Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industry, counties and lawmakers debate solar siting and farmland loss
Summary
Solar and storage trade groups told the committee Colorado will likely need 60,000–80,000 acres of additional solar to meet state targets; presenters said the footprint is small relative to total state acreage and that most farmland loss to date is driven by housing and sprawl, not solar development.
Representatives of the Colorado Solar and Storage Association and affiliated community engagement staff briefed the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee on where large‑scale solar development is happening, how much land may be needed to meet state climate goals, and the tradeoffs counties face.
Casey Becker and Jeremiah Garrick presented EIA/NREL‑based estimates that Colorado may require roughly 60,000–80,000 additional acres of ground‑mounted solar (about 6 acres per megawatt) to meet current state targets. Becker noted that as of 2024 Colorado had about 14,000 ground‑mounted solar acres, concentrated along the I‑25 corridor and in Pueblo County; Garrick said the Front Range Urban Corridor accounts for the bulk of existing development due to available transmission.
Presenters argued that solar’s land footprint is small compared with the state’s roughly 66 million acres and that much farmland decline between 2017 and 2022 is attributable to housing, economic factors and soil/water constraints rather than utility‑scale solar. They urged coordinated planning, transmission investment and incentives for agrivoltaic or rooftop/community solar to reduce pressure on prime agricultural land.
Legislators from agricultural districts questioned the characterization, raised concerns about grazing leases and commodity production loss, and asked whether state incentives or siting directives should favor urban or previously disturbed sites. Panelists and members agreed that transmission constraints, local land‑use codes and utilities’ power‑purchase needs are central determinants of where projects ultimately locate.
The committee asked for further analysis on where remaining feasible sites exist, potential incentives for urban and rooftop solar, and whether state policy should encourage agrivoltaics on state land. No immediate votes or regulatory changes were taken.
