NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Local Energy Plans in Practice: 

Case Studies of Austin and 

Denver 

D. Peterson

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

E. Matthews

Austin Climate Protection Program

M. Weingarden

Greenprint Denver

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A20-50498

March 2011
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Local Energy Plans in Practice: 

Case Studies of Austin and 

Denver 

D. Peterson

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

E. Matthews

Austin Climate Protection Program

M. Weingarden

Greenprint Denver

Prepared under Task No. IGST.0002

Technical Report

NREL/TP-7A20-50498

March 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. 
iii

Acknowledgments

This report was produced with funding from, and in coordination with, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP) in the office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The authors appreciate concept development input 

and critical content for the report from Alison Culpen (McKinstry, Inc), Anu Ramaswami 

(University of Colorado, Denver), Gregg Thomas (City and County of Denver), Scott Morrissey 

(City and County of Denver), and Leslie Libby (Austin Energy). In addition, the authors would

like to thank the following individuals, who offered extensive and thoughtful comments on a 

variety of drafts of this work: 

• Elizabeth Doris, NREL

• Kim Peterson, NREL

• Sarah Busche, NREL

• Laura Vimmerstedt, NREL

• Sheila Hayter, NREL

• Nancy Carlisle, NREL

• Jason Coughlin, NREL 

• Courtney Welch, NREL 

• Alex Dane, NREL

• Eleni Pelican, DOE 

• Michele Betsill, Colorado State University

• Beth Conover, Econover, LLC. 

Finally, we thank Theresa von Kuegelgen of the NREL Communications Office for the technical 

editing of this document. Of course, any remaining errors are the responsibilities of the authors. 

NREL’s Clean Energy Policy Analyses (CEPA) 

The CEPA suite of analyses and activities explore clean energy development and policy 

implementation at the regional, state, and local levels and disseminate that information to 

interested stakeholders. The activities gauge the effectiveness of and interactions between clean 

energy policies, provide insight into regional activities, investigate the interactions between local 

and state-level policies, and convene leading thought leaders to develop innovative regional, 

state, and local clean energy policies. The goal is to provide information to decision makers, 

researchers, and other stakeholders regarding the status of, barriers to, and possibilities for 

increased energy efficiency and renewable energy development at various levels of governance. 

For more information, see www.nrel.gov/cepa/. This report focuses primarily on energy use in 

electricity and buildings. For more information on transportation policies at the state and local 

level, please see the Alternative Fuels Data Center: www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/. 
iv

Executive Summary

This report examines the successes and difficulties that two large cities, Denver, Colorado and 

Austin, Texas, have experienced in implementing their respective city-wide energy plans. The 

report considers factors that have assisted or hindered putting energy initiatives from each plan 

into practice, including political, financial, and logistical realities. The report also examines the 

goals and design of each plan, and how throughout the implementation process the cities have 

altered expectations or the direction of energy initiatives included in the plans. This report 

provides state and local government policy makers and analysts with a more nuanced 

understanding of the successes and challenges distinct cities encounter in putting a city-wide 

energy plan into practice, including the following general lessons from the experiences of 

Denver and Austin.

• Importance of state support: A city without a municipally owned utility (MOU) 

can develop and deploy local energy programs, but will likely have more options and 

a greater impact if supportive state-level energy policies are in place. An aggressive 

state renewable portfolio standard will aid a city in advancing its energy/climate goals 

by requiring the local utility to supply city residents and businesses with cleaner 

energy generated from renewable resources. City energy programs also benefit from 

the establishment of state demand-side management requirements for utilities. 

• Financial commitment from the city: City funding for staff and energy initiatives 

provides organizational and administrative stability for the implementation of a citywide energy plan. A city with an MOU is well positioned to implementing local 

energy efficiency programs and increase renewable energy supplied to citizens, but 

will likely need to make a substantial political and financial commitment in 

dedicating utility revenues for energy program and initiatives. Cities with an MOU 

can also justify the use of utility-generated revenues on energy efficiency and 

renewable energy programs and initiatives as a less expensive alternative to 

purchasing additional generation resource capacity. 

• Leveraging partnerships with non-city entities: Cities, particularly cities that don’t 

make a significant city budget allocation towards the implementation of energy 

programs (either from the general fund or utility revenues), should look to leveraging 

financial and other resources from non-city partners. These partners can include 

federal, state, and other surrounding local governments, as well as local utilities, 

businesses, universities, and community organizations. Partnerships can provide a 

substantial boost to the impact of and participation in outreach initiatives included in 

energy plans. 

• Reliance on federal program funding: Initiatives and programs of energy plans 

that rely heavily on funding from federal programs will likely be more difficult to 

sustain and maintain as federal energy program commitments fluctuate. Cities should 

look to develop energy programs dependent on multiple funding sources, striving to 

develop energy initiatives that will be viable even if federal dollars are unavailable. 

• Benefits to targeting government operations: Most cities have the opportunity to 

advance programs targeting energy use in government operations – including building 
v 

efficiency improvements, green fleets, and installing renewable energy on 

government facilities. Cities have greater control over government facilities energy 

use and can directly benefit from the cost savings from energy efficiency 

improvements. Cities can integrate energy efficiency improvements into capital 

improvement programs, utilizing existing funds available for building retrofits, 

equipment replacement, and maintenance. 
vi 

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... iii

NREL’s Clean Energy Policy Analyses (CEPA) ..................................................................... iii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ viii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Background on Local Energy Plans ......................................................................................................... 3

Historical Context ......................................................................................................................3

Characteristics of Local Energy Plans .......................................................................................3

Report Methodology and Structure ............................................................................................4

Denver.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Background ................................................................................................................................6

Xcel Energy .........................................................................................................................6

Local Energy Policy History ................................................................................................6

Denver’s Climate Action Plan Development, Authority, and Structure ..............................7

State Support ........................................................................................................................9

Community-Wide Energy Initiatives .......................................................................................10

Energy Initiatives under the Residential Climate Challenge .............................................11

Energy Initiatives under the Corporate Climate Challenge ...............................................13

Incentivize Energy Conservation .......................................................................................15

Energy Efficiency in New and Existing Buildings ............................................................16

Support Alternative Transportation Strategies...................................................................16

City Government Operations Energy Initiatives ......................................................................17

Demand-Side Management for City Facilities Using Utility Rebates ...............................17

Purchase Green Power for City Buildings and Facilities ...................................................18

Solar Power Purchase Agreements for City Buildings and Facilities ................................18

Other Programs/Projects at City Government Facilities ....................................................19

Summary and Discussion .........................................................................................................20

Austin ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

Background ..............................................................................................................................22

Austin Energy ....................................................................................................................22

Local Energy Policy History ..............................................................................................22

Austin’s Climate Protection Plan Development, Authority, and Structure .......................23

State Support ......................................................................................................................24

Utility Energy Initiatives..........................................................................................................25

Increase Austin Energy’s Renewable Generation Resources ............................................25

Other Utility Plan Action Items .........................................................................................26

Community-Wide Energy Initiatives .......................................................................................26

Continue Current Demand-Side Management Programs ..................................................26

 Energy Building Codes Upgrades ......................................................................................28 

Require Disclosure of Historic Energy Use and Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency 

Improvements upon the Sale of All Buildings .............................................................28

Accelerate Solar Rooftop Program ....................................................................................29

City Government Operations Energy Initiatives ......................................................................29

Power All City Facilities with Renewable Energy ............................................................29

On-Site Solar at All New and Existing City Facilities ......................................................29

Make the Entire City Fleet of Vehicles Carbon Neutral ....................................................29
vii 

Develop Departmental Climate Protection Plans ..............................................................30

Summary and Discussion .........................................................................................................30

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 32

References................................................................................................................................................. 34
viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Energy Action Items and Initiatives Included in Denver’s Climate Action Plan ..............8

Table 2. Energy Initiatives included in the DCAP Residential Climate Challenge Not Led or 

Pursued by the City ..................................................................................................................13

Table 3. Energy Initiatives Included in the Corporate Climate Challenge Not Led by the City ...15

Table 4. Solar PV Systems Installed on City of Denver Facilities Using Power Purchase 

Agreements by 2011 ................................................................................................................19

Table 5. Other Programs and Projects Targeting City Government Facilities Implemented by the 

City of Denver ..........................................................................................................................19

Table 6. Major Energy Action Items Included in the Austin Climate Protection Plan .................24

Table 7. Austin Energy’s Generation Resources: Current Versus ACPP Goal (MW) ..................25

Table 8. Major DSM Programs Offered by Austin Energy ..........................................................27
1 

Introduction

Local governments in the United States typically have some measure of control over how energy 

is used within their jurisdictional borders, often with direct influence over land use matters, 

transportation planning and development, and building codes. Some local governments, such as 

cities with municipally owned utilities (MOUs), have substantial control over how energy is 

produced. Local governments also generally have a close relationship with the residents and 

businesses, providing an opportunity for direct engagement with constituents around energy 

issues. As a result, local governments are in a key position to develop and implement innovative 

energy policies that will play an important role in transforming how the United States uses and 

generates energy. 

Over the last decade, many city governments have taken action on energy policy issues beyond 

transportation, land use, and building codes, developing and implementing initiatives and 

programs intended to promote energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy projects at 

city facilities and across the community. City leaders elect to advance these local energy 

programs to achieve cost savings, improve local air quality and quality of life, boost economic 

development, and establish the city as an environmental leader. 

An increasing number of cities are embracing the concept of energy planning, where a city 

develops a plan to organize, prioritize, and track energy policy initiatives and programs (Masters 

& Randolph, 2008). In recent years, most cities with significant energy policy programs have 

incorporated energy initiatives into climate-oriented energy plans, known as climate action plans 

or climate protection plans. These climate-oriented energy plans provide an accounting of 

initiatives and policies that a city anticipates will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Although these plans target GHG emissions reductions as the primary goal, they also function as 

local energy plans, incorporating and defining strategies that promote efficient use of energy and 

development of renewable energy projects. 

This report examines climate-oriented energy plans adopted by two large cities: Denver, 

Colorado and Austin, Texas. The report looks at the following questions: 

• How are the plans structured to address the political, fiscal, and logistical realities of 

the city?

• What sort of success has each city had in implementing their energy initiatives of 

their plans? 

• What have been the obstacles to implementing these energy initiatives?

• How have the cities had to alter the design and expectations for the plans? 

• What role do community, business, utility, and other government partners play in 

implementing the energy initiatives? 

• What financial resources were utilized in funding energy initiatives under the plans? 

