Renewable Energy Adoption for Colorado Municipalities

Running head: RE: SYNTHESIZING PATH-DEPENDENCE & ORGANIZATIONAL
CHANGE
Renewable Energy Adoption for Municipal Colorado:
Synthesizing Path-Dependence and Organizational Change
by
CHELSEA JORDAN GONDECK
B.A., University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 2014
Submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master’s in Political Science
with an emphasis in Politics and Public Policy
University of Colorado Denver
2016

RE: SYNTHESIZING PATH-DEPENDENCE & ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 2
Gondeck, Chelsea Jordan (M.A., University of Colorado Denver New Directions Program)
Renewable Energy Adoption for Municipal Colorado: Synthesizing Path-Dependence and
Organizational Change
Directed by Professor Michael Cummings
ABSTRACT
The increasingly prevalent environmental, health, and economic effects of energy
production from non-renewable resources has made adoption of renewable energy-production an
increasingly important topic for energy providers. However, there has not been a broad
movement for municipal providers to pursue adoption of renewable energy, and little research
has been contributed to the specific factors that often affect municipal providers. This research
addresses what factors influence the municipality’s pursuit of renewable-energy adoption;
specifically, whether municipalities with dissimilar attributes (Aspen and Fort Morgan,
Colorado) are ultimately affected by the same factors. And lastly, if a synthesis of cultural,
political, economic, and institutional factors with steps of organizational change appropriately
illustrate the transition to renewable energy sources. The resulting process of the synthesis can be
translated to other organizations to increase the rate of transitions to renewable energy
production.
“I don’t understand why when we destroy something created by man we call it vandalism, but
when we destroy something by nature we call it progress.” –Ed Begley Junior

DEDICATION
“People will kill you. Over time. They will shave out every last morsel of fun in you with little,
harmless sounding phrases that people use every day, like: 'Be realistic!'"
― Dylan Moran
This work is dedicated to my mother and father, who have always empowered me to do whatever
I set my mind to;
To my co-workers, who moved me through my work-life-school balance;
And to my friends, I hope I’ve convinced you to vote for me one day.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
University of Colorado Denver:
Professor Michael Cummings, Chair
Gary Sears, Executive Director of New Directions
Ronald Miller, MPA, CCM
Aspen, Colorado:
David Hornbacker, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
Fort Morgan, Colorado:
Jeff Wells, City Manager
Brent Nation, Director of Water Resources and Utilities
Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................6
Research Questions..........................................................................................................17
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................19
Comparative Approaches to Renewable Energy Adoption .............................................19
Organizational Change Theory........................................................................................25
III. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................35
IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................38
Municipal Governments and Sustainability.....................................................................38
Synthesis of Comparative Theory and Organizational Change.......................................40
Aspen, Colorado ..............................................................................................................45
Fort Morgan, Colorado ....................................................................................................51
V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................59
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................63

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
“Energy has a powerful and perhaps unmatched influence on our economy, environment,
health, politics, international relations and general well-being…it is heavily regulated
[and] considered a ‘public good’’’ (Attanasio, 2015, p. 217).
Problem Area: Non-Renewable Energy Generation and Climate Change
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), climate change encompasses
significant changes in the climate that last several decades or longer; these changes include
measures of temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, etc. (EPA, n.d.-a). In recent years there
has been less dispute among atmospheric scientists on the definitive scientific evidence of the
causal relationship between increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the
atmosphere and climate change occurrences (Freeman, 2015). However, the ideological divide
continues to diverge. According to the Pew Research Center 92% of liberal Democrats believe
there is “solid evidence” of global warming, but only 38% of conservative Republicans believe
the same, and a mere 14% of the latter say global warming is a very serious problem (Kiley,
2015).
Greenhouse gases include: carbon dioxide, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and
fluorinated gases, all of which are generally produced by the burning of fossil fuels, as well as
the production and transport of fossil fuels, agricultural activities, and industrial processes. The
emissions from GHGs cause the trapping of heat in the atmosphere, heat that in turn leads to the
associated climate changes. A majority of these destructive GHGs are emitted from the burning
of fossil fuels specifically for energy production; however, deforestation, industrial processes,
and some agricultural practices also contribute (EPA, n.d.-a).

