GCEA board trying to dampen impact of inflation

By Mark Reaman 

The proposed Gunnison County Electric Association’s rate increase is expected to provide about $1 million more per year to the local electric co-op. The 5% increase would begin this spring so only $832,000 would be collected in 2024.

Several reasons are responsible for the proposed increase, including a rise in the cost of wholesale power from Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association along with general inflation. GCEA chief executive officer Mike McBride said the local co-op was hit with a the rate increase from Tri-State for wholesale energy this year and while it was the first increase from them in seven years, the local rate increase proposal is not even covering the entire bump. 

“This proposed rate increase is not primarily due to the Tri-State increase since Tri-State has not passed along a rate increase to GCEA in seven years, and this increase from Tri-State amounts to less than 1% per year on average over that time. Several factors contributed to this proposed rate increase, including inflation, supply chain challenges and the 6.6% rate increase from our wholesale power supplier,” he explained. “Our projections indicate we need a 6.8% rate increase to cover our increased expenses in 2024, but the board of directors elected to mitigate and absorb a significant portion of the cost increase. By limiting the rate increase to 5% and deferring it until March 1, the board helped members keep $660,000 in their pockets.”

According to McBride, the GCEA board also strategically delayed the rate increase to start on March 1, 2024, to assist members during the months of highest electricity usage. He said that in doing so, GCEA will absorb approximately $260,000 in increased costs, “helping members keep even more in their pockets.”

All GCEA rate classes will be impacted by this rate increase, which will be distributed across the monthly service availability charge, demand charge (for large power and industrial accounts), and the energy or kWh charge, as indicated by its most recent cost of service study. Residential accounts will see a $3 increase to their monthly service availability charge plus an increase to their energy (kWh) charge. Basically, the average residential consumer using roughly 704 kWh per month will see a $6.87 increase to their average monthly bill. A residential consumer-member using 1,000 kWh/month would see an average monthly increase of $8.53. 

GCEA rates have gone up 10.7% in the last five years and 17.7% over the last decade. “By comparison, the CPI (Consumer Price Index) projected increase is 21.3% over the five-year period ending in 2024 and 29% over the 10-year period ending in 2024 (using the October 2023 consensus estimate of 3.2% for 2024),” explained McBride.

There is no requirement for the state Public Utilities Commission to approve the proposal, only the GCEA board of directors is required to vote for approval of the rate increase. McBride made clear that the board has not yet voted to approve the increase. “The board authorized publication of the proposed rates and there was no dissenting vote,” he said. “There was unanimous support for the mitigation actions taken to lessen the impact on members.”

A virtual public meeting was held on Tuesday, January 9 to let GCEA members ask questions and make comments about the proposal. There were no direct protests over the proposed rate increase, but a few people asked if other cost savings measures were being considered. GCEA chief financial officer Mark VanderVeer said he has studied the budget line item by line item and not seen a lot of places for cuts.

“We recognize that costs are increasing in nearly every sector of the economy and GCEA members are being financially impacted by this proposal,” McBride concluded. “We hate to raise rates and I hope that the actions taken by the board to minimize the rate increase and its impact show GCEA’s commitment to our members.”

The board will officially discuss and vote on the rate increase proposal at its January 24 meeting.

Most votes cast in years…two seats up in 2024

By Mark Reaman

In the hotly contested race for the Gunnison County Electric Association’s District 1 seat on the board of directors, incumbent Greg Wiggins retained his seat over challenger Frank Stern. Election results were released on June 22. District 1 is located in the North Valley and includes the town of Crested Butte.

Wiggins received 831 votes, or 57% of the ballots cast, while Stern tallied 624 votes. According to the GCEA, the total number of valid ballots cast in the election was 1,512, which is almost 17% of the 8,921 eligible member voters.

“I will continue my commitment to focus on reliability, affordability and safety,” said Wiggins. “I think Tri-State is moving in the right direction and I will support their Responsible Energy Plan.”

