5 years of dragging these things into the mountains. Very capable vehicle! 2" ECO receiver/hitch.

The lie detector test determined that was a lie

CSU finally updated their website to give actual rates for the two options for solar users. I spent several hours updating my online calculator for you to figure out if these options hurt or help you. Spoiler Alert: In no case will it help you!

Download it to make changes. There's a lot going on in the calculator...sorry. If you see something that can be improved or simplified, let me know. In the words of Councilwoman Brandy Williams, I have "brain damage" from trying to understand these rates.

I used these rates and Access Facilities Charges to calculate the return on investment for solar panels under Option 1, Option 2, and the grandfathered option.  In short, there are virtually no scenarios under Option 1 or 2 where you can achieve a return on solar panel investment over the panels' 25-year lifespan.  This will absolutely kill new solar installations in Colorado Springs.  I'd like CSU to prove otherwise.

The next big thing to keep track of is the public hearing on these rate changes. • Aug. 25, 2026 - Public Hearing at City Council.*

Previous Reddit Posts For Reference:

• August 2025: https://www.reddit.com/r/ColoradoSprings/comments/1mwpd9s/csus_proposed_changes_to_net_metering/
• February 2026: https://www.reddit.com/r/ColoradoSprings/comments/1ql6o45/csu_is_going_to_attempt_to_kill_residential_solar/
• May 2026: https://www.reddit.com/r/ColoradoSprings/comments/1tgsr0c/new_csu_net_metering_proposal/
• June 2026: https://www.reddit.com/r/ColoradoSprings/comments/1u592k7/more_details_on_net_metering_changes/

Other Sources:
Current Rates

Honestly? Did they even look at this photo before they paid thousands for these mailers to be sent to you???

Edit: To clarify, I won't dox anyone, but this is my neighbor (Wirenut employee, owner, whatever) and his dog in the photo. This dog is the sweetest dog ever, but never seen him walked or played with. Sits in the back yard with other dogs for hours on end (snow, rain, 11pm). Barking non-stop wanting attention or to be let in. Also, this particular neighbor's cat is allowed outside where the coyotes roam. Even made the comment when I brought the cat back to him "One day this cat is gonna get taken by the coyotes." Disgusting.

I don't care if his Stans believe me or not, this guy should not be using this dog to pity party you into a "$5 donation" for every service call.

Get ready for another demand charge or flat rate fee push this year. CSU put out a video hinting that solar panel customers do not contribute to the maintenance of the grid. It's only a minute long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z1hpE2muGI

Also, I recorded and transcribed the latest board meeting which covered the net metering focus groups from March. Here is the link to the board meeting video. https://csutilities.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=b257803e-3f13-4ce7-8fc0-b432014beb48 Net metering discussion starts at 28 minutes.

Here is the summary from the transcription.

1. “Cost shift” is asserted, not proven

They repeatedly reference a “cost shift” but:

• No rigorous, transparent cost-of-service study is presented
• No quantification of:
  • avoided generation costs
  • avoided transmission/distribution upgrades
  • reduced line losses
  • resilience benefits

Instead, it’s treated as a given.

Problem:
Without a full value-of-solar analysis, “subsidy” is just an assumption—not a demonstrated fact.

2. They compare retail vs wholesale incorrectly

They argue:

>“We pay rooftop solar customers more than we can buy energy for (sometimes free).”

This is misleading because:

• Wholesale market prices ≠ retail delivered energy cost
• Retail rates include:
  • transmission
  • distribution
  • infrastructure
  • losses

Rooftop solar:

• offsets load locally
• can reduce peak distribution stress
• avoids some infrastructure costs

Problem:
They’re comparing apples (wholesale energy) to oranges (retail delivered energy value).

3. Ignoring time and location value nuances

They correctly note:

• Solar is less valuable at midday when supply is high

But they ignore:

• Distributed solar can reduce local feeder congestion
• Peak conditions are increasingly shifting (especially with electrification)
• West-wide duck curve dynamics vary by region

Also:

• They admit they didn’t fully explain time-of-day benefits to participants

Problem:
They oversimplify solar value to “midday = low value,” ignoring grid-level complexity.

4. Bias toward fixed fees (regressive design)

They favor a flat grid access fee because:

• It’s “predictable”
• It’s easier to explain

But:

• Fixed charges reduce incentives for efficiency and DER adoption
• They disproportionately impact:
  • low-usage customers
  • lower-income households

Ironically, they claim concern for low-income customers while proposing one of the most regressive rate structures.

5. Small, biased sample used to generalize

• 20-person focus group total
• Participants selected from survey respondents (already engaged/opinionated)
• Acknowledged confusion among participants

Yet conclusions are treated as meaningful input to policy.

Problem:
This is not statistically valid for rate design decisions affecting an entire city.

6. Framing solar customers as “cost-causers” only

They emphasize:

• solar customers don’t pay enough into the system

But largely ignore:

• deferred infrastructure investments
• reduced peak procurement (in some cases)
• environmental and regulatory compliance value
• hedging against fuel price volatility

Problem:
Costs are counted; benefits are minimized or dismissed.

7. Admission that this is about narrative control

Some revealing moments:

• Concern about how language like “subsidy” lands
• Desire for third-party validation
• Explicit discussion about not appearing anti-solar politically

Translation:
They’re actively shaping perception—not just analyzing economics.

8. Contradiction on customer understanding

They claim:

• Customers don’t understand the system

But also:

• Use those same customers’ opinions to justify policy direction

Problem:
You can’t dismiss understanding and rely on it at the same time.

A quick analogy

Their argument is roughly:

>“Your rooftop solar power is worth less because we can buy bulk power cheaply.”

That’s like saying:

>“Your backup generator is worthless because electricity is cheap on the wholesale market.”

It ignores:

• timing
• location
• resilience
• infrastructure impacts

Bottom line

This isn’t a purely technical correction to rates—it’s a policy shift being justified with:

• incomplete cost accounting
• selective comparisons
• weak customer research
• and heavy emphasis on messaging strategy

If they want a solid case, they’d need a transparent, engineering-grade value-of-solar study—not focus groups and simplified “cost shift” narratives.