• What results have been tracked? 
2 

This report will not directly compare and contrast the structure and implementation of the energy 

plans of Denver and Austin. Instead, the report will provide a separate case study of the 

implementation process and status of each energy plan, examining how each city has structured, 

adopted, and adapted energy initiatives outlined in the plan. Through these case studies, this 

report hopes to build a more nuanced understanding of the successes and challenges distinct 

cities encounter in putting a comprehensive citywide energy plan into practice.
3 

Background on Local Energy Plans

Historical Context

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a dramatic spike in energy costs prompted a number of local 

governments to make local energy conservation a priority and pursue policies that to promote 

energy efficiency and renewable energy in their communities (Randolph, 1981). Despite 

progress made by a number of cities during this period, energy policy fell from the list of 

priorities of most local governments as energy prices collapsed by the mid-1980s (Masters & 

Randolph, 2008). 

Local governments, particularly cities, began to reexamine a role for local-driven energy policy 

in the 1990s, motivated largely by concerns over energy costs, energy security, and urban 

sustainability. City leaders began to look beyond land use and transportation planning and 

building codes, expanding local energy programs to include initiatives that promoted efficient 

energy use and installation of renewable energy systems at city-owned facilities and local 

residences and businesses. 

As concerns over climate change increased through the late 1990s and 2000s, more city

governments began to address energy use in their communities. Organizations and city networks 

were formed that encouraged cities to make commitments and develop strategies for reducing 

GHG emissions.1

Characteristics of Local Energy Plans 

City energy programs and initiatives began to be incorporated into climateoriented energy plans, often referred to as climate action plans or climate protection plans, which 

were developed and adopted by cities to establish targets and strategies for reducing GHG 

emissions. These climate-oriented energy plans are used by cities to plan, organize, prioritize, 

and track energy programs and initiatives, providing a general outline of a city’s comprehensive 

energy strategy (Wheeler, 2008). 

Energy plans are typically the central product of an energy planning process employed by local 

governments seeking a comprehensive strategy for addressing local energy issues. This energy 

planning process is well defined in a number of documents, but the basic step-by-step framework 

is shown in Figure 1 (DOE, Community Greening: How to Develop a Strategic Energy Plan, 

2009). 

Figure 1. Step process for local energy planning

Local energy plans vary in scope, depending on the goals set forth by the leadership and 

characteristics of the community. In addressing the scope of the energy plan, a city may choose 

to target energy use in government operations, across the broader community, or both. Cities 

 

1 Organizations and networks include ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability (www.icleiusa.org/), U.S. 

Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm), and 

the Sierra Club’s Cool Cities Program (http://coolcities.us/). 
4 

may target only government operations because that is where they have the most control over 

energy use.2

A significant factor influencing the scope and content of an energy plan is whether a city has an 

MOU. A substantial number of cities in the United States have an MOU, where the city owns 

and operates the utility supplying the city and its citizens with electricity.

 Expanding an energy plan to include the broader community often requires greater 

voluntary participation from the residents and businesses of the city to meet plan objectives, as 

well as a sizable political, and often financial, commitment from the city government. Cities may 

choose to develop energy plans that target the broader community in an effort to reduce the city’s 

environmental impact, reduce energy costs for residents, and boost local economic development 

(DOE, Community Greening: How to Develop a Strategic Energy Plan, 2009). 

3

 An energy plan 

adopted by a city with an MOU will often include goals and strategies for the utility to obtain

more electricity generated by renewable energy resources.4

Transportation, infrastructure, and land use planning are integral to addressing energy 

consumption by a community, and can be included in a city’s energy plan. Many cities have 

incorporated these elements into their climate-oriented energy plans. For example, Seattle, 

Washington and Boston, Massachusetts have adopted climate-oriented energy plans with 

substantial strategies targeting transportation and land use in the broader community.

 An MOU may also allow the city 

opportunity to establish programs funded directly from revenues generated by the MOU’s 

business operations. Cities without an MOU typically have little to no control over how the 

power supplied to the city is generated, and often depend on the state to establish policies 

requiring the servicing utility to promote energy efficiency and meet defined renewable energy 

generation requirements. 

5

Report Methodology and Structure

 

However, many cities elect to address energy strategies for reducing energy use through energy 

plans that are separate and distinct from transportation and land use plans. 

This report will focus on the energy plans of two cities: Denver, Colorado and Austin, Texas. 

Both cities developed and adopted climate-oriented energy plans containing strategies designed 

to promote efficient use of energy and renewable energy in government operations and across the 

broader community. Both cities have had citywide plans in place since 2007, so each has had 

time to begin implementing energy action items included in their respective plans. Denver 

provides an example of an energy plan where the city does not have control over the local utility

(an investor-owned utility operating in several states), while Austin is a city with an MOU.

 

2 State and local governments also opt to target government operations as a way to demonstrate the technical and 

economic feasibility and desirability of making energy improvements to residents and businesses in the broader 

community. Ideally, such “lead-by-example” activities will encourage private sector members of the community to 

adopt sustainable energy practices. 3 Communities that have publicly owned utilities include some of the nation’s largest cities – Los Angeles, San 

Antonio, Seattle, Orlando, and Austin. For a listing of publicly owned utilities, see American Public Power 

Association at http://publicpower.org/aboutpublic/ppstatelistings.cfm?navItemNumber=20965. 4 Seattle and Los Angeles, other major cities with MOUs, also have climate-oriented energy plans that include 

targets and strategies for their respective utilities.

5 See the Seattle Climate Action Plan (www.seattle.gov/archive/climate/docs/SeaCAP_plan.pdf) and Boston Climate 

Action Plan (www.cityofboston.gov/climate/pdfs/CAPJan08.pdf). 
5 

Denver and Austin both address transportation and land use planning largely through plans 

separate from their respective climate-oriented energy plans. This report will examine only the 

limited transportation, land use, or zoning initiatives included in the climate-oriented energy 

plans of Denver and Austin and will not discuss plans beyond the climate-oriented energy plans.6

Information used in the report was obtained through publicly available sources, discussions with 

individuals inside and outside of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and interviews and 

correspondences with key city staff responsible for implementing the energy plans of Denver and 

Austin. 

For each city, the report discusses and describes the following: 

• Characteristics of the city

• The city’s relationship with local utility

• Historical background and context regarding local energy planning efforts 

• Development, scope, and content of the energy plan 

• Support from the community, businesses, utility, and/or state

• Implementation status and progress of each energy initiative included in the energy 

plan 

• Trends and future prospects. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided funding to local governments 

for energy programs through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)

Program.7

 Both Denver and Austin have received and used EECBG funding for various energy 

initiatives under their respective climate-oriented energy plans. Although this report will 

indicate how EECBG funds were used for selected energy initiatives, it will not provide a 

detailed accounting of how each city’s EECBG funds were used. 

 

6 Denver’s Climate Action Plan (DCAP) includes a land use strategy of supporting dense development in urban 

areas, as well as transportation strategies to develop alternative transportation sources. However, the DCAP does 

not anticipate land use and transportation recommendations to result in significant, near-term energy use reductions 

– less than 4% of total projected energy/GHG reductions from all DCAP strategies. The Austin Climate Protection 

Plan does not include significant land use and transportation measures. 7 For more on EECBG, see www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/eecbg.html. 
6 

Denver 

Background

Located at the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains, the City and County of Denver has a 

population of nearly 600,000 and is the center of a metropolitan area of over 2.8 million people 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The capital of Colorado, Denver serves as the regional commercial 

and transportation hub for the Rocky Mountain Region. Denver has a diverse economy, 

consisting of telecommunications, oil and gas, and mining industries, among others. The city’s 

close proximity to extensive outdoor amenities and a growing dependence on outdoor tourism 

places the natural environment as a key part of the city’s identity (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003). 

Xcel Energy

Denver is served by Xcel Energy, an investor-owned utility (IOU) regulated by the Colorado 

Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Colorado state law requires that utilities enter into a 

franchise agreement with local governments to serve customers in its jurisdiction. Under its 

2006 franchise agreement with Xcel, Denver negotiated a number of energy-related benefits 

from Xcel, including the establishment of a pilot demand-side management (DSM) program for 

municipal facilities and green building program for low-income residents (Merritt, 2006).8

Xcel offers a number of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to the city, residents, 

and businesses. Xcel provides financial incentives to customers for energy efficiency 

improvements and solar photovoltaic (PV) projects. The utility also offers a green power option 

through the Windsource program, where customers voluntarily pay a premium for electricity 

generated from renewable sources.9

Local Energy Policy History

Denver first began to formally address local energy policy in the early 1990s. In 1991, Denver’s 

City Council passed a resolution committing the city to International Council for Local 

Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Urban CO2 Reduction Project, an international initiative that 

sought to encourage the development of local strategies to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions through achieving milestones, including developing a local action plan to 

reduce the city’s GHG emissions. Although the resolution carried little legal weight, Mayor 

Wellington Webb and the city council envisioned establishing Denver as an environmental 

leader through the city’s involvement in the ICLEI project (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003). 

In the 1990s, Denver developed an energy plan that included energy initiatives focused on cost 

effective, energy improvements in government operations. In 1993, Mayor Wellington E. Webb 

signed an executive order creating the first Green Fleets program in the nation, which established

a comprehensive program to make Denver’s municipal fleet vehicles more efficient. (Greenprint 

 

8 A franchise agreement permits a company to conduct business within a township, village, city, or other local 

government unit. Typically utilities are granted exclusive franchises to serve in a specified area. Franchises are 

granted by both states and municipalities. Municipalities often charge a franchise fee as a way to generate revenues 

and to compensate for use of municipal rights-of-way (Energy, 2002). 9 Windsource power is sold to Xcel customers in 100-kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. The current Windsource rate is 

$2.16 per block. An average residential customer using 675 kWh per month and signing up for 100% . Windsource 

would expect an average increase of around $15 on their monthly bill. For more on Windsource, see 

www.xcelenergy.com/Colorado/Residential/RenewableEnergy/Windsource_/Pages/WindSource.aspx. 
7 

Denver, 2009). Another program created in the mid-1990s focused on retrofitting municipal 

buildings with energy-efficient lighting (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2003). 

In 2000, the Denver City Council adopted the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000, a document 

that established sustainability as a key component of future city policy and planning decisions 

(City and County of Denver, 2000). The city council adopted various other plans developed by 

other city departments, which serve as supplements to Plan 2000.10

After committing to the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, Mayor John Hickenlooper 

signed a series of executive orders in 2006 and 2007 to codify the Greenprint Denver Initiative 

and establish the Greenprint Denver Office within the mayor’s office (Greenprint Denver, 

2007).11

The Greenprint Denver Plan developed by Mayor Hickenlooper’s staff served as the guiding 

document for the city’s sustainability efforts. The plan established sustainability goals for city 

government, including energy and emissions, waste, transportation and land use, economic 

development, water, and urban forestry. In addition to the goals for the city government, the 

plan set a citywide energy and emissions goal – “reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 

10% below 1990 levels by 2011,” as well as a goal of developing a plan for reducing GHG 

emissions across the entire community (Greenprint Denver, 2006). 

