA says, and PRPA says we should buy 95% of our electricity from them. PRPA refuses to get an outside audit or adopt Public Utility Commission procedures to substantiate their claims, but city council has limited the local solar and VPP goal to 5%, to “align” with PRPA priorities.

The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is developing a SFM for Excel customers (rmfu.org/cooperation/prosumer-co-op/). We want to bring that model to Fort Collins! That’s where you come in! The City election is this autumn. Councilpersons Canonico and Francis are running for Mayor.

Please write them an email and remember their response come election time!

---

Fred @ city council Oct 17, 2023

The Global Rise of the Prosumer

 Written by Bill Althouse. Bill has been working in the renewable energy industry since 1980 and is a consummate activist for energy policy that promotes the greatest benefit to the ratepayers, community, and Earth.

Prosumers are value driven global revolutionaries in 3D-

·       Decentralize-Prosumer owned Distributed Energy Resources, DERs, provide more value  to the electric system than the same capacity at utility scale.

·       Democratize- The Local Community economic development value of DER revenues going into the pockets of local Prosumers where it circulates through local economies with a multiplier effect.

·       Decarbonize- The environmental value of transitioning from fossil fuel to renewables.

Whether to be a consumer or a Prosumer is a simple choice- consumers pay bills, Prosumers cash checks. $100s of Billions are also available in tax credits and subsidies to help consumers become Prosumers.

In the past, Regulators had only two classes, Utilities and ratepayers. The ratepayer paid for everything, but the Utility owned everything. The Prosumer is a new value driving class in the community that pays for, and owns, DERs on their private property at no cost to the ratepayer. Prosumer DERs reduce the need for utility investments, the only way to reduce rates to everyone.  

The new Google funded study by Brattle shows that Virtual Power Plant aggregations, VPPs, of DERs, not in rates, can provide value far beyond the KWhrs, like “free” capacity to other ratepayers. This says that utility owned and ratepayer funded assets, compared to Prosumer funded and owned decentralized assets, are economically obsolete. The cost comparison conclusion in the Doc- “The VPP is the only resource with the potential to provide resource adequacy at a negative net cost to society.”  This means  cheaper than ”free” to other ratepayers.   https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Real-Reliability-The-Value-of-Virtual-Power_5.3.2023.pdf

The Energy Policy of the United States is to transition from centralized fossil fueled generation to virtual powerplants, VPPs, of localized renewable distributed energy resources. The plan is called “Pathway to commercial liftoff- Virtual Power Plants”- https://liftoff.energy.gov/vpp/

The main arguments for VPPs in the Liftoff plan are economic- “With electricity demand growing for the first time in a decade and fossil assets retiring, deploying 80-160 GW of virtual power plants (VPPs)—tripling current scale—by 2030 could support rapid electrification while redirecting grid spending from peaker plants to participants and reducing overall grid costs.” “Rather than using natural gas peaker plants to burn fuel and transport electricity over transmission and distribution (T&D) lines, utilities can use VPPs to pay participating end-users (Prosumers) for balancing demand on the grid locally with DERs and supporting systems.”

Rocky Mountain Institute says that this is a value driven technological revolution- https://rmi.org/the-energy-transition-is-a-technological-revolution-with-a-deadline/ RMI has a VPP overview- https://rmi.org/clean-energy-101-virtual-power-plants/

This Prosumer value revolution is also the policy of Colorado. The Colorado Commission agreed that the Prosumer is an entirely new participant class, who makes investments that reduces utility investments,  the only way to  lower rates to everyone.  CPUC case#23M-0466EG says that competition can be by Prosumers at the retail level on the distribution system, a radical departure from the legacy Regulatory compact .   The Commission Ruled that the Prosumer is a new class that provides power, capacity, and services without ratepayer investment that can lower rates to all. Giving Prosumers retail market access for all DER values  on the distribution system may be the lowest cost path to consumer and environmental protections. Colorado is the first State to define “Prosumer” in a regulatory proceeding and mandates a rate of return for Prosumer investments. From the decision-

“26. Prosumer – Prosumer is a concept raised during the workshops in contrast to the term “consumer”. A Prosumer is a consumer that also provides resources to the grid. While this Decision does not use the term “prosumer” to refer to all participants in a VPP, is useful to distinguish a traditional customer from someone participating in a VPP. This differentiation may be beneficial when designing specific tariffs and programs for those who can reliably provide a certain capacity level upon utility dispatch. That threshold of capacity and control may be used to distinguish a prosumer from a consumer in future programs.”