36.0%
27.4%
18.7%
9.5%
8.5%
2013 U.S. Energy
Consumption by Energy
Source
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Renewable
Nuclear
Energy Generation
Electricity generation is a major contributor to the GHG emissions associated with
climate change. In the U.S., “energy-related activities, primarily fossil fuel combustion,
accounted for the vast majority of CO2 emissions” between 1990 and 2013 (EPA, 2015, p. 18).
These activities also accounted for 43% of CH4 emissions and 12% of N2O emissions.
Combined, all energy-related activities accounted for 84.6% of the U.S. GHG emissions in 2013
(p. 19). In conjunction, 82% of the energy consumed in the U.S. in 2013 came from non-
renewable sources.
Figure 1. Illustrates the U.S.’s consumption of energy by source for the year 2013.
Environmental Effects
The effects of climate change caused by GHGs emitted from non-renewable electricity
generation are extensive. First and foremost, climate change affects the environment. After
2014’s ranking as the warmest year on record, the World Meteorological Organization (2015)
reported that “fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been this century.” The rising levels of
GHGs are expected to continue contributing to the global temperature warming. Some scientists

argue that warming trends have occurred prior to industrialization; however, it is the “pace and
scale” that are “large and rapid” that distinguish today’s cycles from cycles of the past (Freeman,
2015, p. 338).
These warming cycles have contributed to ocean levels’ rising eight inches since the era
of industrialization. Since 1992 alone, levels have risen at twice the rate of the entire previous
century. Current conservative projections call for an additional foot of rise by 2100, if not the
plausible high-end estimate of four feet (National Climate Assessment, 2014). According to the
U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, another “widespread and conspicuous”
effect of climate change on the oceans is bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. The coral reefs
provide an important service to ocean ecosystems by decreasing coastline exposure to waves and
storms. However, the continued ocean warming and acidification damage the reef-based fisheries
and diminish the ocean’s capacity for mitigating these occurrences (“Climate Change May Be to
Blame,” 2016). Additionally, a climate scientist (and former director of NASA’s Goddard
Institute for Space Studies) has published a paper predicting that a global temperature rise of
only two degrees Celsius could cause superstorms that “hurl ocean boulders hundreds of feet into
the air” and inundate coastal cities, in manners reminiscent of The Day After Tomorrow (Meyer,
2016).
The changing weather patterns could fundamentally compromise the necessities of
human survival, including risks to the food supply (Freeman, 2015, p. 343). According to the
EPA:
More extreme temperature and precipitation can prevent crops from growing.
Extreme events, especially floods and droughts, can harm crops and reduce yields.
For example, in 2008, the Mississippi River flooded just before the harvest period
for many crops, causing an estimated loss of $8 billion for farmers.

Dealing with drought could become a challenge in areas where summer
temperatures are projected to increase and precipitation is projected to decrease.
As water supplies are reduced, it may be more difficult to meet water demands.
Many weeds, pests, and fungi thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter
climates, and increased CO2 levels. Currently, farmers spend more than $11
billion per year to fight weeds in the United States. The ranges of weeds and pests
are likely to expand northward. This shift would cause new problems for farmers'
crops previously unexposed to these species. Moreover, increased use of
pesticides and fungicides may negatively affect human health. (EPA, n.d.-b)
Figure 2. Illustrates the effect of extreme weather events on the yield of crops including
wheat, maize, sunflower, and cotton. Adapted from EPA, n.d.-b Retrieved March 23,
2016, from https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/agriculture.html
The agricultural effects cyclically affect livestock as well. A single heat wave, produced
by climate change, can cause losses of more than 5,000 animals nationwide. Heat stress not only
increases vulnerability to disease, but also reduces fertility and, consequently, milk production,
as well as feed supply that is directly related to the issues of crop production. Seasonal changes
could also lead to both an increased prevalence of parasites and pathogens, and challenges to the
maintenance of a thriving environment by which they survive more easily (EPA, n.d.-b).

Health Effects
The production of electricity from fossil fuels affects more than the environment.
According to the Clean Air Task Force, there is no greater risk “to human health…than coal-
fired power plants” (Schneider & Banks, 2010). The air pollution from non-renewable sources
“indisputably contributes to serious lung and heart disease,” as well as the incidence of disease in
general (Freeman, 2015, pp. 345-346). The health concerns extend beyond air conditions. The
“mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants are a proven neurotoxin” (p. 346)--a
neurotoxin that, when deposited in the ocean, accumulates in fish that are in turn ingested by
humans. Even low levels of prenatal exposure to these neurotoxins compromise cognitive
function.
Two additional comprehensive studies by the Task Force found that the “U.S. power
sectors cause tens of thousands of premature deaths each year” in addition to “hundreds of
thousands of heart attacks, asthma attacks, emergency room visits, hospital admission, and lost
workdays.” The monetary value of these effects is more than $100 billion annually. Estimates
have decreased in direct relation to the reduced emissions from coal-fired plants; however, there
is still a need for “stronger measures to further mitigate the still unacceptably high burden of
death and disease” from these sources (Schneider & Banks, 2010). The American College of
Physicians (ACP) has called for “aggressive, concerted” action to curb GHGs in order to fight
the negative health effects of climate change (as cited in Thompson, 2016). According to the
President of the college, Dr. Wayne Riley, the harm and “manifestation of these health
problems” will only continue if climate change is not mitigated (Thompson, 2016). The ACP has
begun advising members to support policies to address climate change and reduce their carbon
footprint since “the health sector is ranked second-highest in energy use” (Thompson, 2016).

