A plan to supercharge rooftop solar in Colorado has hit a snag: local governments like Boulder County and Larimer County known for backing ambitious climate policies.
Last week, state lawmakers removed key provisions from HB25-1096, a bill initially designed to require large municipalities to adopt software to cut permit review times for residential solar systems. By backing the legislation, backers hoped to clear a bureaucratic barrier they claim has stifled access to rooftop solar across Colorado.
“We know hundreds of cities and counties around the country are using this technology,” said Kirsten Schatz, a clean air advocate for the Colorado Public Interest Research Group. “That’s the kind of thing we want to bring to Colorado to cut costs and make it easier to go solar in our state.”
Cities and counties, however, weren’t sold on the pitch to eliminate red tape. Many local governments claimed their jurisdictions don’t struggle with permitting delays, and the software couldn’t accommodate procedures to enforce building codes and zoning regulations.
That pushback led lawmakers to strip provisions to require automatic permitting software. In a state House committee hearing last week, sponsors Rep. Lesley Smith, D-Boulder and Rep. Kyle Brown, D-Louisville, said they plan to keep talking with local governments to find a compromise worth considering during the next legislative session.
The proposal attempted to force local communities to use a climate solution largely developed in Colorado.
In 2019, the Golden-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory launched SolarAPP+, an online platform that allows local governments to approve residential solar and home battery storage systems. The software lets installers upload plans for a specific property and then checks if the design meets local codes before issuing a permit.
The tool has helped significantly cut permit review times. After cities adopted the free software, the overall approval process took an average 14.5 fewer business days than traditionally permitted projects, according to performance data published by NREL in 2024.
Across the country, cities like Tucson, Arizona, and Fremont, California, have adopted SolarAPP+. Maryland and California have also passed laws compelling local governments to use the tool. In Colorado, however, only Denver and the small town of Bennett are using the application.
If local governments adopted automatic permitting statewide, far more households would likely install rooftop solar systems, according to an analysis published by the Climate Solutions Laboratory at Brown University in January.
The analysis estimated that statewide automatic permitting would spur an additional 32,000 to 34,000 Colorado households to install solar by 2030 and up to 329,000 more households by 2040.
A separate report published by CoPIRG, Conservation Colorado and Permit Power – environmental groups supporting the legislation – found that Colorado communities had some of the longest solar permitting wait times in the Western U.S. El Paso County, for example, took more than three weeks to approve permit applications in 2023. Arapahoe County took 8 to 10 weeks, compared to a national average of nine business days.
In its initial committee hearing, Matt Kirby, the campaign director for the climate advocacy group Permit Power, noted major rooftop solar companies have recently downsized their Colorado operations or left the state altogether. Faster permitting, he argued, could give the industry more economic certainty.
“Even if it's not a problem in every jurisdiction, we need a statewide minimum standard if we are actually going to create market penetration and make solar accessible for all,” Kirby said.
Cities and counties worried that instant permitting could override local building and zoning rules.
Mark Ruzzin, a senior policy analyst for Boulder County, explained the concerns during an initial committee hearing for the legislation. While software could improve the permitting process, he said current versions of SolarAPP+ and similar applications don’t let building officials properly vet applications.
Boulder County, for example, conducts a “zoning review” to confirm a proposed system won’t sit atop a building out of compliance with local siting regulations. Ruzzin said building officials haven’t found a way to integrate the check with the software, and the state shouldn’t require the tool when the county rarely takes more than two weeks to approve a permit.
Other local governments said the software couldn’t handle local processes to enforce historic building protections or flood plain regulations.
Jacob Smith, the executive director for Colorado Communities for Climate Action, advocates for climate policy on behalf of 44 local governments across Colorado, including the City of Boulder and Boulder County.
Rather than requiring automatic permitting, he said the state should ask why so few Colorado communities use a free software tool. “Reshape the approach to deal with those friction points and come back next session,” Smith told lawmakers.
After more local governments came out against the bill, lawmakers amended the legislation to remove anything requiring communities to adopt automatic permitting software. The current version calls for further study and updates a state grant program to help local governments use the tool.
The fight left climate advocates feeling betrayed by local governments.
“It was very disappointing to see communities in Colorado that portray themselves as climate leaders line up in opposition to this commonsense climate legislation,” Micah Parkin, the executive director of 350 Colorado, said in an emailed statement. “When clean energy is under attack by the federal government, our communities need to step up with bold solutions.”
To read more stories from Colorado Public Radio, visit www.cpr.org.