GCEA CEO Mike McBride said that the co-op does not break down the vote by district to see where votes for a particular candidate were stronger than in other districts. “We do not have data to provide a view of the vote by district, by candidate,” he explained. “GCEA’s elections have never been structured to tally votes in a manner that would show how many members residing in a particular district voted for a particular candidate. Unlike a political election where a candidate represents a particular district, GCEA’s elections for director seats are ‘at large.’ All GCEA members, regardless of the district in which they reside, can vote for or against all candidates vying for director seats that are up for election.”

GCEA was able to provide the total number of votes by district and, to no one’s surprise, members residing in District 1 cast the most votes at 471. District 3 voters cast 348, District 2 had 225, District 5 had 198 members vote and District 6 tallied 123. There were four votes cast from an undetermined district.

GCEA executive assistant Sherry Shelton said the next board election will be in a year. The 2024 director election will coincide with the annual meeting that’s held in June per GCEA bylaws. Seats up for election next year are Districts 6 and 7. District 6 is currently held by Polly Oberosler representing “The Tomichi Creek area east of the City of Gunnison to the Continental Divide within the certificated service area of the Association.” This includes Parlin, Sargents, Pitkin and a portion of Saguache County (Cochetopa area). District 7 is the at-large seat held by Mark Daily since 2015.

“We’ll ask the GCEA Board of Directors to finalize a date for the annual meeting at a future regular meeting, and the GCEA will post legal notice of the election and annual meeting date in December this year,” Shelton said. “We’ll then start sharing information in January/February 2024 for how to become a candidate, via our website and in a mailing to all members, typically in the February edition of the Colorado Country Life. At that time, we’ll be advising that candidate packets with nominating petitions are made available mid-February, with a deadline to submit petitions for candidacy in mid- to late April, 60 days before the annual meeting/final day of election.”

In this year’s election, Michelle Lehmann of District 4 and Tom Carl of District 5 ran unopposed. Tabulated votes for these seats were 1,153 for Lehmann (District 4) and 1,188 for Carl (District 5). Results for the association name change passed with 1,225 (91.8%) votes in favor of changing the legal name to Gunnison County Electric Association from The Gunnison County Electric Association. The votes against the name changed tallied 109 (8.2%).

Inadvertent wording gave wrong impression

By Mark Reaman

The Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) and its chief executive officer Mike McBride posted an apology on its Facebook page on Tuesday, June 13 over a mistake that went against election protocol. 

The coop had posted a photo of current GCEA District 1 board member and candidate Greg Wiggins with GCEA employees at a Watts Up Summer event inviting people to “come see us at the Four Way in Crested Butte to meet GCEA candidate Greg Wiggins, drive an EV, demo a wheelies and waves e-bike and check out Fullmer Ace electric outdoor power equipment…”

The post was deleted from the GCEA Facebook page Tuesday and in a letter on the social media site, McBride said the reason for the deletion was that, “the post improperly implied GCEA support for a particular candidate in the director elections which are underway right now. I want to personally apologize and let the public know that our error was inadvertent and unintentional. We are taking internal actions to address this situation. GCEA does not support or oppose individual director candidates in the election. We invite interested GCEA members to get to know each candidate who is running for a GCEA Board seat to visit https://www.gcea.coop/board-of-director-candidates/.”

Wiggins is being challenged for his seat by Frank Stern.

The new post also reminded GCEA members of the various voting deadlines. People can vote electronically until June 16, they can vote by mail as long as the ballot is received by the election administrator in Minnesota by June 20 and they can vote in person at GCEA’s Gunnison headquarters from 5 to 6 p.m. on June 20 at GCEA’s annual meeting. 

Details are available on the GCEA website at: https://www.gcea.coop/2023-election/.

Taylor Park hydro better than solar

By Mark Reaman

Two local renewable energy projects tied to the Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) are expected to start producing power in 2024. The first is the 500-kilowatt hydro project at the Taylor Park Dam, which is scheduled to break ground May 31 and be generating electricity in the spring of 2024. The second is the Outshine Energy 1,125-kilowatt solar array at the Baxter Gulch trailhead. That project is preparing for the county review process and expected to be constructed in 2024.

GCEA CEO Mike McBride and board member Greg Wiggins provided the Crested Butte town council with an annual GCEA update and its new five-year strategic plan at the May 15 council meeting. In a report to the council, it was stated that the strategic plan “includes our first ever expressed goal related to GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions: a reduction of 90% by 2030 (compared to a 2015 baseline).” That is where the two local projects come in to help get to the local generation of at least 7% of the total GCEA power supply. The remainder comes from Tri-State Generation and Transmission which has also committed to more renewable power generation.