While President Riley believes that "there is clear, compelling scientific consensus that climate
change is real," he hopes that the credibility of “a science-based association of physicians taking
this stance” will persuade the remaining skeptics (Thompson, 2016).
Economic Effects
Climate-change issues also have significant economic impacts. Examples include the
costs associated with repairing the destruction caused by both hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the
cold wave of 2014 (Alló & Loureiro, 2014). According to some measures, addressing the
destruction posed by climate change could cost up to 20% of the global gross domestic product
(GDP) (Hallegatte & Corfee-Morlot, 2011). One study found that the effects of the rising
temperature alone (not including impacts of natural disasters) would widen global inequality and
cause a 23% reduction in global economic production in the next century (Maclay, 2015). For
example, the economies that depend on ecotourism, such as Australia and the Caribbean, will be
dampened (“Climate Change May Be to Blame,” 2016).
Beyond the costs associated with unmitigated climate change, the fuel source is non-
renewable. Eventually the limit of supply, in direct relation to the constant demand, will make
the fossil fuel sources extremely costly. The costs could potentially extend to include supply
security: in other words, the issues of dependence on oil-exporting countries and the military
costs to ensure the access and retrieval (Freeman, 2015).
If mitigating efforts are not increased, the risks of irreversible global effects are high
(Freeman, 2015). A majority of Americans now believe that human activities are either partially,
or fully, responsible for these global temperature risings, but Americans are not as strongly
convinced as other countries’ constituents (Carlsson et al., 2012); Americans are also more

pessimistic about the possibility of mitigating climate change and its harmful effects. Regardless,
it is apparent something has to be done.
Renewable Energy Generation
While some climate-change mitigation options call for the attempt to control the harmful
effects caused by electricity generation from fossil fuels (e.g. carbon capture and sequestration,
direct CO2 capture, and geo-engineering), no viable option is as comprehensive as a cleaner
energy supply and generation process (Freeman, 2015). Renewable energy production is
relatively new in comparison to the fossil fuel industry. Additionally, renewable energy
production is still small on an “absolute basis” but is nonetheless the “fastest growing source of
power globally” (p. 334). With strategic investment, some scientists calculate that the world
could transition to a zero-carbon economy in under 100 years; moreover, it “could be done at a
cost of less than two percent of GDP over the entire period” (p. 335).
Failure to Adopt
A major contributor to the problem of climate change is the emissions release by
electricity generation from non-renewable resources. Why have some electricity providers
pursued adoption of renewable energy, while other providers have continued production from
fossils fuels? To some scientists, the argument is that “cost, scale, infrastructure, and storage” are
going to be the determining factors of the viability of renewable energies (p. 335). However, the
problem of climate change is a topic that crosses all boundaries (political, geographic, ethical,
etc.). It affects each and every individual that resides on Earth, if one prefers to avoid extinction.
While renewable electricity generation has functioned successfully and garnered widespread
support, it is still not being actively pursued by all generators. In fact, in 2015 the G7 (Group of
7) nations had committed to ending the “fossil fuel age” by the end of the century, an

achievement considered possible by some scientists (Connolly, 2015). However, worldwide
energy production from renewables was only 22% in 2013, and in the next seven years is
expected to rise only an additional three percent (International Energy Agency, 2015).
Climate change is ultimately a supra-national issue. A majority of the research on
adoption of renewable energy has been focused on the global and international level. However,
the knowledge of the issues trickles down and affects the minutest political structures, including
the municipalities that are often responsible for the generation of electricity; and thus it relates to
the associated effects of climate change. In the United States, the federal and state governments
are often the entities responsible for mandates and standards intended to address the concerns.
Recently, municipalities have become more involved as a matter of opposing the programs that
“require action without supplying the necessary funds” (Adolino & Blake, 2010, p. 374).
In December 2015, one such mandate occurred when 196 parties to the United Nation’s
(UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change approved what is known as the Paris
Agreement at the 21st
Conference of Parties (Sutter, Berlinger, & Ellis, 2015). Amongst a variety
of goals, the agreement seeks to limit the increasing global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels. In April 2016, the UN hosted a signing event at which 175 entities
signed the document (“Today is an historic day,” 2016). Amongst those that signed were China
and the United States, which make up 24% and 14% of global emissions, respectively (Sutter,
Berlinger, & Ellis, 2015). The signatures are an important step in the process, as the agreement
cannot enter into force until at least 55 countries that account for 55% of greenhouse gas
emissions sign and ratify the agreement. However, the grounds for ratification in the United
States through executive action are precarious. A key element to President Obama’s plan to meet
the reduction in emissions was the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (McGrath, 2016).