 Greenprint Denver had a small staff within the mayor’s office and dozens of committee 

members from 10 city departments and was tasked to coordinate sustainability activities within 

city departments and “...to position Denver as a national leader in sustainability by developing 

and implementing solutions to resource challenges and working with city agencies to ensure that 

all city policy and program decisions incorporate ‘triple bottom-line’ analysis, balancing shortand long-term economic, social, and environmental considerations.” (Greenprint Denver, 2006). 

Denver’s Climate Action Plan Development, Authority, and Structure

To meet the goal of reducing citywide GHG emissions, Mayor Hickenlooper established the 

Greenprint Denver Advisory Council, appointing 33 civic, business, university, and government 

leaders to the council. The Greenprint Denver Advisory Council led the effort to develop 

Denver’s Climate Action Plan (DCAP), a climate-oriented energy plan that would serve as a 

guiding document for the city in its efforts to address the energy use across the community. 

The city formally adopted the DCAP in 2007 through an executive order signed by Mayor 

Hickenlooper (Pankratz, 2007). DCAP included a set of recommended strategies for reducing 

the GHG emitted by the city and community, largely through implementing a series of energy 

programs and initiatives for promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in city

government operations and across the community (Mayor's Greenprint Denver Advisory 

Council, 2007). 

 

10 See Denver’s Department of Community Planning and Development to access the other plans, which include 

master plans focused on parks and recreation, pedestrian and bike access, and an integrated land use and 

transportation plan www.denvergov.org/Planning/ComprehensivePlan2000/tabid/431882/Default.aspx. 11 The U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement commits signatories to 1) strive to meet or better 

the Kyoto Protocol GHG emissions targets, a 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012, in their own communities, 

and 2) advocate for stronger state and federal GHG policies and programs. By 2010, 1044 U.S. mayors had signed 

the agreement. For more information on this agreement, see www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm. 
8 

Table 1 provides a summary of the energy recommendations included in DCAP. 

Table 1. Energy Action Items and Initiatives Included in Denver’s Climate Action Plan

Action Item Individual Energy Initiatives

CommunityWide Energy 

Initiatives

Residential 

Climate 

Challenge 

• Promote the purchase of green power from Xcel Energy 

• Promote participation in Xcel’s DSM programs by 

residences 

• Boost the use of compact fluorescent lighting (CFL) 

• Increase smart meter installation

• Offer free home energy audits 

• Neighborhood energy efficiency promotion 

Corporate 

Climate 

Challenge 

• Promote participation in Xcel’s DSM programs by 

Denver businesses 

• Promote the purchase of green power from Xcel 

• Boost access to employee commuter benefits

Incentivize 

Energy 

Conservation 

• Establish a tiered-rate structure for electricity

Energy 

Efficiency for 

New and 

Existing 

Buildings 

• Strengthen energy efficiency standards in building 

codes

• “Time of Sale” Energy Audit and Disclosure Project 

Support 

Alternative 

Transportation 

Strategies

• Parking subsidies for car-share programs, and high-fuel 

economy or alternatively fueled vehicles 

City Government 

Operation 

Energy 

Initiatives

City Leading 

by Example

• Pursue energy savings using the Xcel’s DSM program

• Purchase green power through the utility for city 

facilities

• Increase city fleet motor pool/car share program 
9 

The advisory council selected the action items in Table 1 based on evaluation criteria that 

prioritized technical, economic, and political feasibility. The advisory council anticipated that 

the energy programs included in Table 1 would reduce citywide GHG emissions 75% toward the 

2012 goal established by the Greenprint Denver Plan (Greenprint Denver, 2007).12

Most DCAP action items emphasize leveraging resources of the utility, nongovernmental 

organizations, and state and federal government programs. In terms of financial resources, the 

city does not dedicate line-item funding for putting DCAP action items into place, apart from 

funding staff for the Greenprint Denver office, and select initiatives of some city departments 

(such as the green fleet program within Denver Public Works and a green business training 

program supported by the Office of Economic Development). City departments have provided 

funding and staff for the implementation of some DCAP programs. In addition, energy initiatives 

targeting improvements in energy use in municipal buildings have utilized the city’s capital 

improvement fund (City and County of Denver, 2008). The Greenprint Denver office is tasked 

with leveraging non-city resources, both financial and personnel, to advance the action items in 

DCAP. 

State Support

The implementation of DCAP action items significantly benefit from clean energy policies 

adopted at the state government level. Since 2007, a number of these state clean energy policies 

have been put into place under Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s New Energy Economy initiative 

(Martin & Brannon, 2009).13

Colorado’s Renewable Portfolio Standard 

Colorado adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) through a ballot initiative in 2004. The 

RPS required Xcel and other IOUs in the state to get 10% of their energy from renewable energy 

resources by 2015. In 2007, the Colorado State Legislature doubled the requirement for IOUs to 

20% by 2020. In 2010, the Colorado State Legislature further increased the RPS for IOUs, 

requiring 30% by 2020 (DSIRE - Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, 

2010). The RPS also requires that IOUs meet a certain percentage of renewables through 

distributed generation systems, rather than through utility-scale generation.

To meet its requirements under the state’s RPS, Xcel can integrate renewable electricity sources 

by 1) directly generating electricity from renewable resources or 2) through purchasing

electricity or renewable energy credits (RECs) from an owner of renewable resources. 

The RPS has had a substantial impact on Denver’s ability to reach the targets and goals set by 

DCAP. To meet its RPS obligations, Xcel has increased the amount of renewable energy it 

supplies to Denver customers, mainly through acquiring power from large wind farms. 

Increasing the amount of electricity from renewable sources decreases the GHG emissions factor 

 

12 The remaining emissions reduction were anticipated to largely come from a voluntary travel offsets program, with 

minor contributions from enhanced recycling programs, a green concrete policy, and incentives for density in urban 

areas.

13 For more on the State of Colorado’s efforts, visit the Colorado Governor’s Energy Office website at 

http://rechargecolorado.com/. 
10 

associated with electricity used by the city, residents and businesses.14 Essentially, the state’s 

RPS has allowed Denver to move toward meeting GHG emissions targets by providing the city

with cleaner electricity, even before the city, residents, and businesses reduce energy use through 

energy efficiency programs or increase distributed energy generation through solar PV 

programs.15

In addition, to meet its distributed generation requirement under the RPS, Xcel implemented the 

Solar Rewards Program, which provides rebates to residences, businesses, and third-party 

developers who install solar PV systems. Xcel also purchases RECs from customers who install 

solar PV. Xcel can then use the RECs to meet its RPS obligations. The DCAP incorporates the 

financial incentives offered through the Solar Rewards Program into several of the energy

strategies.

 

State Demand-Side Management Programs 

In 2007, the Colorado Legislature passed a bill that ordered the Colorado PUC to establish 

energy savings goals for electric and natural gas utilities and to provide utilities with financial 

incentives for implementing cost-effective DSM programs.16

Other State Support

 Under authorization from the PUC, 

Xcel established a range of DSM programs that offer rebates to residential and business 

customers for the purchase of energy-efficient products or improvements. These DSM financial 

incentives are also incorporated into many of the prominent DCAP strategies.

Colorado offers other elements of support for renewable energy and energy efficiency 

deployment. In addition to establishing the state RPS, the 2004 voter-approved initiative 

required the PUC to adopt standards for net metering and interconnection (DSIRE - Database of 

State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, 2010). 

The Greeenprint Denver staff coordinates city efforts with the State of Colorado Governor’s 

Energy Office (GEO) to avoid duplicating policies or programs. Both entities publicize the 

programs of the other, leveraging outreach for complementary programs. 

Community-Wide Energy Initiatives

DCAP proposes a number of community-focused energy action items. Major communityfocused components of DCAP are the Corporate and Residential Climate Challenges. The 

Corporate Climate Challenge includes a set of voluntary energy initiatives targeting the city’s 

corporations, industries, and businesses. These initiatives focus on encouraging participation in 

Xcel’s DSM and Windsource programs, as well as the expansion of employee commuter 

benefits. 

The Residential Climate Challenge includes a set of voluntary energy programs targeting 

residences, creating “...a package of programs to bring money-saving energy efficiency 

 

14 GHG emissions factors express how much equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) is emitted per unit of energy or 

material consumed. For example: kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of 

electricity consumed, or kg-CO2e/kWh. 15 From interviews with Denver City staff. 16 For a further discussion of the DSM programs offered by Xcel, see 

www.swenergy.org/programs/utilities/colorado.htm. 
11 

measures to homes, subsidized in part by the city.” (Mayor's Greenprint Denver Advisory 

Council, 2007) The Residential Climate Challenge included programs that encourage energy 

conservation, green power purchases, and alternative modes of transportation. The programs are 

designed to enhance community outreach and leverage partnerships with local non-profit 

organizations, businesses, and Xcel Energy. 

This section discusses the action items under the Corporate and Residential Climate Challenges, 

as well as other community-wide energy action items included in DCAP. 

Energy Initiatives under the Residential Climate Challenge

Neighborhood Energy Blitz

A part of DCAP’s Residential Climate Challenge, the Neighborhood Energy Blitz program was 

established as an outreach initiative, designed to directly provide residents with services and 

resources that will help them save money on their utility bills, increase the comfort of their 

homes, while concurrently have a positive environmental impact.17

In 2008, Greenprint Denver facilitated the forming of a collaborative group of city departments, 

businesses, and non-profits, which became known as the Neighborhood Energy Action 

Partnership (NEAP).

 The Blitz program is 

designed and executed by neighborhood “Green Teams” consisting of residents who volunteer to 

go door-to-door canvassing community to inform their neighbors of available energy programs, 

including access to subsidized energy audits, DSM and solar rebates, Windsource power, free 

income-qualifying energy efficiency upgrade and insulation programs, and weatherization 

assistance for low-income residences, including options for renters. 

18

The Blitz program model was piloted in the fall of 2008 with funding from the GEO, while the 

expanded citywide outreach program receives funding from multiple sources including the city’s 

Office of Strategic Partnerships, GEO, and federal grants. Data are collected from each Blitz 

program and are tracked through the city’s Department of Environmental Health. Using 105 

volunteers, 2,457 homes were contacted with 465 households receiving at least one energyefficient measure. NEAP and Green Team outreach programs anticipate canvassing at least 20 

neighborhoods, speaking to at least 10,000 residents, and signing up over 1,800 households with 

services. 

 NEAP utilizes local non-profits to provide and organize the community 

outreach, using volunteers to canvass the neighborhoods. Through the Blitz program, NEAP 

initially sought to target 29 low-income neighborhoods, offering access to weatherization 

services to qualifying residences. This model is currently used citywide with the help of 

neighborhood residential Green Teams. 