“48. The VPP pilot program will test a tariff concept that would establish a “Prosumer” as a utility customer that met a certain capacity level of available dispatch. These would be residential, commercial, and industrial customers with relative capacity levels that they can deliver to the grid”

“A.) Prosumer levels should be identified by the Company to maximize the most beneficial combined DERs that could deliver capacity services to the grid.

B.) Prosumer tariffs should be designed to be attractive financially to the participant such that the option to qualify for the tariff would be an incentive for the participant to invest in more DERs”

Rural electric Coops in Colorado are adopting Prosumer policies like United Power’s “hyper localization” plan to replace their wholesale power supplier, Tristate, with locally owned DERs that capture the economic multiplier. https://bigpivots.com/at-united-power-talk-of-hyper-localization/ 

The Four Cities of Fort Collins, Longmont, Loveland and Estes park are blocked from moving to the cheaper cleaner Prosumer model. Platte River Power is controlling their future and has an obsolete view of the electric system. They are going against the energy policy of the US and the desires of the local community by making us pay for an obsolete Natural gas peaking plant that will become a “stranded cost” barrier to Prosumer compensation.

The world’s largest power plant (of any kind) is already a 13GW VPP aggregating over 25,000 Prosumer’s behind the meter assets. They have 1500 Prosumer biogas plants storing fuel to come on line for “dark calm”, periods of no wind and no sun. German engineers refer to this as Dunkelflaute, fear of the dark. -  https://www.next-kraftwerke.com/

More than 2,000 community owned renewable energy cooperatives have  formed in the EU- https://www.rescoop.eu/

Bill McKibben says VPPs are the fastest and cheapest way to attack climate change-  https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-next-power-plant-is-on-the-roof-and-in-the-basement

Great article about Prosuming as a home based business -  https://www.businessinsider.com/new-passive-income-side-hustle-selling-electricity-neighbors-solar-panels-2023-12

Energy Justice of Colorado’s energy transition should ensure that  Prosumer investments are fairly compensated for the value they deliver, and that those values are captured to lower rates to all.

Responsible Climate Spending

Fort Collins Climate Spending

 5/31/2025 Update: City council still doesn’t consider cost effectiveness or return on investment when budgeting our climate tax dollars. Does this abdication of basic responsibilities concern you?

Way back in 1999, Fort Collins was one of the first communities in the U.S. to decide that the City should participate in the global effort to mitigate climate change impacts. Since then, the City has adopted at least four iterations of a climate action plan, branding the latest update “Our Climate Future.” Funding for City climate action has come from utility funds and from the general City budget. In 2023 voters approved a 0.125% sales tax increase specifically for “climate programs.”

Defining “climate programs” has always been a challenge for the City. Everything the City does can be construed as having a climate impact. For example, at the first meeting of the Climate Action Plan Citizen Advisory Committee in 2015, City staff presented a budget of climate spending. Included in that budget was the Lemay St railroad overpass, $24 million. The overpass reduces vehicle idling, thus reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG). Of course, reducing GHG was not the reason to build the overpass. The City climate team didn’t know how to account just for the cost of the climate benefit, but they wanted to claim the climate credit, so they counted the entire $24 million as a climate program. That was one item in a long list of climate-related (or justified) projects, adding up to hundreds of millions of dollars of spending that the City climate team was counting as the climate budget.

Now, nine years later, voters have approved a tax specifically for climate programs, but the City still has not defined what constitutes a climate program. They have no dividing lines and very few rules to guide. The tax initiative broadly defines climate programs as any project that supports renewable energy, reduces GHG emissions, and/or reduces air pollution. It is up to City staff and city council to fill in the details, and they do not have a strategy.

Despite the lack of a spending strategy, city council was considering increasing fees on natural gas (your heating bill) to raise even more money for “climate programs.” CforSE and Fort Collins Sustainability Group teamed up to defeat that effort. The public pressure and number of emails from CforSE supporters convinced council to postpone increasing fees until they figure out how to spend the money that they have already collected. It is reasonable to think that a basic responsibility of city council is to determine how to spend our money before they take it. Better late than never? FYI, the next Fort Collins election is in 2025.

Hopefully, nobody would approve spending $24 million just to reduce idling at one intersection. An actual climate proposal from City staff is retrofitting exterior lighting on recreation centers. This project has a cost of $1340 per ton GHG. On the other hand, the City Manager says that solar has a 10% annual return on investment for the City. Therefore, investing in solar results in a savings of (conservatively) $378/ton of reduced GHG. This makes solar the most cost-effective climate program that we know of. Solar is over $1500/ton GHG more cost-effective, and results in a net savings for the City budget!   

Please write a short, personalized email to:

Mayor Jeni Arndt and Chief Financial Officer Travis Storin:

To: tstorin@fcgov.com, jarndt@fcgov.com

Cc: cforse.fred@gmail.com

Subject: Climate Spending

·       Thank them for deciding to develop a spending strategy before taking more money for climate programs.