McBride informed the council that avalanche mitigation work will be done above the solar array site before a county review process is initiated. Assistant county manager for community and economic development Cathie Pagano said this week that no application has been submitted for the project. 

McBride relayed that while it was hoped the solar farm construction could begin this year, it was more likely to start in 2024. He said the GCEA is also looking for other appropriate sites in the county to construct solar array projects.

“Economically, the Taylor Dam hydro project makes the most sense,” he said. “The local solar array is an economic challenge. The hydro project could even expand in the future. It is already in the money.” 

McBride explained the reason that the hydro power project is a better economic project than the solar array is centered on timing. “The Taylor hydro project will produce 24/7/365 (24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year) whereas the solar array produces only when the sun is shining,” he explained in a follow-up email. “The only real variables for this hydro project are changes in the reservoir level and infrequent downtime for routine maintenance. Consequently, the hydro project is estimated to produce approximately 87% of its capacity factor. The solar array by contrast will produce about 24% of its capacity factor.

“Also, the economics are simply that through a competitive bid process, the lowest bid for the energy from the solar array was nearly 2.8 cents/kWh more than what we pay Tri-State for energy,” McBride continued. “By contrast, the hydro project creates greater savings because we can produce energy for less than what we pay Tri-State for energy. We can also save demand charges on our Tri-State bill because the plant will be producing – and reducing our demand on Tri-State – at the time of our monthly peak demand, which almost always occurs after sunset.”

Other sustainability focus

McBride said the GCEA was the first electric cooperative in Colorado to own and operate EV (Electric Vehicle) charging stations and it now is responsible for 14 such stations, including four in Crested Butte. Vehicles in Crested Butte used a total of 1,373 level 2 charging sessions in the town in 2022. Of the 14 stations, three are DC fast charging stations but use has not yet been extensive. Responding to a question from councilmember Anna Fenerty, McBride said, “the need for further EV charging expansion will probably be triggered when we start seeing congested weekends. The goal is to get EV charging in garages and that seems to be happening.”

The GCEA implemented its Powerwise Pledge program in 2022 where members can contribute an additional one dollar on each bill with the money going toward renewable projects. Current participation is at 87% and that is generating nearly $124,000 annually. That money is directed to subsidize the local renewable projects.

The GCEA rebate program has also helped give money back to members who upgraded to things like air source heat pumps, smart thermostats, electric leaf blowers, LED lights and e-bikes.

Rate questions

In response to a question from mayor Ian Billick about the investment downgrading of Tri-State by S&P Global Ratings, McBride said that shouldn’t impact the customer pocketbook. “They are still considered investment grade and I don’t see any reason for a big concern,” he said.

In the report to council, the GCEA noted its recent 3.8% overall retail rate increase and said that won’t be the last. Because of a Tri-State agreement at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2021, Tri-State was obligated to decrease wholesale rates by 2% in 2022 and again in 2023. So, it was not eligible for a rate increase to address inflation in its costs. “We are therefore expecting an increase in our Tri-State rates on January 1, 2024, which will most likely lead to another increase for GCEA members in 2024,” the reports states.

As for its strategic plan, it describes the pillars of safety, reliability and business resilience as the foundation of the co-op.

Inflation the driver

By Kendra Walker

The Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) board of directors approved a proposed rate increase on Wednesday, March 29, which will come into effect on May 1. Overall rates will increase an average of 3.8% and the average residential bill will increase by 4.5%. For residential single-phase service, the monthly service availability charge will go up from $32 to $35, and the energy charge per kilowatt-hour (kWh) will go from $0.12918 to $0.13268. 

According to GCEA CEO Mike McBride, the average residential account uses about 680 kWh a month. So, the average residential account can expect to be charged approximately $125 a month, but costs will vary depending on energy use patterns and seasons. “The cost is of course higher in the winter and lower in the summer,” said McBride. “The effective May 1 date is intended to help members get through the large bills of the winter before the rate increase.”

