In anticipation of the open house, the project team posed an open-ended question invited residents to share what they would most like to learn or better understand about solar energy and solar facilities. The intent was to identify informational gaps and areas of curiosity that could guide future outreach, education, and refinement of the County’s communication materials.

What We Found:

Although no responses were received for this question there was substantial engagement on this topic at the November 5th open house, prompting the project team to consider numerous changes to the initially drafted applicability criteria, design and operation standards, and submittal requirements. 

This week, the project team invited open written reactions to four applicability criteria proposed to distinguish between Major, Minor, and Accessory solar energy facilities. These criteria were being developed to help determine which permit review process solar projects should follow.

What We Found:

Although no responses were received for this question there was substantial engagement on this topic at the November 5th open house, prompting the project team to consider numerous changes to the initially drafted applicability criteria, design and operation standards, and submittal requirements. 

This question invited respondents to consider how solar energy facilities might be developed while maintaining productive land for crops, livestock, or open space. The goal was to understand which facility types the community perceives as having the greatest or least impact, and to use those insights to refine a tiered regulatory framework for solar permitting and design standards.

What We Found:

Although no responses were received for this week's question, exploring the compatibility of solar energy facilities and agriculture continued to be a topic of future engagement.

This question was designed to help the County understand how residents perceive the relative impacts of different types of solar energy facilities - ranging from small, roof-mounted systems to utility-scale installations. By asking participants to rank their level of concern, the County sought to determine whether the public supports a tiered approach to regulation. 

What We Found:

Even with limited participation, the single response aligned with the project’s goal of tailoring review and design standards to the scale and context of each facility type. They expressed concern for the possibility of rooftop solar causing leaky roofs and fires.

This question was designed to gather input on where different types of solar generation facilities should be permitted in the County and to identify which location-related factors residents consider most important when evaluating new projects. By asking respondents to rate the appropriateness of solar facilities in different zone districts and to weigh considerations such as infrastructure proximity, wildlife habitat, agricultural coexistence, and visual impact, the project team sought to understand community values around siting and land-use compatibility.

What We Found:

Although no responses were received for this week, the question’s intent was to guide future discussions on appropriate zoning, siting criteria, and review thresholds for major and minor solar facilities. This topic was addressed in other engagement activities such as the join work session and open house.

This week six (6) respondents rated the visual impact of large-scale (major, utility) solar energy facilities and ranked the effectiveness of four mitigation strategies for visual impact. Four respondents expanded on their answers in writing. Ratings were on a 1–5 scale, with 1 indicating either 'Very Little Impact' (for visual impact) or 'Very Impactful' (for mitigation effectiveness).

What We Found:

Public perceptions of visual impact from utility-scale solar facilities were divided - some residents saw little or no visual issue, while others viewed large solar fields as highly noticeable in the San Luis Valley’s open landscape. Despite differing views on impact, there was an overwhelming agreement that design and siting strategies can effectively minimize visibility. Respondents ranked all proposed mitigation tools - siting, setbacks, height limits, and vegetative buffering - as highly impactful means of protecting scenic character.

This opening question asked residents to rate the alternative energy sources they think Rio Grande County should explore in the future on a scale of (1) Definitely Explore, (2) Consider Exploring, (3) Neutral, (4) Don’t Explore. This helped identify where new land-use standards may be needed beyond solar. Participants were provided with a space to expand on their answers in writing. Three participants provided commentary reflecting both optimism and caution.

What We Found:

1) Geothermal optimism: Several respondents highlighted geothermal as a promising, locally appropriate renewable energy source that could operate year-round and complement Solar’s intermittency.

2) Hydroelectric caution: A few comments supported micro-hydro possibilities but warned against disrupting natural river flow or aquatic ecosystems. 

3) Wind uncertainty: Opinions on wind energy were the most divided - some see potential, while others are unsure of its practicality in the San Luis Valley’s variable wind regime.

4) Nuclear curiosity: Multiple participants selected small-scale nuclear as worth consideration, but this appeared linked to curiosity rather than confident advocacy.

5) Efficiency & innovation: One respondent proposed “landfill incinerators with modern scrubbers” as a local energy solution -a reminder that residents are thinking creatively about waste-to-energy and diversification.

6) Values alignment: Two respondents framed their answers around environmental protection and long-term sustainability rather than economic gain alone.