·       Ask them to prioritize climate spending based on cost-effectiveness, beginning with programs that have a positive return on investment.

·       Tell them that you get CforSE updates and their actions on this topic will influence your vote.

Say whatever else you like. Feel free to use the above talking points. Please CC us and ask for a reply.

Large Methane User Fee Proposal

Background, Details, and Requested Action

 Update 7/31/24: The City has agreed not to increase fees, or collect any additional money, for climate programs until they have determined a spending strategy for the money they are already collecting from tax-payers. Please our post “Responsible Climate Spending” for more informatician and to take action.

Overview

Community for Sustainable Energy (CforSE) and the Fort Collins Sustainability Group (FCSG) are partnering to advocate for the City of Fort Collins to adopt a methane fee structure that doesn’t impact residents and helps businesses reduce methane consumption and energy costs.  Methane is also known as “natural gas.”

Background

At the direction of City Council, City staff intends to bring forward a proposal later this year to increase the natural gas franchise fee from the current rate of 1.07% to 3.00%.  This fee is collected by Xcel Energy and returned to the City.  3.00% is the maximum rate allowed under the City’s agreement with Xcel.  City Council will vote on whether or not to approve this fee increase; it does not need to be approved by the voters.

The increased franchise fee would bring in an estimated additional $1.3 million in revenue per year.  The City says that these additional funds would be used to support the City’s climate initiatives, although the franchise fee goes into the City’s General Fund and does not need to be dedicated to any particular purpose.

City staff estimates the average annual increase for residential customers would be about $14 and the average annual increase for commercial customers would be $80.  Low-income customers would likely be offered a rebate so that they would not need to pay the full franchise fee increase.

CforSE and FCSG Objections to a Franchise Fee Increase

The voters approved a 0.5% sales and use tax increase to support climate initiatives and other city programs last November.  A sales and use tax is regressive, as low- and middle-income people must devote a greater percentage of their income to purchasing consumer goods than higher- income people.

A natural gas franchise fee is also regressive: low- and middle-income people must pay a greater percentage of their income for utilities than higher-income people.  And residential customers cannot deduct utility costs (including fees) from their profits as operating expenses like businesses can.

Council waited until after the sales tax increase passed to consider raising the franchise fee. We wonder whether voters would have approved the tax if the fee were raised first?

Offering rebates to low-income natural gas users for the increased franchise fee would help low-income people, but it would not help middle-income people.

The city is under a legal limitation not to increase the natural gas franchise fee by more than 3.00%, limiting the total additional amount that could be raised to $1.3 million.

Almost anything in the City budget can be construed as having a climate impact, so funds from increasing the franchise fee could be diverted to other City priorities.

Large Methane User Fee Proposal

Impose a fee larger than 3% on the City’s largest methane users.  For instance, the City could impose an additional “Large Methane User Fee” of 5% on commercial and industrial customers within city limits who use more than, say, 10,000 therms of methane per year.

Unlike the City’s proposed franchise fee increase, this type of fee is legally required to be used to the benefit of those businesses impacted. The funds could not be diverted to other City projects.

Funds raised by the Large Methane User Fee could be used to help commercial and industrial customers electrify their heating systems and processes.  As the electric supply becomes “greener,” this would help the City meet its climate goals.

A Large Methane User Fee would also encourage large users to reduce their methane use through more conventional means: adding insulation, making their buildings tighter, setting temperatures back at night during the winter, etc.

Owners of commercial buildings with a gross area of 5,000 square feet or more must already report their methane use to the City under the Building Energy and Water Scoring (BEWS) program.  Industrial and some commercial customers can apply for an exemption to avoid being subjected to BEWS.  The City could easily require all commercial and industrial customers to report their energy and water use so that the Large Methane User Fee could be applied equitably.

Requested Action

Please write a short, personalized email to Mayor Jeni Arndt and City Council:

To: ________________________@fcgov.com, jarndt@fcgov.com

Cc: cforse.fred@gmail.com

Tell them that you:

·       Do NOT want to the City to increase your natural gas franchise fee,

·       And want the City to instead adopt a “Large Methane User Fee” to help businesses fund their reduction of methane use.

·       Let them know that you get CforSE updates, and that their action will influence your vote in the next City election.

Say whatever else you like. Feel free to use the above talking points. Please CC us and ask for a reply.

Thank you!

Solar on City Owned Facilities

Email Action to Mayor and City Manager

Mayor Jeni Arndt claims to support the goal of maximizing solar potential in Fort Collins. The City has a done a great job of promoting residential solar, yet they have done very little to maximize their own solar potential. For comparison, CSU has 11 MW of solar while the City only has 1.4 MW. How much solar should the City have? What are solar best practices for the City to adopt? 