McBride said that inflation is the driver behind the rate increase. “We have to spend more for the products and services we acquire to keep the power on. But in the last several years our increases have still been well below inflation,” he said.

McBride also said GCEA anticipates a rate increase at the beginning of next year from Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, GCEA’s power supplier. “Tri-State is experiencing higher costs as well so it’s not surprising if they increase rates,” he said, which most likely would cause GCEA to subsequently raise its rates.

McBride noted that GCEA operates on a tight margin and with the rate change estimated to result in an overall revenue increase of $780,000, GCEA is looking at breaking even this year with a 0% margin. “We’re running at the bare minimum with the rate increase that is proposed. We don’t know what will happen with inflation next year, but we do want our members to be aware that we are seeing likely suggestions for a rate increase next year as well. We continue to do all we can to keep our rates as low as possible.”

The GCEA board held a member meeting on March 27 to review the proposed rate increase and answer questions prior to its passing on Wednesday. McBride said that aside from employees, directors and media, there were three member attendees. Prior to the meeting, eight members submitted comments, with roughly half asking the board not to raise rates. “At the end of the day, there was not really a notable pushback through the whole process,” said McBride. 

A notification of the proposed rate increase to members reads, “The board, management, and employees of GCEA understand this increase may impact your budget and we want you to know we will do everything we can to assist you in the months ahead. We encourage each of you to be aware of your energy use choices and to utilize GCEA and community resources available to help conserve and lower your monthly bills.”

Target to break ground spring 2023

[  By Kendra Walker  ]

Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) is currently in the process of developing a small hydroelectric generating plant at the Taylor Park Reservoir Dam. When completed the plant’s 500 kilowatt (kW) generator will operate at or near full capacity 24 hours a day year-round and produce on average over 3.8 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually. “That’s about 450 Gunnison County households a year,” said GCEA strategy execution specialist Matt Feier. 

In 2020, GCEA and the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA) formed Taylor River Hydro, LLC to jointly develop, own and operate the plant. 

The Taylor Park Dam was built in 1937 and was originally designed to incorporate a hydroelectric facility at a later date, explained Feier. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the facility and has awarded a Lease of Power Privilege to Taylor River Hydro, LLC. to get the hydroelectric project running.

“What’s really made this project possible is our partnership with UVWUA,” said Feier. “We’ve spent a long time developing that relationship and it’s critical to this project’s success.”

The new 500 kW turbine generator will be mounted at the base of the Taylor Dam and is designed to run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. “It’s really advantageous in that sense. It will always have enough flow to generate electricity, even in the winter,” explained Feier. “That’s about as maximum as we can handle on our existing infrastructure there in the canyon. But it does set the stage for an expansion at a future date where we could upgrade the line.” 

“Hydro also has a very good track record of producing for very long periods of time. There are hydro facilities that have been running for 100+ years,” said Feier. 

The project is also very cost effective in terms of kWh produced, versus a solar project, explained GCEA CEO Mike McBride. Even though it is a small generator, it would produce about the same amount of energy annually as some 2,500 kW fixed-tilt solar arrays. “Another advantage of this renewable project is it’s not intermittent, as is solar. Because this produces around the clock it’s a very good resource for us,” he said. 

The total estimated cost of the project is $3.2 million. GCEA is currently 60% into the design phase and is putting together a design proposal that will be submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation by July 22. GCEA is also working on a grant request to the Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART grant for $1.6 million toward the project.

“We intend to have the 100% final approved design done by the end of 2022,” said Feier. The target would then be to break ground on the project in May 2023. “We’re hoping we can have it operational by November 2023 and generating power by the end of 2023.”

The hydro project will be another resource as GCEA continues to diversify its supply portfolio with renewable and sustainable resources. GCEA is working on the Sunshine Park solar project just south of Crested Butte, and is also pursuing another community garden solar project in addition to its two existing locations at the Crested Butte wastewater treatment plant and at the GCEA headquarters in Gunnison. 