 

17 Boulder County, Colorado, also has a similar program called Neighborhood Energy Sweeps, established in 2006. 

For results on this program, see www.bouldercounty.org/find/library/housing/lpecsweepsstats.pdf. 18 City departments participating in NEAP included the Department of Environmental Health, Office of Economic 

Development, and Office of Strategic Partnerships. Participating non-profit partners include Groundwork Denver, 

Mile High Youth Corps, and Energy Outreach Colorado. For more information on NEAP, see 

www.denvergov.org/DenverOfficeofStrategicPartnerships/Partnerships/NeighborhoodEnergyActionPartnership/tabi

d/436573/Default.aspx. 
12 

Compact Fluorescent Lamps Program

DCAP recommended promoting compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL) use in Denver residences. 

The CFL program was initially envisioned as offering up to 10 CFLs per household, which 

proved financially unfeasible. Instead, the CFL program evolved into a component of the Blitz 

program, where volunteers offer a free CFL for their porchlight as a conversation starter when 

greeting residents. The GEO, Energy Outreach Colorado, Xcel, and WalMart have all played 

significant roles in this program. WalMart donated an initial 5,000 CFLs to begin the program, 

while GEO provided funding to allow Greenprint to purchase additional CFLs for giveaways in 

the Blitz program. 

The outreach groups (i.e., NEAP and Green Teams) track the various participation rates. The 

city then converts that into energy savings and GHG reductions.19

Encourage Residents and Businesses to Purchase Green Power

 For the ongoing program, as 

with the broader Blitz program effort, the willingness of residents to open their doors and engage 

in a discussion with canvassers determines how effective the CFL program can be. 

To encourage increased participation in Xcel Energy’s Windsource program, the city

collaborated with Xcel Energy, Denver Public Schools, the GEO, and the Sierra Club to create 

the Denver Energy Challenge. In the Denver Energy Challenge, residents and businesses are 

encouraged to sign up for the Windsource program. High schools in neighborhoods with the 

highest participation in the Windsource program are rewarded by Xcel with energy education 

projects, providing an additional incentive to residents.20

The city’s Department of Environmental Health developed the Denver Energy Challenge 

program concept and enlisted the participating partners. The program required no direct outlays 

by the city. Xcel contributed money to the effort, committing up to $125,000 in awards to 

Denver Public Schools. Xcel Energy also tracks neighborhood participation in Windsource and 

provided direct marketing through bill inserts to Denver customers in spring 2010. The initial 

phase of the program ended August 2010. Phase II is currently being finalized. 

 The Denver Energy Challenge was 

also incorporated and promoted through the Blitz program. 

The $10-$20 per month premium for the green power remains a barrier. However, participants 

can sign up for Windsource in 100-kilowatt-hour (KWh) blocks and do not need to sign up for 

the full 100% of their monthly electricity consumption. In either case, the program has shown to 

be effective in motivating Windsource participation in several neighborhoods. 

Other Residential Climate Challenge Energy Initiatives Not Led or Pursued by the City

Several of the recommended programs included in the DCAP’s Residential Climate Challenge 

were not pursued by the city. Some of these initiatives were supplanted by similar programs led 

by non-city entities, while others were not continued by any entity. Table 2 lists these programs.

 

19 For more information on results, see the NEAP program Web page 

www.denvergov.org/DenverOfficeofStrategicPartnerships/Partnerships/NeighborhoodEnergyActionPartnership/tabi

d/436573/Default.aspx

20 For more information on the Denver Energy Challenge, see www.denverenergy.org/. 
13 

Table 2. Energy Initiatives Included in the DCAP Residential Climate Challenge Not Led or 

Pursued by the City

Action Item Reason Action Item Was Not 

Pursued or Led by the City

Outcome

Home Energy Audits: 

Offer free energy audits 

to home owners. 

Xcel unveiled a subsidized energy 

audit program for the homeowner. 

Xcel’s energy audit program is 

promoted through the Blitz program. 

In 2009 and 2010, at least 378 people 

have signed up for subsidized Xcel 

energy audits through the Blitz 

program.

Smart Meter 

Installation: Increase the 

adoption of smart meters 

by making them more 

affordable to home

owners through 

subsidized smart meter 

installation. 

As a part of a pilot program, the 

city partnered with a local 

university to study the 

effectiveness of smart meters in 

reducing home energy use. The 

timeline for this effort has been 

longer than expected and funding 

is due to end in spring 2011. 

The city is now assuming that 

promotion of smart meters would be 

handled more effectively by Xcel or 

the state. 

Individualized Travel 

Marketing Pilot: DCAP 

calls for the establishment 

of a transit concierge 

program that would allow 

people to plan their transit 

and other alternative 

mode trips.

The city did not have the funding 

to pursue this effort. 

The city chose to focus its resources on 

establishing the Bike Share Program.

Energy Initiatives under the Corporate Climate Challenge

Promote Participation in Utility DSM Programs among Area Businesses 

As a part of DCAP’s Corporate Climate Challenge, the city developed a small business energy 

program to encourage business owners to participate in the voluntary DSM program offered by 

Xcel and understand all of the energy options available to them. Xcel’s DSM program provides 

rebates for specific energy efficiency improvements and has an annual funding allocation of 

approximately $8 million to offer Denver businesses.21

Program funds for staff and implementation for the small business energy program comes from 

the city’s Department of Environmental Health (DEH), supplemented with federal EECBG funds 

obtained by the city in 2009, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Showcase 

Community grant also obtained in 2009, and GEO funding. DEH coordinates the small 

business program, partnering the outreach efforts with Xcel to ensure that local businesses get 

the most accurate information. City technical staff will serve as technical liaisons to the small 

business community, coordinating efforts with neighborhood merchant associations, business 

districts, and the city’s Office of Economic Development, which has success working with local 

 

21 Comment from Denver City staff.
14 

small businesses. In addition, DEH’s Denver Pollution Prevention Partners program works in 

tandem with the energy program to leverage each other’s resources and relationships.22

This initiative is still being implemented. However, despite the short paybacks for energy 

efficiency improvement, the city anticipates that up-front costs will remain a significant barrier 

for small businesses in the current economic environment. In designing its program, the city

created additional incentives on top of those provided by Xcel to reduce the up-front capital 

barrier. To sustain the program beyond the Recovery Act, the city hopes to leverage its 

relationship with Xcel and local business districts to fund the small business energy program 

staff.

Other Corporate Climate Challenge Energy Initiatives Not Led by the City

Several of the recommended programs included in the DCAP’s Corporate Climate Challenge 

were not led by the city. Table 3 lists these programs. 

 

22 For more information on the Denver Pollution Prevention Partners program, see 

www.denvergov.org/DEH/DenverP2Partners/tabid/434116/Default.aspx. 
15 

Table 3. Energy Initiatives Included in the Corporate Climate Challenge Not Led by the City

Action item Reason action item was not 

led by the City

Outcome

Expand employee 

Commuter Benefits. 

Bike Denver, a non-profit 

bicycle advocacy 

organization, and Downtown 

Denver Partnership, a nonprofit business organization, 

have taken the lead on 

promoting employee 

commuter benefits programs 

in Denver’s commercial 

sector.

Greenprint Denver has provided 

support to these commercial sector 

efforts. The City of Denver has 

long had commuter benefits 

available to city government 

employees, including discounted 

bus and light rail passes, flex-time 

and flex-space schedule options, 

shower facilities, bike lockers, and 

discounted membership to the Bike 

Share Program. 23

Watts to Water: A large

commercial building 

DSM program offering

awards for all Denver 

metro area buildings of 

5,000 square feet or 

more, recognizing hotel 

and commercial office 

building owners who 

adopt sustainable 

practices to reduce 

energy and water use.

 

24

Greenprint Denver sat on the 

steering committee, but the 

Watts to Water program is 

largely driven by program 

partners.

 

25

First year participants represented 

28 million square feet of 

commercial space in 130 buildings. 

Awards were presented in October 

2010 to the best hotel and three 

office buildings. The program is 

also designed to link large buildings 

owners and managers with DSM 

rebate programs offered by Xcel, 

which reduce the cost of making 

efficiency improvements. 

Incentivize Energy Conservation

Tiered Electricity Rate Structures for Businesses and Residences

DCAP called for the establishment of a tiered rate structure for electricity and natural gas usage 

consumption for residences and businesses. It was envisioned that the electricity and natural gas 

tiered rates would resemble water use rate charges adopted by Denver Water, the local water 

utility. This city-led effort for tiered rate structures was not implemented due to the fact that 

Xcel was concurrently working to develop a tiered rate structure. In 2010, the PUC approved 

Xcel’s tiered rate structure, which applied a higher summer electricity rate to the utility’s 

residential users who consume in excess of 500 kWh per month (Jaffe, 2010). The city and Xcel 

plan to continue measuring the summer program to determine whether a year-round structure is 

possible in the future. 

 

23 For more information on city employee commuting benefits, see 

www.denvergov.org/Benefits/RTDValuPass/tabid/433214/Default.aspx . 24 For more on the Watts to Water program and awards, see www.wattstowater.org/. 25 Watts to Water program partners include the Denver Building Owners and Managers Association, ENERGY 

STAR®, Denver Water, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, Xcel, and the Colorado GEO. 
16 

Energy Efficiency in New and Existing Buildings

Strengthen Commercial and Residential Building Codes

DCAP calls for strengthening both residential and commercial building codes. Located in a 

home-rule state, Denver is able to adopt and enforce its own building codes. On December 1, 

2009, the city’s Development Services Department began public consideration of the 2010 

Denver Building Code, which includes updating the energy code to International Energy 

Conservation Codes (IECC) 2009.26 The city is on target to adopt IECC 2009 with amendments 

in late January 2011. Opposition to adopting the updated building code has been limited to 

several non-energy components of the code, not the energy components.27

“Time-of-Sale” Energy Audit and Disclosure Project

Beginning in 2008, the city started a pilot project to assess feasibility of a voluntary time-of-sale

energy audit and disclosure project, where home sellers would voluntarily perform an energy 

audit on the home up for sale, providing home buyers better information on the home’s energy 

use. The city funded the pilot and worked with a local university and Denver Board of Realtors 

to set up the pilot. The pilot relied on local realtors to refer seller, buyers, and existing home 

owners to the program, which provided incentives to participants. To receive the energy 

efficiency incentives, participants were required to disclose the audit results. The initial results 

of the pilot were limited by the lack of referrals from realtors, making the pilot difficult to 

evaluate. The city elected not to continue with this effort. 

Support Alternative Transportation Strategies 

Parking Subsidies for Car-Share Vehicles and High-Fuel Economy or Alternatively 

Fueled Vehicles

The city offers parking subsidies to non-profit car share organizations, including several metered 

parking spaces in high-demand / highly visible urban core locations downtown. The city

foregoes the meter revenue as a means of programmatic support. In addition, the city passed a 

new zoning code, which offers reduced parking standards for buildings that offer reserved 

parking spots for car-sharing vehicles.

