| Resource Type | Case Study |
| Author / Source | Allen Best (Big Pivots) |
| Publication Date | May 2026 |
| Location | Colorado (lessons transferable nationally) |
| Initiative Type | Technology, Program, Partnership |
| Project Complexity | Advanced |
| Recommended For | Board, Staff |
Estimated reading time: 15 minutes
Why This Matters for Rural Electric Co-ops
Holy Cross Energy (HCE), a Colorado distribution cooperative, reached 85% renewable energy in 2025 while delivering power at roughly 40% below the national average rate and averaging about one outage per member each year. Its path combined early renewable power purchase agreements, a decades-old transmission-sharing arrangement, and locally sited solar-plus-storage, giving co-op leaders a model for cutting fuel cost and wholesale price exposure without sacrificing affordability or reliability.
For co-ops weighing how far and how fast to pursue renewable energy, this case study argues that the final push to 100% is the hardest and costliest and may not be the best use of capital, while showing how distributed energy resources (DERs), virtual power plants, and demand-side flexibility can defer expensive transmission and reduce single-point failure risk. Leaders can use it to benchmark localization strategies, evaluate member battery and EV programs, and frame board discussions about realistic renewable energy targets and resource diversification.
Key Takeaways
| › | Early renewable procurement and a shared Xcel transmission line let Holy Cross import low-cost eastern-Colorado wind and solar, insulating members from fuel price volatility. |
| › | Locally sited solar-plus-storage improves resilience by reducing exposure to equipment failure, cyberattack, and storms, though it can cost more than remote generation. |
| › | Reaching the final increment to 100% renewable is the hardest, costliest step, so co-ops should weigh whether that capital better serves other decarbonization goals. |
| › | Member-sited batteries, EV chargers, and dynamic pricing combine into a virtual power plant that shaves peaks and defers costly transmission upgrades. |
Implementation Considerations
- Regulatory or Governance Considerations: The article shows, through the United Power and Tri-State example, that restrictive G&T contracts can block local generation. Co-ops bound by such contracts may need to secure contract flexibility before adding significant local supply.
- Staffing or Technology Requirements: Building a smart portfolio of distributed resources, virtual power plants, and demand-side flexibility requires technical capacity. Smaller co-ops may need consultant support, regional collaboration, or partnerships to match Holy Cross's in-house expertise.
- Time-Sensitive Information: Specific rate figures and the 85% milestone are point-in-time and shift year to year. Renewable and storage cost trends also evolve quickly, so verify current data before citing.
Notable Examples
- Holy Cross Energy: Colorado distribution co-op that reached 85% renewable energy with below-average rates through early procurement, transmission sharing, and local solar-plus-storage.
- United Power: Former Tri-State member now pursuing hyper-localization with in-territory solar-plus-storage to cut transmission costs.
- Tri-State Generation and Transmission: Wholesale provider once restrictive on local generation, now allowing members more flexibility to localize supply.
- Xcel Energy: Investor-owned utility whose shared trans-divide transmission line enables Holy Cross's renewable imports from eastern Colorado.
Estimated reading time: 15 minutes
Related to
Comments
0 comments
Please sign in to leave a comment.