Claiming infringement on states’ rights, a coalition of 27 states sought to overturn the plan. In a
5-4 vote the U.S. Supreme Court suspended the plan till litigation concludes. In addition, the
upcoming presidential election will also play a large part in the U.S.’s commitments, with
Hillary Clinton pledging enactment and Donald Trump forcefully denouncing the Paris
Agreement (Davenport, 2016). While President Obama intends on ratifying the agreement
through an executive action before his departure from office, without Congress’ agreement,
several Republican politicians have argued that the President’s commitment will mean nothing
(Richardson, 2016). Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe claims that it will merely represent “empty
promises that will have no meaningful impact on the climate” (Richardson, 2016).
Considering the increasing prevalence of environmental regulations (and general public
awareness of the negative side effects of electricity generation from fossil fuels), understanding
the complexity of issues surrounding the adoption of renewable energy will become
progressively more important to the local producers and providers.
The problem to be addressed is the complex, multifold issue of energy production by
public utilities. First, the concern stems from the multitude of issues that the production of
electricity from non-renewable resources causes to the climate. Second, is the failure to adopt
renewable energy production by public utilities despite the changing political climate,
environmental issues, and policies. Third, is the waning competitiveness of renewable energy
production by the United States, specifically Colorado municipalities, in comparison to other
countries’ municipalities. This decline may be due to the United States’ “all-the-above” approach
to energy that inconsistently augments the renewable-energy industry while reliably supporting
conventional sources (Colorado is the sixth-top producing state for natural gas, and seventh for
crude oil). This disadvantage is concerning because of the vast amount of energy production in

the United States, and Colorado, by public utilities whose main goal is providing a reliable and
cost-effective product to citizens.
Colorado has a long energy history, dating back to its foundation by which “smoke-
belching plants spurred economic growth along the Front Range” (Andrews, 2010, p. 61). Some
of the frontiersman of the late 1800s saw Colorado as an opportunity for benevolent coal
extraction. Unfortunately the coal industry “exemplified…the necessity of government
safeguards to ensure working people’s right to organize in defense of their lives and liberties”
(Andrews, 2010, pp. 6-7). The rapacity of the mine owners led to “the deadliest, most destructive
uprising by American workers since Southern slaves had fought for their emancipation during
the Civil War…victims of the Ten Days’ War pushed the total death toll for Colorado coalfield
war of 1913-1914 to at least seventy-five and perhaps as many as a hundred” leading to “a grand
total of 369 murder indictments, 191 charges of arson, and 100 charges of assault with intent to
kill” (Andrews, 2010, p. 14). Perhaps the silence of the contemporary municipalities is
reminiscent of the lack of monuments of public commemoration of the Ten Days War in
Colorado. Coal supplies and the coalfield wars unmask the intertwining of “social, industrial, and
environmental” issues in Colorado’s non-renewable energy history to be equally as rich and
holistic as contemporary energy disputes (Andrews, 2010, p. 15). There is a realization that
“balancing the interests of humankind and nature” is more difficult than one may initially
imagine (Andrews, 2010, p. 49). Colorado’s past and present “converge around a shared
dependence on fossil fuels and a troubling propensity to overlook the human suffering and
environmental destruction that our appetite for energy inflicts on distant hinterlands” (Andrews,
2010, p. 50).

In the United States, publicly owned utilities make up a substantial majority (61%) of the
energy providers, with cooperatives contributing another 26.5%, and only 5.7% provided by
investor-owned utilities (American Public Power Association, 2015). Considering the magnitude
of municipalities that are, or will be, affected by the increasing issues and regulations associated
with climate change, it is surprising that a majority of the previous comparative research on
adopting renewable energy production has been largely pure research focused on a supra-
national level (i.e., countries), relying on a singular approach (e.g., institutional), and generally
targeting European concentrations (e.g., Germany). Therefore, the body of research has
effectively disregarded the intricacies of a comprehensive set of factors on the path-dependent
approach to adoption of renewable energy, by municipal level providers in the United States
(more specifically, Colorado).
The intent of this project is to synthesize a path-dependent comparative approach
(theoretical and pure) with organizational-change theory (pragmatic and applied) to understand
how and why Colorado municipalities pursue and adopt renewable energy production. The path-
dependent approach will provide factors (e.g., cultural demographic factors, political party
affiliations, economic development opportunities, and institutional policies) that have been well-
established in the body of previous research. The validation of path-dependent factors will create
a stronger foundation for the attempt to mesh with organizational-change theory that has not had
a robust history of application to renewable-energy production, but has a history of success in
large organizational transitions.