“We’ll be very close to 7% of our power supply being produced locally once Taylor and these two solar projects are completed,” said McBride. The other 93% comes from GCEA’s electrical supplier Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

“We are relying on Tri-State for a large portion of our strategy with respect to the energy transition and climate action because there’s so much more that they can do, and much more cost effectively, than we can. They’re on a path to increase their renewable energy and making a lot of progress.” Tri-State is aiming to be 50% renewable by 2024, 70% renewable by 2030, and achieve an 80% carbon reduction from their 2005 level by 2030.

To learn more about GCEA’s renewable energy programs, visit www.gcea.coop.

Working out final details of the cost premium

[  By Mark Reaman  ]

The Crested Butte town council gave the nod to go ahead and make a 30-year financial commitment to the proposed solar farm that is planned to be built starting next year just south of town in what is commonly known as Avalanche Park. 

Town staff will finalize an agreement with the Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) that will be purchasing power from the solar farm developer, Outshine Energy. Crested Butte will agree to purchase the so-called “renewable attributes” for 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour for 30 years. Because the town is subject to Colorado’s TABOR limitations on annual appropriations a 30-year contract cannot be signed but there will be a commitment for that time period. In turn the GCEA will enter into a contract with Outshine for the purchase of the power and renewable attributes for 6.8 cents per kilowatt hour. 

The GCEA wants to keep the playing field level for all its members and bring in the cost of the electricity produced at the solar farm at the same rate as it pays its main wholesale electricity provider, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., so the town is essentially agreeing to subsidize the cost of the solar electricity from 6.8 cents to 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour.

The 2.5 cent subsidy basically brings the energy cost in line with GCEA’s established rate structure based on the 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour it pays Tri-State. GCEA project specialist Matt Feier explained that by “charging the town GCEA’s established rate structure for energy consumed, plus a $0.025/kWh REC fee, effectively allows the Town to pay for its share of the new solar array without shifting development and operation costs onto the membership as a whole.”     

Crested Butte is agreeing to do that. The premium is expected to cost the town between $29,260 and $39,047 per year over the next three decades. 

Town planner Mel Yemma explained that by supporting this project, the town and GCEA are physically bringing a new, local renewable energy source online, versus existing “Green Power Programs” that purchase renewable energy from already existing wind and solar farms.

The cost of building the solar farm has also increased with the cost of materials, the current cost of labor and the addition of building some avalanche mitigation on the site. So the ultimate cost of the long-term electricity has gone up as well.

The town agreed last year to lease the land that includes the Baxter Gulch Trailhead to Outshine for 30 years. Outshine Energy has changed the name from Avalanche Park to Sunshine Park and the goal is to place a 1.62 Megawatt solar array on the site.

Yemma said that the hope is to have the solar RECs make up about half of the municipality’s total electric use. Feier said it is important to have significant subscribers lined up to purchase the RECs. While he indicated Crested Butte would be the biggest subscriber, he has talked to other institutional users and while no contracts are signed, he said he feels good that at least 72 percent of the RECs are spoken for. “We have developed a pathway to help fund the entire project without incurring additional costs to the membership as a whole,” he said.

GCEA chief executive officer Mike McBride said Outshine came in with the best overall bid and despite the recent price hikes it was still lower than some of the original bids from other companies. He said the GCEA was working to get as much participation with selling the RECs before the solar is built so that the burden of the additional cost of the energy is not shifted to the entire GCEA membership. 

Yemma emphasized that the construction of the solar farm would help the town accomplish major goals within its Climate Action Plan. 

Councilperson Anna Fenerty admitted she was new to the council and the details of the project but wondered why that site was considered a good place for a solar farm given its limited sun exposure and the year-round shade from Gibson’s Ridge in the afternoon. 

“It is not the sunniest spot on the planet,” admitted Feier. “But the site was chosen for a number of factors. The town was the landowner and was willing to provide a reasonable lease. The cost of private property is very high right now. It is next to the electric substation and transmission lines so that location is very valuable. A sunnier spot further away from a substation could be a lot more expensive to run a line to. Property closer to Gunnison also comes with issues related to the sage grouse. All these things made us choose this site.”

Taylor Henderson of Outshine agreed that the sun exposure wasn’t optimal on the property, but the substation location was. “We really like that element of the project,” he said. “We constantly evaluate and do tradeoffs with these types of projects and we are comfortable with that one.”