The first step towards maximizing solar is to discover what the City’s solar potential is. This can be achieved through an audit which the City has not done. Mayor Jeni Arndt doesn’t think an audit is necessary despite advise from utility staff that an audit could lead to lower costs and more complete projects. The City’s piecemeal approach to solar creates under-developed projects: The Edora Pool and Ice Center solar project is about 1/3 the size it could be. The City just used a state grant to add batteries to the Aztlan Center project, which is nice, but that project could be 50% bigger. CSU, on the other hand, has a solar master plan and their rooftop solar projects are sized to maximize available space.

CSU Recreation Center. CSU maximizes available space for solar

Fort Collins EPIC. Solar not maximized to available space

Maximizing solar on City facilities would reduce pollution, save tax payers money, and support a Fort Collins Virtual Power Plant.

Our best estimate is that the City could host 20-30 MW of solar if they get serious about it. That’s 20 times what they have now. In response to our campaign, Fort Collins Utilities released a spreadsheet of existing, and potential, City solar projects. They claim to have achieved 40% of their potential. The spreadsheet is comically inaccurate. For example, it counts solar on fire stations in LaPorte and Timnath as Fort Collins projects, but makes no mention of fires stations in Fort Collins. They didn’t respond to questions about that. When asked what the plan is to achieve the other 60%, they said they don’t have a plan.

How are we supposed to trust the Mayor when she says she supports maximizing solar throughout Fort Collins, when she doesn’t even have a plan to maximize solar on City buildings?

Please write a short email to the Mayor and City Manager. It’s best to use your own wording and add some of your thoughts, but you can copy and paste from below.

To: jarndt@fcgov.com, kdimartino@fcgov.com 

cc: cforse.fred@gmail.com

Subject: Solar on City Property

Body:

Dear City Manager Kelly DiMartino, and Mayor Jeni Arndt,

Thank you for making sustainability a priority in City planning and for empowering home owners to go solar. Why is the City so far behind CSU when it comes to solar?

Sincerely,

Utility Owned Distributed Solar

Main Points:

• Utilizing the UODS model, Fort Collins Utilities might be able to add enough solar to large roofs in town (think schools) to power 24,000 homes in Fort Collins.

• This investment might bring $100,000 per month to the local economy.

• City Council needs to hear from us to make this a priority.

What is Utility Owned Distributes Solar (UODS)

In 2017 Fort Collins Utilities (FCU) agreed to study a solar business model known as Utility Owned Distributed Solar (UODS). FCU would lease large roofs and parking lots to install their own solar panels. The property owner (school, church, commercial/industrial space) would get a rent check, and FCU would get the electricity to power our town. UODS might be able to power roughly 24,000 homes, and reinvest over $100,000 per month in the local economy.

For examples:

• A high school could earn thousands of dollars per month—enough to pay a teacher’s salary—by leasing its roof to FCU. 

• FCU might lease a commercial parking lot for 25 years and build solar canopies. Then the owner could pass along lower rents to tenants.

• A church or other non-profit could raise thousands of dollars per year by leasing its roof or parking lot to FCU.

So, who pays for the solar panels? FCU’s electric revenue is projected to average 15.3 cents/kWh over the life of the solar project (2023-2058). The complete cost of UODS might average 10.7 cents/kWh. That leaves 4.6 cents/kWh to pay the rent to the school, or church, or local business. For a high school-sized roof that works out to over $53,000 per year.

CforSE has urged City Council and FCU for four years now to complete a study of UODS. Both agreed to study the model in 2017, but they have yet to produce a quality study. If the City gets crackin on this then we can present it to the Poudre School Board to be implemented in 2023 or 2024, but first we need a study to present to them.

Please email City Council and ask them to…

Hire an independent firm to complete the study of Utility Owned Distributed Solar and to decide based on that study if this model works for Fort Collins.

IF YOU LIVE IN THIS PART OF TOWN... COUNCILPERSON IS...

East of College, North of Drake Susan Gutowsky - sgutowsky@fcgov.com

East of College between Drake and Harmony Julie Pignataro - jpignataro@fcgov.com

East of College, South of Harmony Tricia Canocino - tcanocino@fcgov.com

West of College, South of South of Horsetooth. Shirley Peel - speel@fcgov.com

West of College between Horsetooth and Prospect Kelly Ohlson - kohlson@fcgov.com

West of College, North of Prospect Emily Francis - efrancis@fcgov.com

If you are unsure of who your councilperson is then you can email Mayor Jeni Arndt - jarndt@fcgov.com

Thank you!