Some Xcel Customers Can't Turn on Their Solar Panels

According to official state goals, more than 80 percent of Colorado’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2023. And by 2050, Colorado has committed to 100 percent net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

But those goals will be tough to reach if renewable energy sources can’t hook up to the grid.

Colorado’s electric grid is facing a big problem right now: The energy distribution system is reaching capacity, leaving some people denied when trying to install solar panels or, worse, being told they can’t hook their panels up after installing them.

According to Chris Worley, senior director of policy for Sunrun, the nation’s largest residential solar installer, when the company’s customers have been denied solar panels or told the grid can’t support their panels, Xcel hasn’t given a timeline on when upgrades will be made so more solar panels can be activated.

“All the while, this customer has this system just sitting on their roof and it's not powered up, and they can't use that power,” Worley says. “We've really noticed that over the last twelve months to eighteen months.”

Worley says Sunrun customers have been denied access to the grid in Arapahoe County, Weld County and Aurora. According to documents filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, 23 percent of Xcel's distribution feeders are at 100 percent capacity or more.

An analysis by the Colorado Solar and Storage Association (COSSA), a voluntary membership organization for solar companies in the state, found ten distribution feeders in Xcel’s system where solar installers are consistently told the grid is at capacity and can’t accommodate new solar installations. Those identified areas include feeders connected to the Smoky Hill substation in Aurora, the Powhatan substation in southeast Denver by Lowry Air Force Base, the Martin substation near Roxborough Park, the Imboden substation in Adams County near the airport, and the Vazquez substation. (Xcel's hosting capacity map shows areas in red where feeders are at capacity, largely around the edges of Denver.)

Feeders are like extension cords of the power grid, running from substations to specific neighborhoods, and they can only serve a certain energy capacity. Mike Kruger, president and CEO of COSSA, says anywhere with grid infrastructure built in the 1980s or earlier could be impacted by feeder capacity issues, including in Golden and parts of downtown Denver. According to COSSA, residential and commercial customers have both been denied panel activation.

To address electrical feeder issues, state lawmakers passed SB24-218 this year to modernize Colorado’s energy distribution system. The new law allows Xcel to increase transmission cost recovery from customers by 0.5 percent this year and 1.25 percent in 2025 if the utility's upgrades further Colorado’s climate goals.

Xcel could invest around $200 million in its transmission system this year through that cost-recovery allowance.

“We were all very excited that this was going to free the logjam,” Worley recalls.

But when Xcel filed a document with the PUC sharing which upgrades it planned to make, solar installers argued the upgrades didn’t address distribution feeders, Worley says. The PUC opened a proceeding to create guidelines for Xcel before its new transmission cost-recovery funding came, allowing COSSA and other concerned parties to comment.

In comments sent to the utilities commission, COSSA requested that Xcel "be required to prioritize customer-driven upgrades, not just company-driven upgrades."

"The company should be required to update the Summary of Description of Work to explain if proposed distribution system investments are being made because of customer requests or customer-driven upgrades,” COSSA argued.

But in Xcel’s response to COSSA’s comment, the company argued that those upgrades would be better addressed in future proceedings, as the 2024 filings are meant to be a “stopgap” rather than “comprehensive.”

“They said something to the effect of ‘Pound sand,’” Kruger says of Xcel’s response. “Why would we let our customers tell us what we're going to do to upgrade our system? Because they're a monopoly and they don't talk to their customers.”

If Xcel's upgrades don’t fix the solar panel activation issues customers are experiencing, then they don’t fit the legislative intent of helping reach the state’s climate goals, COSSA argues.

Through spokesperson Tyler Bryant, Xcel says its 2024 plan includes around 300 distribution projects that will prepare its system for customer electrification enabled by SB24-218. However, none of the projects listed in Xcel's filing with the PUC appear to address the feeders identified as a priority by COSSA members.

“The projects’ investments will enable faster interconnection of customer technologies like rooftop solar and electric vehicles, lower the cost of infill and affordable housing by reducing connection costs, and support state climate and air-quality goals,” Bryant says. “The projects will increase the capacity of our distribution system by more than 500 [megawatts] while also enhancing reliability for all customers.”

Bryant says 33 projects will support the interconnection of solar panels and electric vehicles. Kruger says even if that is the case, Xcel’s filings so far haven’t been clear enough for people to know how or when the projects will help customers take advantage of solar power.

“We shared it with our members who were impacted, and they were able to find a few things: there's a substation that they could identify, but it doesn't provide any of the details, like timelines or cost,” Kruger says. “It just isn't useful.”

At a September 26 PUC meeting, PUC staff suggested that Xcel improve its specificity in an upcoming November filing that will describe 2025 projects, including whether each project directly supports state decarbonization goals. Xcel agreed to include more financial information in its next filing.

“This would provide staff, the commission and other interested persons much more important information about what costs are being recovered on what projects,” PUC chief advisor Ron Davis said at the meeting.

In a decision issued October 4, the PUC officially asked Xcel to follow those instructions and be more detailed in 2025 filings, which include expenses from 2024 and next year's projections.

Solar advocates eagerly await more detailed information, particularly about what Xcel spent 2024 funds on.

“We certainly understand that Xcel has a hard job. We as a state ask Xcel to do a lot,” Worley says. “What's frustrating, though, is the legislature has given them a lot of the tools to achieve those goals. Not having a pathway for these customers that are stuck is really frustrating. I can only imagine what it must be for one of these customers who are sitting with the system on their roof for more than a year, and they just can't turn it on.”

Xcel will make an initial filing regarding 2025 distribution upgrades on November 1.