“I’ve lived beneath Gibson’s Ridge my whole life and it’s cold,” said Fenerty.

Fenerty also wondered if given limited town-owned land and increasing issues, if perhaps there could be multiple uses on the property and suggested the solar panels could be placed on top of a covered parking garage to help alleviate traffic in Crested Butte. Feier said that would significantly delay the project since a parking garage had not been designed and is not “shovel ready” while the solar farm is ready to start construction in 2022. 

Town manager Dara MacDonald said a covered parking garage is preliminarily on the town’s radar in conjunction with other projects.

Councilperson Mona Merrill said the town had looked at a number of things that increased traffic to the site such as a campground and the Colorado Department of Transportation and county indicated there would need to be traffic mitigation included in any plan such as additional turn lanes constructed. That would be expensive and time consuming to get approval. “It’s been pretty fleshed out I believe,” she said.

As for the idea of putting housing on the site, avalanche studies indicated it would be extremely dangerous in a big snow year. Henderson said it was his understanding that the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department wouldn’t provide insurance for affordable housing on the location. 

Councilmember Chris Haver said that through the process he was appreciative the town would retain ownership of the land while leasing it for 30 years. 

Staff will work out some final details of the agreement to purchase RECs and return to council to have them consider a formal contract. 

Making hundreds of local houses more green

[ By Mark Reaman ]

Tapping into “green” electricity generated from the dam up Taylor Canyon could happen as early as next year. The idea of a hydropower generation plant being installed at the Taylor Dam took a new step forward this week and could ultimately provide sustainable electricity for literally hundreds of local homes.

The Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) in conjunction with the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA) that owns water in the Taylor Reservoir has sent an official application to the federal government to construct such a facility. Meanwhile the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (UGRWCD) is watching the progress and coordinating with the other entities to craft agreements that detail how the plant would operate.

The U.S. Department of the Interior published a notice in the Federal Register last September officially announcing a “notice of intent to accept proposals, select a lessee, and contract for hydroelectric power development at the Taylor Park Dam.” Written proposals are to be submitted by Friday, January 29, 2021. It was made clear that any proposal cannot interfere with current water uses. It is stated that lease negotiations with the Department of Reclamation could take up to two years while planning and construction could be up to another five years.
The GCEA and UVWUA sent a joint proposal on Tuesday, January 26 for such a hydro-electric project to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

GCEA chief executive officer Mike McBride explained that the electric co-op and UVWUA have a memorandum of understanding that was signed in February of 2020 “in which the two entities intend to create an LLC to own and operate the facility. An operating agreement for the LLC has been drafted by GCEA and presented to UVWUA but it has neither been finalized nor signed. An agreement with respect to certain operating conditions has also been drafted by UGRWCD and provided to both GCEA and UVWUA. The terms of that agreement have been accepted in principle, but that agreement has not been finalized or signed either.”

Under the pending agreement, GCEA will not apply for any water rights associated with the project. Water flowing through the turbine over the course of a year will belong to either UVWUA or UGRWCD depending on which entity the release is for. The draft agreement makes clear that any such hydro-power project has to take into consideration and not negatively impact current water uses provided by the dam and reservoir such as water supply for agriculture and irrigation, recreation and downstream fisheries.

UGRWCD general manager Sonja Chavez explained that because the district is beneficial owner of a second-fill water right in Taylor Reservoir the agreement is necessary to protect that existing right and the uses it authorizes.

McBride said that the project would ideally happen pretty quickly and be operating by the fall of 2022. He said final design could happen before this October and the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review and approval process could take place between then and May of 2022. If ultimately approved, construction could then start immediately and be completed by October 2022. The dam was originally built in 1937.

“This is an optimistic timeline and the process, which includes opportunity for public comment, could take longer than indicated,” McBride admitted. “The actual construction though can be completed in one summer due to the relatively small size and proposed design, and planning will be completed during the permitting phase.”

The hydropower generation would be expected to produce 3,800 megawatt-hours or three-percent of GCEA’s annual power supply. McBride said that using the average consumption of GCEA’s residential accounts (650 kWh/month) it could power about 487 local homes.