Research Questions
The purpose of this comparative case study will be to examine a comprehensive
assortment of cultural, political, economic, and institutional factors influencing the path-
dependent approach to adoption of renewable energy on a municipal level. Using a comparative
perspective on characteristically different systems, the research will seek an explanation of the
critical influences on the cities of Aspen and Fort Morgan, Colorado in the process of adoption
of renewable energy production. A synthesis of path-dependency (specifically historical, self-
reinforcing dynamics) and organizational-change theory (e.g., creating urgency, building a
guiding coalition, and instituting change) will be examined in the process of exploring the
equifinality of two distinctly different municipalities’ pursuit of adopting renewable energy.
The research will answer the following questions: What factors influence municipalities
in Colorado to pursue adoption of renewable energy? Specifically, are municipalities with
dissimilar attributes ultimately affected by the same or different factors in the process of
adopting renewable energy? Can the reinforcing dynamics of path-dependent theories be
synthesized with factors of organizational-change theory to explain the pursuit and adoption of
renewable energy?
In both cases, the cities of Aspen and Fort Morgan, it looks as though path-dependent
factors (i.e., cultural, political, economic and institutional) influence a municipality’s pursuit and
adoption of renewable energy. Aspen and Fort Morgan have immensely disparate cultures,
political leanings, economies, and institutions; however, both have adopted, and continue to
adopt, renewable energy resources. While the populations of these municipalities have
contrasting demographic characteristics, analysis of the historical trends aligns both cities with
steps of effective organizational change. Therefore, the pursuit and adoption of renewable energy

resources can be accomplished by implementing specific steps of organizational change that are
appropriate for municipalities with a wide variety of demographics. Considering the importance
of addressing climate change, and the large quantity of publicly produced power, this synthesis
can be utilized to advance and expand the adoption of renewable energy sources to a larger pool
of power providers. While the current research addresses two diverse municipalities, both are
within the state of Colorado, narrowing the scope of differing circumstances to some extent.
Future research ought to investigate other municipalities, and private industries, to determine
whether similar steps of organization change hold true. Additionally, the research could be
utilized in an attempt to implement the change in an organization that has not yet begun
transitioning to renewable energy resources, again to see whether the process is successful.

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Comparative Approaches to Renewable Energy Adoption
Within the comparative school of political science research are four general approaches:
cultural, political, economic, and institutional. However, the approaches are very limited and
often overlap. A more recent development in comparative analysis is a path-dependent approach
that illustrates an eclectic and encompassing approach.
Cultural School
The cultural school of comparative politics attempts to explain that cultural attitudes,
values, and traditions either promote governmental intervention in a certain policy arena or
reduce the probability of the involvement in the policy-making process (Adolino & Blake, 2015).
One approach within the cultural school is the public-opinion approach by which contemporary
attitudes are polled on a balance between governmental involvement and individual
responsibility. However, the approach is often inconclusive, as citizens can think that the
government “should” be involved in an activity (e.g., protect the environment), but can also
support cutting governmental spending overall, as well as for a specified activity (e.g.,
renewable-energy generation). Additionally, public opinion may strongly support an issue, but
that fact does not necessarily translate to driving policy making; rather Kingdon (2003) argues
that there is a complex and contingent relationship (as cited in Laird & Stefes, 2009).
There has been extensive research on the relationship between cultural dimensions and
renewable-energy infrastructure on a national level. Kaminsky (2016) found that across 66
nations Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of high uncertainty avoidance and high individualism-
collectivism were significant factors in the adoption of renewable energy. Meaning: nations that
are more uncomfortable with uncertainty and more individualistic are more likely to adopt

renewable energy because it is seen to provide an improvement to grid reliability and exist in
more distributive forms, respectively. Kaminsky (2016) argues that appealing to empathy of the
negative impacts of non-renewable electricity generation on others may be one mechanism to
spread the adoption of renewable energy. However, the motivation to avoid uncertainty and
increase independence of electrical supply would have an even greater impact. Kaminsky
recommends further research at the community level.
Alló and Loureiro (2014) argue that social factors have a strong explanatory influence on
preference towards policies regarding climate change, but that these factors have been generally
ignored (p. 564). Specifically, a country’s long-term versus short-term orientation; in other
words, a society’s increased valuation of pragmatic future perspectives instead of conventional
historical short-term factors. Findings of a meta-regression of 58 studies concluded that countries
with longer-term planning methods have a higher willingness to pay for initiatives that fight
climate change. While Alló and Loureiro’s work does support the influence of social norms, it
ultimately includes a willingness-to-pay argument, that also entails economic factors.
Political School
The political school of comparative analysis argues that political parties and interest
groups contribute as important influences on the policy dynamics of a country (Adolino & Blake,
2015). Specific approaches vouch that labor party control of executive and legislative offices is
correlated with the expansion of government spending. The similar-party governmental models
argue that swift change occurs more readily (whether contraction, expansion, or particular
designation of funds) in governments when the executive and legislative branches are shared by
the same party. Interest-group politics also play a part through the size and financial resources
directly affecting the agenda-setting of the current government (p. 40).