Citywide Bike Share Program – Denver Bike Sharing

Following the success of a temporary bike sharing program put in place during the 2008 

Democratic National Convention, Mayor Hickenlooper pushed for the establishment of a 

permanent citywide program. Greenprint provided initial guidance and organization for the 

effort. Denver Bike Sharing, a non-profit, was then established in 2009 to own and operate the 

citywide bike sharing program. The program allows users to leave their cars at home, take mass 

transit into the city, and bike to their destination. While not exclusively an energy saving 

 

26 “The IECC is published by The International Code Council an internationally recognized code development 

organization. The IECC is a subset of the International Codes, developed by ICC. The IECC is a model energy code

that makes allowances for different climate zones. Because it is written in mandatory, enforceable language, state 

and local jurisdictions can easily adopt the model as their energy code. Before adopting the IECC, state and local 

governments often make changes to reflect regional building practices, or state specific energy efficiency goals.” 

See the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Energy Codes Program for more building codes information at 

www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/types.stm. 27 Comment from Greenprint Denver staff.
17 

strategy, the Denver Bike Sharing program falls under the DCAP action item of promoting 

alternative modes of transportation.28

The bike-sharing system is known as the Denver B-cycle, which is a joint program of the Bike 

Sharing Program, the owner and operator, and B-cycle, LLC, the designer of the bike-sharing 

system. Other partners include local businesses that sponsor bikes and bike stations, as well as 

residents who purchase memberships and single day user fees. The initial funding for the 

program came in the form of a donation from the Denver 2008 Democratic Convention Host 

Committee, with additional support coming from EECBG funds. Other funds used for the 

program are received through other grants, sponsorships, memberships, and transaction fees.29

The Denver Bike Sharing program has located over 400 bikes at 50 bike stations near hightraffic sites near transit stops, shopping districts, universities, and neighborhoods close to 

downtown. Denver Bike Sharing has recorded over 96,000 single rides. The program has seen 

the purchase of 1,765 annual memberships and 32,396 single-day user fees. Annual 

memberships haven't been as robust as expected. Many people are taking advantage of the 

optional low, daily user fees, but annual memberships will be required to make the program 

financially self-sustaining. 

 

Greenprint Denver continues to assist the program in pursuing funding opportunities and station 

sponsorships. 

City Government Operations Energy Initiatives 

The Greenprint Denver Plan established sustainability goals for city facilities and operations, 

establishing green building, water conservation, fleet efficiency, and recycling requirements for 

the city government, and requires the city to favor recycled and energy efficient office supplies 

and equipment for certain equipment types. DCAP recommends additional energy action items 

for city facilities.

Demand-Side Management for City Facilities Using Utility Rebates

Greenprint Denver is working with Xcel to develop a customized municipal DSM program, 

which will allow the city to maximize utility rebates and identify the most cost-effective DSM 

projects. DCAP directed the city to reduce municipal building energy use through DSM projects, 

utilizing Xcel’s DSM program, which offers rebates for reducing building energy use. Although 

the city had pursued the DSM rebates offered by Xcel for a number of years, Greenprint Denver 

started to institutionalize and coordinate the city’s DSM projects, hoping to leverage the rebates 

to fund energy audits of additional municipal buildings. Xcel’s cooperation in the DSM program 

is mandated by the city’s franchise agreement. The development of the custom municipal 

program has required significant collaboration between Xcel, the city, and the project team, 

whose members include architects, contractors, and mechanical and electrical contractors. 

The costs for municipal building retrofits come out of the city’s annual capital improvement 

budget, which considers long-term sustainability and energy efficiency improvements as costsaving measures. EECBG funds have been incorporated in the program to increase the number 

of DSM projects. The city is still working with Xcel to develop this program. However, an 

 

28 The Denver Bike Sharing Program may not be exclusively an energy initiative because it is difficult to determine 

the percentage of participants utilizing the bike program for commuting rather than recreational purposes.

29 Denver Bike Share, see www.denverbikesharing.org/faqs.php. 
18 

initial barrier has been getting different city departments to provide the relevant building 

information necessary to assess projects from across all municipal facilities.

Purchase Green Power for City Buildings and Facilities

DCAP recommended that the city power city facilities with green power purchased through 

Xcel’s Windsource. However, the additional premium for Windsource power was costprohibitive in the context of the city’s current budgetary constraints. Instead, Greenprint Denver 

elected to focus on a long-term strategy of reducing energy use in city buildings through the 

DSM program. In addition, the city opted to host PV solar systems on city facilities and 

buildings under power purchase agreements (PPAs) with solar developers. 

Solar Power Purchase Agreements for City Buildings and Facilities

Denver has completed several solar PPAs for solar systems installed at the airport and other city 

facilities. 30

Solar PPAs have provided the city with access to electricity at grid competitive rates with little 

up-front cost. However, the city cites several obstacles to implementing solar PPAs. First, the

cost of grid electricity is relatively low when compared to electricity produced by a PV system. 

Second, PPA contract negotiation required city staff time and expense. However, after the 

completion of the initial PPA, the negotiation process for subsequent PPAs was streamlined. 

 A PPA is a long-term contract where the city agrees to host a solar PV system on a 

city facility and purchase the electricity produced by the solar PV system. The solar system is 

purchased, owned, and maintained by the solar developer, who generates revenue through the 

power sold to the city, and financial incentives offered by Xcel and the federal government. The 

city was the main player in proposing, negotiating, and the implementing of solar PPAs. 

These barriers were overcome through the support from the private sector and utility partners. 

Xcel’s Solar Rewards program offered critical financial support to the projects. The city relied 

heavily on the technical support and expertise of the solar development firms involve in each 

project. The city also received technical support through the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

(DOE’s) Solar America Cities program. 

Starting in mid-2008, the city began to initiate solar PPAs at several sites, including 3.6 

megawatts (MW) at Denver International Airport, 300 kilowatts (kW) at the Colorado 

Convention Center, 100 kW at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. By the end of 2011, 

the city will have used solar PPAs to install a total of 12 MW on city property. A complete list 

of solar PV projects installed on city facilities using PPAs is shown in Table 4. 

 

30 For more information on PPAs , see www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46668.pdf . 
19 

Table 4. Solar PV Systems Installed on City of Denver Facilities Using Power Purchase 

Agreements by 2011

Location Size

Denver International Airport 3.6 MW (7.6 MW by 

2011) 

Colorado Convention Center 300 kW

Denver Museum of Nature and 

Science

100 kW

Various Denver Public School 

buildings 

3 MW

Various city buildings 1 MW

Other Programs/Projects at City Government Facilities

The city has implemented several other programs and projects that target energy use of city 

government or development of energy projects on city property (see Table 5).

Table 5. Other Programs and Projects Targeting City Government Facilities Implemented by the 

City of Denver

Program/Project Description

Increasing City 

Fleet Motor Pool / 

Car-Share 

Programs 

The city has had a Green Fleets program in-place since the early 1990s, and 

currently more than 43% of its fleet is alternative fueled vehicles 

(Greenprint Denver, 2009). Under a DCAP initiative, the city’s fleet 

department sought to reduce the city’s vehicle fleet by consolidated low-use 

department vehicles into a small pool of vehicles, which included mostly 

hybrid vehicles along with several sedans and passenger vans. The fleet 

department provides access to these centrally located vehicles for use by 

city employees.

Landfill Gas In 2008, Xcel commissioned a power plant built on a landfill owned by 

Denver. The power plant is fueled by landfill gas produced and captured 

from the landfill and is used to generate electricity. The city leases the land 

to Xcel, who owns and operates the facility. 

Compressed 

Natural Gas 

(CNG) Filling 

Stations

The city is partnering with Encana to build a CNG fueling station at the new 

campus fleet facility to be constructed in central Denver. Designed to be 

easily accessible from the interstate, the facility will be accessible to private 

fleets as well. Encana has been the primary partner in this effort, while 

commitments from large private fleet operators have been instrumental as 

well.
20 

Summary and Discussion

The DCAP is a climate-oriented energy plan that establishes the city’s first comprehensive 

strategy for reducing citywide GHG emissions, largely through series of strategies intended to 

promote more efficient use of energy and increase the consumption of electricity generated from 

renewable energy sources. Many of the programs and initiatives included in the DCAP have 

only recently been initiated, so it is too early to determine how effective they will be in meeting 

the targets established by the DCAP. However, the following observations can be made 

regarding the design and implementation of DCAP: 

• The DCAP functions as a guidance document for the city’s energy efforts, largely by

making recommendations for establishing new energy programs and initiatives for 

reducing citywide GHG emissions. 

• Colorado state policies factor significantly into the energy strategies set by the 

DCAP. The state RPS and DSM legislation have spurred Xcel to offer various 

financial incentives to customers. Without these policy interventions at the state

level, the city would likely have had fewer options available in reducing GHG 

emissions and energy consumption at municipal facilities and across the broader 

community. The state RPS also requires Xcel supply the city an increased percentage 

of renewable energy, which means that Denver residents and businesses are using 

cleaner electricity. 

• Taking into account that the city does not 1) have control over its own utility or 2) 

have line-item funding for the implementation of the DCAP, the energy programs and 

initiatives included in the DCAP focus on leveraging financial and personnel 

resources offered through the utility, community and business partners, and state and 

federal agencies. 

• While the city has been able to obtain funding from a variety of resources, the 

implementation of several energy initiatives are dependent on federal grants, 

particularly Recovery Act funding. The longevity and/or scope of these initiatives are

tenuous if federal program dollars are unavailable in the future. 

• Denver has found success in leveraging partnerships with non-city entities, which 

lead and manage key energy initiatives within DCAP, including the Denver Bike 

Sharing and Residential and Corporate Climate Challenge programs. 

• The city has deferred to Xcel and the state on a number programs included in the 

DCAP, including programs offering free home energy audits, establishing tiered rate 

structures, and promoting smart meters. 

• The city has found the least success in implementing new stand-alone voluntary 

programs, including the time-of-sale energy audit and disclosure project, and 

individualized travel marketing program. 

• Building on the past success of the city’s Green Fleets program, the city has advanced 

energy programs targeting city government operations, including 1) working with 

Xcel on the development of a comprehensive strategy for DSM in city facilities and 
21 

2) utilizing alternative financing mechanisms to contract for and install 12 MW of 

solar PV on city property at little up-front cost to the city. 