“Buy down” from Tri-State may work better in a few years

[ By Katherine Nettles ]

The Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) is exploring all of its options with its wholesale energy supplier, Tri-State Generation, in an effort to get more renewable energy powering members throughout the area.

Tri-State recently announced it was committed to increasing its renewable energy production to 50 percent by 2030, having also promised to retire all coal plants by 2023.

“As we increase renewables and decrease emissions in our Responsible Energy Plan, we are also delivering on our commitment to lower, more competitive rates for our members, and greater contract flexibility to self-supply power and locally produced renewable energy,” said Duane Highley, Tri-State CEO, in an October press release.

Tri-State has pledged to implement an 8 percent wholesale rate reduction over the next three years. The wholesaler is offering a potential buy-down or buy-out of its contract to member electric co-ops, but GCEA is not ready to go there given the costs and uncertainty of an alternative supply.

GCEA CEO Mike McBride said GCEA wants to rely on more locally sourced renewable energy but is not ready to separate from Tri-State. GCEA has 11,000 consumer owners and operates 1,100 miles of distribution power lines. The higher voltage lines are owned by Tri-State. “We’re small,” said McBride, “and we’re spread out across a large area.”

Currently, the contract between GCEA and Tri-State is considered an “all requirements” one, meaning GCEA is required to buy all of its power from Tri-State. In fact, GCEA currently buys more than 99 percent of its power from Tri-State, but is working to increase local renewables to 7 percent due to some other “carve outs” it has available for renewable energy.

The board concluded that a partial requirements option combined with these previous options would allow GCEA to supply up to 53.5 percent of its own energy through its own sources or independent contractors. But that would involve potential “buy downs” on power supply, where GCEA would pay Tri-State a percentage of the portion of supply revenue it backed out of in its contact.

The buy downs or a buy out would cost GCEA several million dollars. “Tri-State uses [contracts] as collateral to invest in its own systems,” said McBride. “So there are consequences to breaking contracts. And we have voluntarily agreed to that contract in the past. So if we wanted out now, it makes sense that there would be a buy down or a buy out.”

The current contract with Tri-State runs through 2050.

McBride reviewed the possibilities for solar, wind and hydroelectric power, and how they could supplement GCEA’s power.

While acknowledging that Tri-State prices are higher than other providers, McBride said being a not-for-profit co-op, there is more to the story. Co-ops own more miles of energy lines for a smaller return on kilowatt-hour sales, for example. The other two styles are public owned suppliers such as the city of Gunnison, where they own few miles of line compared to sales, and investor-owned suppliers like Xcel Energy, who own fewer miles of line compared with many more sales.

McBride referred to a “common narrative” regarding the costs of solar versus Tri-State’s energy mix, in which people sometimes show how much less expensive solar energy is to produce without showing its complete context. McBride said this is misleading. “It’s like comparing the total cost of ownership of a car, insurance and infrastructure versus the cost of gasoline,” he said.

McBride predicted a 3 megawatt hydroelectric power plant could produce about 15.8 percent of GCEA’s load, or about 21 million kilowatt hours annually. “That’s about three times more than 3 megawatts of solar,” he noted. The buy down payment for this would be $4.7 million.

A lot of mathematical calculations basically concluded that self-supply couldn’t quite get GCEA to the finish line—yet.

The conclusion was generally that it might be best to chip away at local options, while sending Tri-State a continual message that GCEA will want to purchase more power from any renewable sources it can provide.

“If Tri-State is successful in getting their rates to decline and we move into a fixed price, long-term contract, we would be losing ground,” said McBride.

“It could look better in three years—or whenever the next open season is,” he said.

Local projects
Matt Feier, GCEA’s strategy execution specialist, reviewed all the local projects, including a community solar array at the GCEA headquarters in Gunnison, scheduled to be energized on December 17. All 215 short-term shares available have been reserved and 37 members are on a short-term wait list.

There are also 25 long-term, 20-year shares reserved, with 45 more to still be sold. If those don’t get leased, they can be converted to short-term leases 90 days after energization.

The next solar garden, if all goes well, will be in Crested Butte South. Feier introduced the idea to the property owner’s board, and on November 11 the board gave it preliminary approval. The Crested Butte South metro district will discuss it next at its December meeting.