Political-orientation approaches have repeatedly found that liberal individuals
consistently have a higher willingness to pay for initiatives that address climate-change issues
than individuals with more conservative views (Carlsson, 2012; Wiser, 2007); accordingly, states
with liberal leanings are more supportive of renewable energy than conservative states (Wiener
and Koontz, 2010). Democratic presidential nominees have also run on platforms of reducing the
country’s dependence on fossil fuels, mitigating impacts of climate change, and increasing
financial support for renewable sources, while conservatives have taken the stance of promoting
conventional sources (Krauss, 2012). Additionally, states with a Republican Party dominance are
less likely than those with Democratic Party dominance (measured by number of party
affiliations in the House and Senate) to adopt renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Renewable
portfolio standards are policies that promote, or mandate, a percentage of energy production
from renewables (Huang, Alavalapati, Carter, & Langholtz, 2007). Furthermore, according to
Carley & Miller (2012) citizen ideology is a significant predictor of RPS adoption; however,
strong policy designs are better predicted by the ideology of the government (similar to Huang et
al.’s 2007 findings).
Interest groups (specifically those funded by providers of conventional energy
production) can effectively hamper the transition to renewable energy production; however, there
are cases in which the tactics are ineffective and can be overcome. For example, the German
Energiewende has been extremely successful even with criticism from Germany’s historical
power oligopoly (Gawel, Strunz, & Lehmann, 2013). The actors in the centralized, fossil-fuel
market structure attack the renewable energy policies, yet the attempts to discredit renewables
have dissolved and the negative externalities of the conventional fuels have been revealed. In the
same way that conventional-energy providers can benefit from having interest groups working

on their behalf, so too can the renewable-energy interests (Lyon & Yin, 2010). There can also be
an interaction between interest groups and political affiliation that affects the adoption of
renewable energy. For instance, Democrats receive more financial contributions from
environmental groups and voters, and in turn enact institutional mechanisms that support the
adoption of renewable energy (Berry, Laird, & Stefes, 2015; Huang et al., 2007).
Economic School
The economic school explores the short- and long-term effects of economic changes,
specifically the resources available to a country (Adolino & Blake, 2015). For example,
economic growth not only generates more revenue for government entities, but can generate
legitimacy about the public ability to address problems. The opposite can occur as well, by
which an economic downturn generates suspicion about success through government action.
Longer-term trends such as a country’s affluence can contribute to an assurance that problems
(e.g., preserving the environment) can occur without impeding the standard of living. The
demographic graying factor, or the predominance of older citizens, can drive the demand for
particular services and affect the decisions on how governmental revenue (less of it due to less
working population) is expended. For example, an increase in retirement benefits rather than
renewable energy infrastructure. The globalization of society has also created an
interconnectedness by which domestic policy often cannot ignore the international context of its
decisions. Lastly, the adoption of renewable-energy sources could foster an increased demand for
more specialized (and well-paying) jobs. When renewable energy is considered a means of economic
growth and job creation, the level of support for policies that promote the technology is increased, even in
conservative legislators and citizens (Weiner & Koontz, 2010). Affluence has also been referenced as
an influential factor in renewable-energy matters. Some studies illustrate an eventual positive

relationship between affluence and both environmental quality (Koop & Tole, 1999) and the
likelihood of implementing an RPS (Berry, Laird, & Stefes, 2015).
Institutional School
The institutional school frames the formal and informal institutions that create the rules
and frame the policy-making process (Adolino & Blake, 2015). The approach often focuses on
the formal interactions between national and subnational governments or between executive and
legislative offices. However, non-elected officials can also serve as institutional influences on
policy. For example, the bureaucratic approach demonstrates that characteristics of the agency
implementing policy can affect the influence over policy-making. In opposition, new
institutionalism takes into account the effect of informal norms and patterns and input of non-
governmental organizations on policy-making.
Policies can be an immensely powerful institution for the adoption of renewable energy.
Budget decisions for agencies that support research and development (R&D) of renewable-
energy options are amongst the various policies that affect adoption. For instance, President
Reagan’s reduction in funding for R&D and subsequent reduction in staffing for the agencies
spearheading the efforts, ultimately undermined the entities’ ability and effectiveness (Laird &
Stefes, 2009). Policies that ensure funding are continuously important, even after initial success,
in the transition or adoption of new systems and infrastructure (Rahman, Paatero, Poudyal &
Lahdelma, 2013). In opposition, when funding policies are short-term, and inconsistent, an
atmosphere of uncertainty for investing is created, and renewable energy adoption is erratic and
shifts accordingly (Laird & Stefes, 2009). For example, specific policies such as tax credits
subsidize the initial costs of transition; however, when institutional drift allows for the expiration

of the legislation that upholds these financial incentives, there is a significant drop in the level of
adoption.
Some of the most widely cited policies for renewable energy come in the form of
portfolio standards, or regulatory mandates for the increased production of energy from
renewable sources (and parallel decreases in GHG emissions). Renewable portfolio standards
can even overcome the political-affiliation factors (often barriers) to the adoption of renewable
energy. An example is the coalition of environmentalists, solar advocates, and conservative
legislators that influenced an all-Republican commission to adopt a plan that increases
renewable-energy capacity requirements for a Georgia power company (Shulman, 2013). The
Georgia case also exhibited overcoming interest-group influence, specifically, a scare campaign
by Americans for Prosperity. The organization, funded by the billionaire fossil-fuel mogul Koch
brothers, made allegations that the standards would reduce reliability of appliances and increase
electricity rates “up to 40 percent” (Shulman, 2013). Regardless, the Republican commission
approved the plan for an RPS.
Path-Dependence
As the preceding research illustrates, single isolated factors rarely exert a dominant
influence on the course of events related to renewable energy. Often the attempts to replicate
findings can lead new research to undermine, or conflict with, past results, or put separate factors
at odds for different contextual situations. For example, the benefits of economic development
related to renewable energy may serve as a stimulus for change in one state but not in another
(Weiner & Koontz, 2010). Rather, an eclectic mix of cultural, political, economic, and
institutional dynamics creates the variations on the adoption of renewable energy between and
within countries (Adolino & Blake, 2015). Singular approaches often do not incorporate all the

factors, including the interaction with geography, crises, and historical actions, in the pursuit of a
particular end.
From this deficiency, an eclectic approach emerged. Known as path-dependence, this
approach illustrates that decisions to pursue certain policies (e.g., pursuing adoption of
renewable-energy generation) are contingent on a variety, and interaction, of historic
institutional, social, political, and economic circumstances in conjunction with critical windows
of opportunity (Laird & Stefes, 2009). In a broader sense, when attempts to make changes do not
incorporate a comprehensive set of factors (i.e., cultural, political, economic, institutional), the
conclusions often fall short of the intended outcomes (Weiner & Koontz, 2010). For example, in
reference to the influence of economic development on renewable energy, the economic factor
might not incite change in the state unless the state is experiencing an environment of job loss
(Weiner & Koontz, 2010). Path-dependency offers an explanation of how the historical
decisions, institutional structures, political environment, etc. reinforce a particular policy path
through positive feedback mechanisms (Laird & Stefes, 2009). However, the path’s beginning is
dependent on an impetus (e.g., crisis or policy window) that creates the pressure for change in
conjunction with a viable solution and advocates that are powerful enough to influence a new
policy’s direction (Laird & Stefes, 2009).
Organizational Change Theory
“There is nothing more permanent than change.” –Heraclitus
Organizational-change management presents an option for structuring the self-reinforcing
dynamics of path-dependent theories in application to the adoption of renewable energy on a
local level. Practices in organizational-change management often focus on how organizations

meet the needs of dramatically changing circumstances in terms of strategies, structures,
systems, boundaries, expectations, etc. (Cameron & Green, 2015). Authors in the field often
illustrate the need for practiced and proven methodologies for organizational change in direct
relation to the “intense” rate at which the contemporary world changes through “boundary-
pushing” scientific inventions, the “economics of globalization,” so on and so forth (p.1). In
general it can provide a framework for “why change happens, how change happens, and what
needs to be done to make change a more welcoming concept” in an era of tremendous pressure
to perform (p. 2).
Change in organizations is difficult because humans do not like change. Although we
grasp that change is necessary, we often hang on to what we value. However, human change is
the impetus for organizational change (Carnevale, 2003). Humans often maintain deeply held
beliefs that “blind” them to the need for change (p. 40). Humans’ awareness is a self-reinforcing
“seamless circuit” that makes them “feel right even when it reflects only a partial and often
distorted view of existence” (p. 40). In most organizational cultures, being wrong is shamed;
therefore, risk of this potential is resisted, further encapsulating the process and discouraging
change (p. 42). However, sometimes change requires “refusing to deny the truth and making
necessary changes even though there is no guarantee they will work” (p. 46). Organizational
change is not organizational dissolution of what works. Instead it is acknowledging what is good
while striving to be better.
“‘Knowledge is power’ is a popular idea. The truth is that knowledge is power when
power lets it be that way.” (Carnelvale, 2003, p. 64)