The city is currently working on revising the DCAP. The revised plan will refocus the city’s 

efforts on the more successful aspects of the original plan and is expected to be published in mid2011.31

 

31 Comments from City and County of Denver staff
22 

Austin

Background

The capital of Texas, Austin, is a city of nearly 800,000 people that serves as the cultural and 

economic center of a metropolitan area with a population of 1.8 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010). Often listed as one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, Austin has an 

economy largely based on information technology companies, state government, and the city’s 

cultural environment. The city is also home to the University of Texas, which heavily influences 

the economic, social, and political nature of the city. The city has shown a long commitment to 

environmental issues and has established an array of programs designed to promote waste 

reduction, water conservation, stormwater management, support of community gardening, 

endangered species protection, and car sharing.

32

Austin Energy

 

Like a number of other large cities in the United States, Austin owns and operates its own 

municipal utility—Austin Energy.33

Local Energy Policy History

 Austin Energy is the nation’s ninth largest communityowned electric utility, serving 388,000 customers and a population of more than 900,000 within 

the city of Austin, Travis County, and a small portion of Williamson County. As a publicly 

owned power company and a city department, Austin Energy returns profits to the community 

annually. The utility transfers about $100 million each year to the city’s general fund, which 

helps fund city services such as fire, police, emergency medical services, parks, and libraries. 

The utility has provided $1.5 billion in profits to the community since 1976 (Austin Energy, 

2010). 

Austin Energy has for three decades been a leader in deploying energy efficiency programs. In 

the 1980s, Austin City Council directed Austin Energy to design and implement energy 

conservation programs as a less costly alternative to constructing a new power plant (Austin 

Energy Green Building, 2009). Beginning in 1982, Austin Energy established a comprehensive 

DSM program to reduce electricity use among its customers. The utility also developed a 

comprehensive sustainable building design program in the late 1980s that has been credited with 

beginning the green building movement in the United States. The same program later became 

the foundation of the DOE’s zero-energy homes program (Prindle, Eldridge, Eckhardt, & 

Frederick, 2007). 

Austin Energy has placed a heavy emphasis on DSM programs, developing two programs. The 

Power Saver Program provides residential and commercial energy management services to the 

utility’s customers, offering technical assistance, energy audits, and financial incentives for 

efficiency improvements. The utility also runs a Green Building Program, which provides planreview and technical assistance services to building industry professionals for sustainable design 

guidance. All new city buildings and major renovations, as well as commercial properties in the 

downtown business district and housing projects that receive city tax dollars, are required by city

law to meet Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) standards. 

 

32 For more, see the City of Austin’s environmental portal at www.ci.austin.tx.us/environmental . 33 Other large cities with publicly owned utilities included Los Angeles, San Antonio, Seattle, Sacramento, 

Jacksonville, Memphis, Nashville, Omaha, and Orlando.
23 

Austin Energy has also had a strong commitment to supplying renewable power to its customers. 

Austin Energy’s first wind power program was installed as a joint project with Lower Colorado 

River Authority in 1995 near Pecos, Texas, and biogas plants have been capturing methane from 

local landfills to provide energy to the utility’s grid for over ten years (Osborne, 2003). In 1999, 

the Austin City Council passed a resolution establishing an RPS, requiring Austin Energy to 

obtain 5% of its energy from renewable sources by December 31, 2004, and 20% by 2020. The 

RPS was listed as a primary objective of Austin Energy’s 2003 Strategic Plan, which also 

included the establishment of the utility’s initial PV solar initiatives and aggressive DSM targets

(Austin Energy, 2003). 

Austin Energy offers a green power option to customers called GreenChoice. First established in 

1999, GreenChoice has grown into the nation’s leading utility green pricing program, with sales 

of nearly 765 GWh in 2009 (Bird & Sumner, 2009). 

Austin’s Climate Protection Plan Development, Authority, and Structure

After signing the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2005, Austin’s Mayor Will 

Wynn tasked individuals at Austin Energy to develop a comprehensive plan to address energy 

and GHG emissions across the Austin community. The mayor presented the result, the Austin 

Climate Protection Plan (ACPP), to Austin City Council, who passed a resolution adopting the 

Plan in February 2007. 

The ACPP built upon the city’s existing portfolio of energy and environmental programs, serving 

as a “thread weaving the city’s environmental and energy programs together.” (Austin Climate 

Protection Program, 2009) To implement the resolution, the Austin Climate Protection Program 

was created within Austin Energy in October 2007. Six climate protection staff members were 

hired to develop annual GHG inventories for all city departments and a community inventory 

every third year. Along with coordinating the inventories, the staff collaborates with Austin 

Energy divisions, city departments, state and regional entities, and nongovernmental 

organizations to achieve emission reductions. 

The ACPP is made up of five sub-plans, including a municipal plan, utility plan, homes and 

buildings plan, community plan, and go-neutral plan (Austin Climate Protection Program, 2009). 

This report will focus on the major energy action items listed in the municipal, utility, and homes 

and buildings plans (shown in Table 6). The community and “go-neutral” plans largely outline 

action items to develop tools and outreach mechanisms, such as the coolaustin.org website and

an Austin specific carbon calculator, to assist the Austin community in reducing GHG 

emissions.34

 

34 For the Austin specific carbons calculator, see 

 

www.ci.austin.tx.us/acpp/co2_footprint.htm. 
24 

Table 6. Major Energy Action Items Included in the Austin Climate Protection Plan

Municipal Plan • Power all city facilities with renewable energy by 2012. 

• Make entire city vehicle fleet carbon-neutral by 2020 through the use 

of electric power, nonpetroleum fuels, and mitigation measures. 

Utility Plan • Achieve 700 MW of energy savings, equivalent to an average-sized 

power plant, through increased energy efficiency and conservation by 

2020. 

• Meet 30% of all energy needs with renewable resources, including 

100 MW of solar power, by 2020 

• Establish a carbon dioxide emissions cap and reduction plan for 

existing utility emissions. 

• Achieve carbon neutrality for any new electricity generation through 

GHG reduction technologies, carbon capture and storage, and 

mitigation measures. 

• Accelerate the Solar Rooftop Program. 

Homes and 

Buildings Plan 

• Update building codes to make all new single-family homes capable 

of meeting 100% of their energy needs with on-site generation of 

renewable energy by 2015. 

• Enhance building codes to increase energy efficiency in all other new 

buildings by 75% by 2015. 

• Require disclosure of historic energy use and cost-effective energy 

efficiency improvements upon the sale of all buildings. 

State Support

As a municipal utility, Austin Energy is not required to comply with the Texas RPS. However, 

Austin Energy receives support from and coordinates with the State Energy Conservation Office, 

Texas’s state energy office. 

Through the State Energy Conservation Office, Austin has received significant support through 

the LoanSTAR Program, which offers low-interest loans to all public entities, including state, 

public school, colleges, university, and non-profit hospital facilities for energy cost reduction 

measures. Since the program was established in 1989, Austin has received $10 million in 

LoanSTAR loans to improve energy efficiency in city facilities. Across the state, LoanStar has 

funded loans totaling over $240 million. 

Austin has received additional support from the Texas State Legislature, which enacted Texas 

Senate Bill 12 requiring state facilities to meet energy efficiency targets. Though nonbinding for 
25 

city governments, the legislation serves as guidance for many cities attempting to advance 

energy efficiency improvements in city departments.

Utility Energy Initiatives

The ACPP calls for Austin Energy to meet 30% of all energy needs through the use of renewable 

resources by 2020, including at least 100 MW of solar power.35

Increase Austin Energy’s Renewable Generation Resources

 Austin Energy developed a 

Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to meet the ACPP’s Utility Plan objectives,

setting a cap on CO2 emissions at 20% below 2005 emissions, increasing the renewables to 35%, 

the DSM goal to 800 MW, and the solar installation goal to 200 MW (Austin Energy, 2010). 

At the end of 2009, Austin Energy had a portfolio of generation resources consisting of 10% 

renewable energy, as shown in Table 7. Austin Energy’s Resource Plan describes how the utility 

plans to dramatically increase renewable generation (Austin Energy, 2010). 

Table 7. Austin Energy’s Generation Resources: Current Versus ACPP Goal (MW)

Year Coal/Nuclear Natural 

Gas 

Biomass Wind Solar Renewable 

Energy %

2009 1,029 1,444 12 439 1 10%

2020 1,029 1,744 162 1,001 201 35%

Wind

Austin Energy’s current wind generation portfolio includes contracts to purchase all energy 

produced by 439 MW of wind turbines located at six west Texas wind farms over various 

contract periods. The utility intends to replace 200 MW of expiring wind contracts and add an 

additional 550 MW of new wind generation by 2020. In acquiring new wind generation, Austin 

Energy is studying the option of ownership in wind farms instead of purchasing electricity from 

wind farm owners (Austin Energy, 2010). 

Biomass

In 2008, Austin Energy signed a 20-year contract to purchase all energy produced by a 100-MW, 

wood-chip-fueled biomass plant to be built in east Texas. The utility plans on adding an 

additional 50 MW before 2020. The biomass plant will be built near Nacogdoches, Texas, and 

will be the largest of its type in the nation. The facility will burn wood waste from logging and 

mill activity as well as urban wood waste from clearing, tree trimming and pallets. All fuel 

sources for the plant must meet Texas Renewable Energy Credit standards and Texas Forestry 

Best Management Practices. The plant is projected to go on-line by the spring of 2012 (Austin 

Energy, 2008). 

The cost of the biomass power will be recovered by Austin Energy through the fuel charge or 

through the utility’s green power program, GreenChoice. Recovering costs through the fuel 

 

35 The ACPP directs that Austin Energy look to DSM programs as the first option. This report will discuss the DSM 

program status under the community-focused initiatives section. 
26 

charge is projected to result in up to a $1.50 decrease to a projected $2.50 increase in the electric 

bill of the average residential customer beginning in 2012, depending on the cost of other fuels, 

particularly natural gas (Austin Energy, 2008). 

To gain an additional 50 MW of biomass by 2020, Austin Energy is investigating small facility 

options, as well as the possibility of biomass co-firing at one of the utility’s two coal plants in 

Fayette County, Texas. 

Solar

In March 2009, Austin Energy signed a 25-year PPA to purchase all power produced by a 30-

MW solar farm to be built on city-owned property 20 miles outside of the city. At the time of its 

signing, the 30-MW plant was the largest solar PV system in the United States and will produce 

enough electricity to power around 5,000 homes. Austin Energy will pay approximately $10 

million per year for the power (Austin Energy, 2009). The city intends to sign PPAs for similar 

utility-scale PV projects to help meet its 2020 goal of 200 MW. 

Other Utility Plan Action Items

The ACPP has also established additional goals for Austin Energy, including 1) establishing a 

CO2 cap and developing and implementing a CO2 reduction plan for existing utility emissions 

and 2) achieving carbon neutrality on any new generation units using carbon-based fuels through 

the utilization of lowest-emission technologies. Both of these action items were integrated into

Austin Energy’s Resource Plan. In 2010, Austin’s City Council adopted the resource plan but 

delayed implementation until Austin Energy developed affordability measures, which would 

track the “competitiveness of Austin Energy electric rates among all consumer classes against 

rates in other large Texas cities.” (Austin Energy, 2010) The city council requested the 

affordability checks on future rate increases after commercial and industrial customers voiced 

concern. 