Feier said an option GCEA has explored is adding a solar garden outside of Lake City, where an old telecommunications structure could be retrofitted.

Another project coming together is the Avalanche Park solar array in Crested Butte. Feier said they recently chose Outshine Energy to develop that site, pending a final contract. Avalanche Park would produce about 2,086 megawatt hours per year.

Last, Feier described a hydroelectric facility at Taylor Dam. “The [Bureau of Reclamation] is accepting development applications through January 29, 2021,” he said. GCEA intends to submit an application, and is working on developing a business agreement with the Uncompahgre Water Association for a project there. Once it goes through the BOR, it would go through a federal approval process.

“It’s exciting. It’s not the quickest process, but it’s exciting to see that project potentially moving forward,” said Feier.

He said GCEA is working to expand its electric vehicle charging stations, including a new free station at Taylor Park marina for those going over Cottonwood Pass or around Taylor Park. There are also free stations in Sergeants and Lake City.

Several on-network, fee-based stations are also located in Almont, Pitkin, Lake City, Elk Creek Marina, Gunnison and Crested Butte.

Solar could power most of town’s electric needs

[ By Mark Reaman ]

The town of Crested Butte and the Gunnison County Electric Association are moving ahead with a potential solar farm south of town—locating a 1 mega-watt single-axis tracker system on the Avalanche Park property at the start of the Baxter Gulch trailhead.

In her report to the town council at the November 2 meeting, town manager Dara MacDonald said the GCEA had received six bids for the large-scale solar array at the site. The GCEA board voted unanimously to begin contract negotiations with Outshine Energy for the 1 MW system that would be expected to take up between four and five acres of the 71-acre property owned by the town. Most of that land is on a steep, avalanche-prone hillside.

MacDonald said the hope was to have the concept buttoned up before the end of 2020 because of the tax credit benefits to the company that would construct the solar farm. “The project would complete the goal of replacing the town’s electric metered needs with green energy,” she said.

GCEA chief executive officer Mike McBride said the staff is working with the solar company to solidify the bid and proposal. “There are a number of unknown costs that need to be determined in order to finalize their bid,” he explained. “We are working with the developer to nail down all of the costs by year’s-end. We are hopeful that once these costs are determined, the power cost from the solar project will be cost effective, but we need to determine if that is in fact the case.”

If the details can be nailed down, construction of the solar farm would commence in 2022, with the project expected to begin energy production in October 2022.

“The preliminary design covers about 4.5 acres. We anticipate a stand of trees remaining in place between the array and the highway, but the ability to retain those trees is an issue of their health that is independent of this project,” McBride said. “There will be numerous rows of panels oriented in a north/south line. Each row will rotate from east to west to track the sun and increase production. The life span of the solar array project is expected to be about 30 years.”

McBride said the location does have some winter issues—the name of the location is, after all, Avalanche Park. “The developer designed a layout to avoid the highest avalanche risk area, but there will still need to be some avalanche risk mitigation,” he explained.

McBride also made clear that there would probably be the need to sell the renewable attributes, or renewable energy credits (RECs), from the project to make it economically viable. He said community support through long-term commitments to purchase the RECs will likely be essential to bringing this project to fruition.

Citizen and former town council member Kent Cowherd expressed some concern with using the property for a solar farm instead of more affordable housing. “I see Avalanche Park as an opportunity for affordable housing and would like to present council with my idea,” he said at the November 2 meeting. “Setting aside four or five acres of that property for solar? Maybe it’s better to use half that. Two or three acres could go a long way for housing needs. Is this a done deal?”

MacDonald said a more comprehensive presentation on the proposed long-term lease proposal would come before the council before the end of the year. She said the council’s direction was to pursue a major solar project in the area if feasible.

“As for housing, I am not aware that property has ever been contemplated for such a proposal, given the possible avalanche danger on the site,” MacDonald explained. “The town considered a summer campground but backed off [due to the] expense. Avalanche mitigation would be expensive depending on whether you prepare for a 30-year avalanche event or a 100-year event but that is avalanche terrain and locating permanent housing there was not a consideration.”

Mayor Jim Schmidt said that when the solar farm details are brought to the council in November or December, the public would have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposal.