When CU Boulder wants to power its campus, it turns out they’re not planning to clutter up their own rooftops; they’re looking at Weld County farmland instead. That little solar scheme set off a few alarm bells for me, and I wrote about it in the Sheet. Then came a note from Stan, a thoughtful CU alum with a good brain, a sharp eye, and just enough sarcasm to hold my attention. He didn’t love my county-border sass, but instead of rage-typing in all caps, he did something rare: he made a damn good point and asked a real question. So, here’s the exchange and my response.
Stan’s Email to Me
Dear Commissioner James:
I just read the article you issued about CU Boulder making a deal to have solar energy produced in Weld County and I could see that it was carefully composed.
First, I’ll tell you that I graduated from CU, so maybe I’m coming from a different perspective than many of your readers.
Next, I’ll say why I wrote. What persuaded me to send this email was initially my view that with the University of Colorado being a state chartered entity (and therefore exempted in many instances from any local agency controls other than the attempts to be good neighbors), your closing remark about thinking CU ought to keep its solar energy panels on its side of the county border struck me. That seemed like something that was giving the county border, more-or-less, some status that would not necessarily have been given CU management’s attention.
Also, I saw some irony in the recent news that nuclear energy for Denver International Airport is, appropriately, going to have to face some public scrutiny–in greater depth than the City and County of Denver might have first envisioned–before that can become a “shovel ready” project. This came just before I saw your article about the CU Boulder solar energy project northeast of La Salle.
I was about to suggest that maybe DIA and CU Boulder could join forces at analyzing the possibilities for developing nuclear-generated electricity (and thereby, bring the power plant right onto CU’s campus!) and leave Weld county’s farmland alone. Who knows, perhaps expertise at CU (student and faculty) might be valuable to DIA, at least for the public review process if not engineering and environmental concerns.
Such a collaboration might be a stretch, though; nevertheless, I’d be curious about your reaction to that idea. Eventually, it could keep CU’s electricity production on state property somewhere not far from the established campus, if not directly on it, and outside Weld County’s border!
With some hesitation–not quite ready to be called a Sheet Head, ha!
Stan
My Response to Stan
Stan,
Thanks for the thoughtful note – and for being the kind of CU alum who still reads something before reacting to it (a rare breed these days, based on my inbox). I appreciate your careful attention to the article, and I mean it sincerely when I say this exchange is the kind of dialogue we need more of – respectful, curious, and not immediately weaponized.
You’re right that CU, as a state-chartered institution, operates with a fair bit of insulation from local input. But here’s the catch: when the university decides to chase its green halo all the way across the county line and drop thousands of solar panels on prime Weld ag land, that’s no longer just “CU business.” That’s our business.
Additionally, CU was not the applicant on the USR. The way these deals work, the solar developer signs a long-term land lease with the original property owner – I have yet to see an application where the solar developer purchases the land outright. The solar developer then makes the USR application on behalf of the land owner and takes the property through the county/municipal land use process.
The deal between CU and Pivot Energy, then, is much like the deals struck before the reformation between wealthy sinners and the Catholic Church. Sinner (in this case, CU, needing to be absolved of their climate heresy) pays the church (Pivot Energy) for an absolution so they may be absolved of their climate sins. Basic physics (you know, “follow the science”) says that no man can control the direction of an atom, so there is no way to ensure that the energy generated from this facility flows directly to the hallowed halls of your alma mater. It is, however, a purchased “offset” so CU may tell its hand-wringing environmentalists, um, I mean, students, that their climate guilt can be temporarily assuaged.
County borders aren’t magical walls, but they do matter when one county is being used as the utility closet for another’s virtue signaling. It’s not like they were out of rooftops and parking garages in Boulder. Different counties have different codes and land use processes. Dare I say, Weld’s is likely much friendlier than Boulder’s. The decision to carpet an entirely different county with panels so CU can meet its green goals without disrupting its own aesthetic deserves scrutiny – and yeah, some pushback.
As for your idea about CU and DIA collaborating on nuclear generation – honestly, I’d love to see them try. I am very pro-nuclear energy, and if nothing else, it would be refreshing to see the Denver/Boulder crowd experiment on their own turf instead of exporting every hard decision to the rural folks who are supposed to smile, nod, and accept whatever “sustainability” trend is hot this month.
Appreciate you writing in, Stan. And I won’t call you a Sheet Head just yet. But if you keep sending smart notes like this, you might end up with a badge whether you like it or not.
Respectfully (and GO RAMS!),
skj
I’ll say this for Stan: he didn’t foam at the mouth or send me a GIF of a dumpster fire. He offered up a smart, civil challenge – and it sparked a conversation worth having. At the heart of it, we’re not arguing about panels or permits, we’re arguing about respect: for land, for local control, and for communities outside the university bubble. And if CU wants to power its future with sunshine, they ought to be willing to bask in the heat right in their own backyard. Don’t dump your green guilt on Weld County’s dirt. Let’s keep talking.