In addition, Austin Energy is pursuing its first rate case since the mid-1990s in an effort to adjust 

electricity rates to incentivize energy efficiency and recover the costs of implementing the 

resource and generation plan. Austin Energy electricity rates are among the lowest in Texas and 

have not increased since 1994 (Austin Energy, 2010). The rate adjustment will need the 

approval of the city council, and it can be appealed to the Texas Public Utilities Commission, by 

customers that are in the service territory but not in the city limits of Austin.36

Community-Wide Energy Initiatives

Continue Current Demand-Side Management Programs

Advancing current DSM programs is a central action item of the ACPP’s Utility Plan, as well as 

the Home and Building Plan (see Table 6). Austin has had a long-term commitment to DSM 

initiatives. Energy conservation programs were first established in 1982; and in the early 1990s, 

Austin Energy Green Building (AEGB) program was the first comprehensive program in the 

United States designed to encourage sustainable building in residential, commercial and 

municipal construction. Over the years, AEGB, Energy Efficiency Service, and Austin Energy 

 

36 Comment from Austin Climate Protection Program staff
27 

have achieved enough energy savings through DSM measures to avoid the need to build a 600-

MW coal plant (Austin Climate Protection Program, 2009). 

Under the ACPP, the DSM programs are to achieve an additional 700 MW of new savings by 

2020, which is equivalent to a 15% reduction in energy use and production. To meet this 

aggressive goal, the ACPP directs Austin Energy to promote existing DSM programs (shown in 

Table 8). 

Table 8. Major DSM Programs Offered by Austin Energy 

Residential • Rebates for high-efficiency central and window air-conditioning 

units 

• Rebates and loans for energy-saving home improvements, such as 

insulation, duct sealing, energy-efficient windows, solar shades, 

and air sealing, based on recommendations made by a trained 

home performance contractor

• Free weatherization services to qualified low-income, elderly, and 

physically/mentally disabled 

• Voluntary load management programmable thermostat and water 

heater timer programs

Multifamily 

Residential

• Free walk-through energy audits 

• Duct diagnostic and sealing program 

• Assistance to developers, builders, and owners of new 

construction multifamily properties

Commercial • No-cost energy audits

• Rebates for investments in new, energy efficient equipment (small 

businesses receive an additional 20% bonus rebate) 

• Rebate and incentives for lighting retrofits, thermal energy 

storage, chillers, building commissioning, windows, ceiling/roof 

improvements, and custom technologies 

• Voluntary load management programmable thermostat program 

• Technical assistance

Austin Energy’s Distributed Energy Services Division (DES) is responsible for the design, 

implementation, and monitoring of the DSM programs. Austin Energy utilizes various forms of 

outreach, including allowing certified contractors to market the program and the rebates offered 
28 

by the utility. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 and FY 2009, DSM programs achieved reductions of 

required power plant peak capacity of 64.1 MW and 52.4 MW, respectively. 

Funding for the DSM programs comes in large part from revenue earned by Austin Energy. The 

majority of the DSM programs cost the utility less than the cost to produce an equal amount of 

the energy saved.37

Energy Building Codes Upgrades 

 DES has also used federal funds for various aspects of the DSM effort, 

including Recovery Act funds. 

The City of Austin is pursuing energy building code upgrades for residential, multi-family, and 

commercial properties. The ACPP established a goal of making all new single-family homes 

“zero-net energy capable” by 2015, and provided energy efficiency targets for other buildings 

within Austin’s city limits. The ACPP also has requirements for enhancing Austin Energy’s 

Green Building program. 

The ACPP calls for updating residential building codes to make all new single-family homes 

capable of meeting 100% of their energy needs with on-site generation of renewable energy by 

2015. The ACPP defines a “zero-net energy home” as a single-family home that is 65% more 

efficient than a home built in Austin in 2006. With the addition of on-site renewable energy 

generation, a “zero-net energy home” will use only as much energy as it generates over the 

course of a year. The ACPP also calls for enhancing building codes to increase energy efficiency 

in new multifamily and commercial buildings by 75% by 2015. The city intends to achieve these 

goals through progressively adopting more stringent versions of the IECC. To date, the city has 

adopted IECC 2006 with local amendments in 2007 and IECC 2009 with local amendments in 

2010. These upgrades to the energy code will reduce energy consumed by new homes by 31% 

(Austin Climate Protection Program, 2010). 

Require Disclosure of Historic Energy Use and Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency 

Improvements upon the Sale of All Buildings

The city council passed the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) ordinance in 

2008 (Austin Energy, 2010). ECAD went into effect mid 2009 and requires mandatory energy 

audits at the time of sale for single-family homes. Homes less than 10 years old and homes with 

recent energy efficiency improvements are exempt. Under ECAD, an energy-use rating must be 

determined for commercial and multifamily residential buildings using the EPA Energy Portfolio 

by mid-2011. ECAD provides information on a building energy use to prospective tenants and 

buyers, with the hope that it will encourage energy efficiency improvements. All subsequent 

energy improvements are voluntary. 

From June 2009 to October 2009, the city saw 2,751 home audits submitted for home sales in 

compliance with ECAD. Of those sold, 230 homes went on to participate in Austin Energy’s 

residential grant and loan program to make energy improvements. Over the same time period, 

45 commercial building ratings were submitted through the ECAD program since its adoption 

(Austin Climate Protection Program, 2010). 

 

37 Comment from Austin Climate Protection Program staff
29 

Accelerate Solar Rooftop Program

Austin Energy offers solar PV rebates and commercial incentives to encourage customers to 

install solar PV energy systems. Homeowners receive a rebate based on the installed capacity. 

Commercial customers receive a performance-based incentive, dictated by the amount of power 

generated by the system.

Austin’s Solar Rebate Program is an existing initiative that began in 2003. Over the years, the

incentives have been adjusted to maximize the impact of the funds allocated to the program. The 

performance-based incentive for commercial was created in 2009, allowing Austin Energy to 

spread the rebate over a number of years rather than rebating the full amount at once. 

As of March 2010, Austin Energy supported more than 1,050 customer-owned solar PV energy 

systems and 70 commercial projects. Together with the solar installed on municipal sites, Austin 

has PV systems with a total of more than 4 MW of generation capacity (Austin Climate 

Protection Program, 2010).38

City Government Operations Energy Initiatives

 The program has a $4 million budget for FY 2011, which does not 

represent an increase over the FY 2010 budget. 

Power All City Facilities with Renewable Energy

By 2012, ACPP plan calls for all city facilities to use renewable energy through the GreenChoice

program, the green power program offered by Austin Energy. By the end of 2009, 53% of city

facilities use GreenChoice energy, accounting for approximately 19% of the city’s total energy 

use (Austin Climate Protection Program, 2010). Many of the city’s large energy users are not 

using GreenChoice power, including Austin Water, Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, and 

Austin Energy. Moving these large city accounts to GreenChoice is under consideration, but cost 

remains a significant barrier.

39

On-Site Solar at All New and Existing City Facilities

 However, the ACPP anticipates that remaining city accounts will 

move to GreenChoice by 2012 (Austin Climate Protection Program, 2010). 

The ACPP calls for solar installations on all new and existing city facilities where feasible. As 

of 2009, city installations totaled 157 kW. The city has not chosen to use third-party PPA 

financing to install solar on city facilities. Instead, the city has opted to directly purchase solar 

equipment and install PV systems during capital improvement projects. The city hopes that 

economies of scale associated with purchasing large quantities of system components will keep 

PV system costs low, even in the absence of federal subsidies.40

Make the Entire City Fleet of Vehicles Carbon Neutral

 In addition, by managing the 

installation of the PV systems, the city hopes to build solar know-how amongst Austin Energy 

staff, benefiting the city in the long term.

The city’s Fleet Services department has been shifting the fleet to alternatively fueled vehicles—

flex-fuel, B20, propane vehicles, electric hybrids, and others. The ACPP directed the city to 

 

38 City projects include 24 municipal projects, 28 school installations, and 6 libraries. 39 Moving the remaining departments to GreenChoice is likely to cost the city an additional $6.2 million annually 

(Toohey, 2010). 40 State and local governments are not eligible to receive federal tax subsidies for renewable energy projects as they 

are not taxable entities. 
30 

complete an audit of alternative fuel vehicles, which was completed in 2010 (City of Austin, 

2010). The city is currently developing a long-range plan for electric vehicles, which includes 

locating charging stations throughout the city. The city hopes to deploy a range of alternative 

vehicle technologies, but understands that carbon offsets will be necessary for the city fleet to 

achieve carbon neutrality. 

Develop Departmental Climate Protection Plans

The ACPP requires that all city departments develop and implement departmental climate 

protection plans that would include policies, procedures, targets, benchmarks and reporting for 

maximizing achievable reductions of energy consumption, vehicle fuel use, water use, and 

recycling.41

Summary and Discussion

 The program staff works with representatives from all city departments to develop 

the plans, identify departmental CO2 reduction goals, track progress, and address barriers for 

implementation. The goals and the monthly consumption data will be loaded into an online 

reporting system that will provide city department directors with energy and water use each 

month per building and fleet fuel use. 

Building on a long commitment to energy issues by the city and Austin Energy, the ACPP, a 

climate-oriented energy plan, establishes very ambitious utility, community, and city goals for 

reducing GHG emissions. The Austin Climate Protection Program has made significant progress 

moving towards these aggressive targets. The following observations can be made regarding the 

design and implementation of ACPP: 

• In addition to establishing aggressive energy goals for the city, the ACPP serves as an 

organizational and tracking structure for the array of existing energy programs and 

initiatives offered by Austin Energy. 

• ACPP initiatives depend on internal funding authorized by the city council, making 

the plan less susceptible to variations in federal and state financial support. In order to 

reach the ACPP goals, this financial commitment will need to continue. 

• Some of the most ambitious action items of the ACPP have seen resistance from 

various sectors of the business community alarmed by the prospect of rising 

electricity rates. Concerned with keeping the city a competitive location to do 

business, the Austin City Council has given indications that achieving Austin 

Energy’s generation and emissions targets will be limited by the community’s 

tolerance of energy cost increases. 

• Austin Energy has demonstrated that local DSM programs can have a high impact in 

reducing energy demand. The ACPP sets very ambitious targets for the DSM 

program, without making significant changes to the rebates, loan, and technical 

assistance programs offered to residents and businesses. Moving forward, Austin 

Energy will be challenged to achieve significant additional savings through the 

existing voluntary programs. 

• The city has shown some hesitance in paying the premium cost for supplying its own 

facilities with GreenChoice power. 

 

41 Completed department plans can be accessed at www.ci.austin.tx.us/acpp/department_plans.htm.. 
31 

Achieving ACPP targets included in the Municipal Plan significantly depends on the Austin 

Climate Protection Program’s ability to coordinate an array of energy initiatives across divisions 

of Austin Energy and other city departments. Although making progress towards the ACPP 

targets, the program does not have the authority over city departments to mandate compliance. 

The city has recently acknowledged this deficiency and created a new position within the city

manager’s office. It is anticipated that this sustainability officer will have greater authority in 

moving city departments to work towards meeting the ACPP goals and targets.

However, whether the program will be able to meet its aggressive energy and climate goals for 

the utility, community, and city will ultimately be determined by the commitment of the city’s

citizens and businesses. Austin Energy has developed detailed plans for supplying the city and 

citizens with more renewable energy and reducing energy demand through DSM programs. To 

reach the targets using these plans, the city will likely require additional financial commitments 

from residents and businesses. 
32 

Conclusion

This report provides an overview of the climate-oriented energy plans developed, adopted, and 

implemented by Denver and Austin. The intention of this report is to examine the 

implementation process and status of energy initiatives in climate-oriented energy plans of cities 

with divergent characteristics. The experiences of Denver and Austin can inform other local 

governments seeking to adopt new or adapt existing energy plans. The following are some 

general lessons from their experiences. 

• Importance of state support: A city without an MOU can develop and deploy local 

energy programs, but will likely have more options and a greater impact if supportive 

state-level energy policies are in place. An aggressive state RPS will aid a city in 

advancing its energy/climate goals by requiring the local utility to supply city 

residents and businesses with cleaner energy generated from renewable resources. 

City energy programs also benefit from the establishment of state DSM requirements 

for utilities. 

• Financial commitment from the city: City funding for staff and energy initiatives 

provides organizational and administrative stability for the implementation of a 

citywide energy plan. A city with an MOU is well positioned to implement local 

energy efficiency programs and increase renewable energy supplied to citizens, but 

will likely need to make a substantial political and financial commitment in 

dedicating utility revenues for energy program and initiatives. Cities with an MOU 

can also justify the use of utility-generated revenues on energy efficiency and 

renewable energy programs and initiatives as a less expensive alternative to building 

additional power plants. 

• Leveraging partnerships with non-city entities: Cities, particularly cities that don’t 

make a significant city budget allocation towards the implementation of energy 

programs (either from the general fund or utility revenues), should look to leveraging 

financial and other resources from non-city partners. These partners can include 

federal, state, and other surrounding local governments, as well as local utilities, 

businesses, universities, and community organizations. Partnerships can provide a 

substantial boost to the impact of and participation in outreach initiatives included in 

energy plans. 

• Reliance on federal program funding: Initiatives and programs of energy plans 

that rely heavily on funding from federal programs will likely be more difficult to 

sustain and maintain as federal energy program commitments fluctuate. Cities should 

look to develop energy programs dependent on multiple funding sources, striving to 

develop energy initiatives that will be viable even if federal dollars are unavailable. 

• Benefits to targeting government operations: Most cities have the opportunity to 

advance programs targeting energy use in government operations – including building 

efficiency improvements, green fleets, and installing renewable energy on 

government facilities. Cities have greater control over government facilities energy 

use and can directly benefit from the cost savings from energy efficiency 

improvements. Cities can integrate energy efficiency improvements into capital 
33 

improvement programs, utilizing existing funds available for building retrofits, 

equipment replacement, and maintenance. 

In designing and adopting citywide energy plans, many cities have set ambitious goals and 

targets for more efficient energy use and increased renewable energy consumption. Initiatives 

and programs under these plans will likely have varying degrees of success, with some initiatives

proving to be unfeasible for one reason or another. As cities decide what energy initiatives to 

include in a broad strategy, they should fully consider strategies for overcoming the financial, 

political, and bureaucratic barriers to successful implementation for a particular program. If the 

energy plan includes the establishment of a more aggressive target for an existing program, the 

city would be well served to identify the barriers to and solutions for increasing the program’s 

impact. 

With limited staffing and financial resources available, cities may want to structure an energy 

plan around a core set of initiatives that have a high likelihood of being successfully 

implemented. Including aggressive, trend-setting action items in energy plans can be 

encouraged, as long as the probability of successful implementation is acknowledged. 

Incorporating this mix of strategies will allow for policy experimentation, while still increasing 

the likelihood that the city will achieve early successes, an outcome necessary for building and 

maintaining community and political support for the city’s ongoing and future energy efforts. 
34 

References 

Austin Climate Protection Program. (2010). Austin Climate Protection Plan, 2010 Annual 

Report. Austin Climate Protection Program. 

www.ci.austin.tx.us/acpp/downloads/acpp_annual_2010.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Austin Climate Protection Program. (2009). Austin Climate Protection Program, Annual Report 

2009. Austin Climate Protection Program. www.ci.austin.tx.us/acpp/downloads/report2009.pdf. 

Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Austin Energy. (2008, August 28). $2.3 Billion Biomass Energy Contract Approved. Retrieved 

Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/about%20us/newsroom/Press%20Releases/Press%20Release%20Archiv

e/2008/biomassContractApproved.htm. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Austin Energy. (2010). About the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) 

Ordinance. Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Environmental%20Initiatives/ordinance/index.htm. 

Accessed January 27, 2011 

Austin Energy. (2009, March 5). Austin Council approves largest solar system in the nation, one 

of largest in the world. Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/Press%20Release%20Arch

ive/2009/solarSystem.htm. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Austin Energy. (2010, November). Austin Energy Power Plus. Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Newsletters/Energy%20Plus/English/Novemb

er10.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Austin Energy. (2010). Austin Energy Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan to 

2020. Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Environmental%20Initiatives/climateProtectionPlan/gener

ationBriefingSummary.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Austin Energy. (2003). Austin Energy's Approved Strategic Plan. Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/about%20us/newsroom/Reports/strategicPlan.pdf. Accessed January 27, 

2011. 

Austin Energy. (2010). Company Profile. Retrieved Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Company%20Profile/index.htm. Accessed January 27, 

2011. 

Austin Energy Green Building. (2009). Austin Energy Green Building - 2009 Annual Report. 

Austin Energy Green Building. 

https://my.austinenergy.com/wps/wcm/connect/8f585a0043337404aa45ebac1623868e/aegbAnnu

alReport2009.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. Accessed January 27, 2011. 
35 

Austin Energy. (2010). Update on the Austin Energy Resource, Generation, and Climate 

Protection Plan to 2020. Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Environmental%20Initiatives/climateProtectionPlan/index

.htm. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Bird, L., & Sumner, J. (2009). Green Power Marketing in the United States: A Status Report. 

NREL/TP-6A20-49403. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2003). Cities and Climate Change: Urban sustainability and 

global environmental governance. London: Routledge. 

City and County of Denver. (2008). 2008 Budget. City and County of Denver. 

www.denvergov.org/Portals/9/documents/BigDec07.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

City and County of Denver. (2000). Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000. City and County of 

Denver. www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/CompPlan2000.pdf. Accessed January 27, 

2011. 

City of Austin. (2010). Alternative Fuel Vehicle Audit. City of Austin. 

www.ci.austin.tx.us/auditor/downloads/au10102.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

City of Austin. (2010, July 31). Clean Energy Accelerator. City of Austin. 

www.ci.austin.tx.us/stimulus/cea.htm. Accessed December 4, 2010. 

DSIRE - Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. (2010). Colorado - 

Incentives/Policies for Renewable Energy. DSIRE - Database of State Incentives for 

Renewables & Efficiency. 

www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CO24R&re=1&ee=1. Accessed 

January 27, 2011. 

Greenprint Denver. (2009). Denver's Green Fleet. Greenprint Denver. 

www.greenprintdenver.org/energy-emissions/denvers-green-fleet/. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Greenprint Denver. (2007). Executive Order No. 123. Greenprint Denver. 

www.greenprintdenver.org/docs/CCDXO123.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Greenprint Denver. (2006). Greenprint Denver Plan. Greenprint Denver. 

www.greenprintdenver.org/docs/greenprint_report.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Jaffe, M. (2010, March 4). "Xcel wins OK on two-tier rate system." Denver Post. 

Martin, J., & Brannon, G. (2009). "A Colorado Perspective: The New Energy Economy." UCLA 

Journal of Environmental Law and Policy; pp. 269-280. 

Masters, G., & Randolph, J. (2008). Energy for Sustainability: Technology, Planning, Policy.

Washington, DC: Island Press. 
36 

Mayor's Greenprint Denver Advisory Council. (2007). City of Denver Climate Action Plan - 

Final Recommendations to Mayor Hickenlooper. Greenprint Denver. 

www.greenprintdenver.org/docs/DenverClimateActionPlan.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2010. 

Merritt, G. (2006, August 9). "Denver voters flip the switch on extension." Denver Post. 

Osborne, M. (2003). Silver in the Mine: A Long Term Comprehensive Energy Plan for the City 

of Austin. Austin Energy. 

www.austinenergy.com/about%20us/newsroom/Reports/silverInTheMine.htm. Accessed January 

27, 2011. 

Pankratz, H. (2007, October 25). "Mayor signs plan to clear air." Denver Post . 

Prindle, W., Eldridge, M., Eckhardt, M., & Frederick, A. (2007). The Twin Pillars of Sustainable 

Energy: Synergies between Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technology and Policy.

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. www.aceee.org/research-report/e074. 

Accessed January 27, 2011. 

Randolph, J. (1981). "The local energy future: A compendium of community programs." Solar 

Law Reporter; pp. 253-282. 

Toohey, M. (2010, November 27). "Climate plan comes with $6.2 million cost to city." Austin 

American-Statesman. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). The 2010 Statistical Abstract. U.S. Census Bureau. 

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/estimates_and_projections--

states_metropolitan_areas_cities.html. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Energy. (2002). A Primer on Electric Utilities, Deregulation, and 

Restructuring of U.S. Electricity Markets. Federal Energy Management Program. 

www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/primer.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Energy. (2009). Community Greening: How to Develop a Strategic Energy 

Plan. DOE/GO-102009-2826. 

www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/pdfs/community_greening.pdf. Accessed January 27, 

2011.Wheeler, S. (2008). "State and Municipal Climate Change Plans." Journal of the American 

Planning Association; pp. 481-496. 
F1147-E(10/2008) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

March 2011

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Local Energy Plans in Practice: Case Studies of Austin and Denver

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

D. Peterson, E. Matthews, and M. Weingarden

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP7A20-50498

5e. TASK NUMBER

IGST.0002

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP7A20-50498

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Examines the successes and difficulties that Denver, Colorado, and Austin, Texas , experienced implementing 

citywide energy plans. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

city energy plans; local clean energy policy; Denver; Colorado; Austin; Texas; energy planning

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18