Organizational-change theories often claim that organizations do not learn, nor do they
change, unless individuals do so (Carnevale, 2003, p. 63). However, there is often one serious
impediment to translating this human capital to the institutional process, and that is authority (p.
64). Overcoming the hierarchical, bureaucratic ideal conceptualization of knowledge is vitally
important to the transformation of an organization, and it is especially challenging in
governmental entities. For the historical period of industrialization in the twentieth century, when
quality of life rapidly improved, organizations were expected to mass-produce goods for the
lowest possible price, and government was expected to provide services to increase standards of
living; therefore, a precedence for standardized processes became important (pp. 64-65).
However, organizational-change theory assumes that this trend has ended and reform is
paramount for successful organizations.
The former trend of scientific management created a divide between conception and
execution in work. The manifestation led to a separation of physical and mental aspects of work,
a loss of control, and ultimately a disassociation between what is being done and the end result.
General attempts at change often occur in the single loops by which the action changes but the
factors, or governing variables, of the situation remain the same (p. 67). This situation is what
often occurs when individuals invest in outside training but do not follow up by iterating the
lessons to the rest of the organization (pp. 68-69).
Organizational-change theory has historically been integrated into actions for creating
high-performing organizations through actions focused increasingly on human capital. However,
organizational-change management has often been utilized for paradigm shifts and for the
overcoming of self-reinforcing dynamics, in order to change a historically well-established
process. These lessons lend a structure for addressing similar issues being tackled by the shift in

the energy-production sector. Established operating procedures for conventional sources of
energy do not necessarily fit in the new era of renewable energy, and organizational-change
theories offer a creative process that could be useful and even necessary for moving
municipalities onto the path of pursuing renewable-energy production.
John P. Kotter’s Methodology
There are a multitude of models, techniques, and processes for addressing organizational
change; however, one method appears to parallel the self-reinforcing aspects of path-dependence
models. John Kotter is a Harvard professor and best-selling author who has established a practice
in motivating people in business management to lead better organizations “in an era of
increasingly rapid change” (“John Kotter,” n.d.). A tenet of Kotter’s work is that organizations
that do not evolve will perish; therefore, Kotter’s methodology, developed over decades in
observation of hundreds of organizations, outlines a process of concurrent and continuous steps
(or factors) that combine for organizations to successfully transform. Figure 3 illustrates the
cycle.
Kotter (2012) emphasizes that in the turbulent world of today, organizations make
predictable mistakes in “the adoption of new technologies, major strategic shifts,” etc. (p. xi).
Kotter’s strategy focuses on influencing people’s emotions, a stark contrast from theoretical
approaches to rationale and logic (p. xii). Kotter notes that data gathering and analysis are
important, but the approach moves away from pure analytics into utilizing feelings as a tool for
change. Analytical tools work best when “parameters are known, assumptions are minimal, and
the future is not fuzzy” and are therefore limited (p. 12). Kotter stresses that change is difficult,
but successful large-scale change occurs when individuals are helped to see the truth that
influences feelings (p. 2). Rather than seeing problems as “inevitable and out of our control,”

getting frustrated, and giving up, the process establishes a framework for attainment (pp. 2-3).
Change is often difficult because people have not experienced it done successfully, which breeds
pessimism, fear, and lack of faith (p. 13). However, in the transition away from the industrial
economy, Kotter (2012) argues that organizations must become better (p. 13); doing so involves
seeing the issues and then “steer[ing] clear of the pitfalls” (p. 49).
Figure 3. Illustrates the cyclical and reinforcing nature of Kotter’s 8 Steps to
organizational change.
Detailed descriptions of Kotter’s steps are as follows:
Create Sense
of Urgency
Build Guiding
Coalitions
Form Strategic
Vision &
Initiatives
Communicate
for Buy-In
Empower
Action
Create
Short-Term
Wins
Sustain
Acceleration
Institute
Change

Step 1 Create a Sense of Urgency. Step one involves crafting and communicating an
opportunity that mitigates fear, anger, and complacency and gets people excited (a feeling) to
institute change. This step can be as simple as relaying how more competition and cost pressures
will require a change to meet new 21st
century challenges. The credibility of this urgency can
often come from customers that present a compelling case. Urgency is also hampered by
previous success; in other words, belief that current practices are fine because of working
successfully in the past. However, the urgency must relay that regardless of past success, old
practices might not be appropriate for the future. Sometimes urgency is created through fear,
which causes people to become self-protective (e.g., who cares about the environment?;
renewables are too expensive). In these cases fear is a great step, but it must become positive, or
people will focus on self-preservation.
Step 2 Build A Guiding Coalition. Step two involves assembling a team of people with
the appropriate skills, credibility, and authority to lead and support the proposed change for the
greater good. Once urgency is established, people are more willing to provide leadership, even at
personal risk for no short-term rewards. Rather than allowing political gamesmanship to rule,
trust must be built and honest conflict must occur by allowing different perspectives. This
approach can involve candid conversations with focus and discipline. At this point, the key
players must be involved, or the effort is futile and complacency is bolstered.
Step 3 Form a Strategic Vision and Initiatives. Step three involves the creation of a
sensible, unambiguous, and desired future potential. A common mistake in step three is relying
on plans and budgets to be sufficient or on strategies that are “too slow and cautious for a faster-
moving world” (p. 4). Kotter (2012) asserts that improvements can be made without affecting
current delivery of services, but one cannot plan for a future that is not understood. Therefore,

there must be a vision of what the organization should look like and how those involved feel
about it. The vision “shows an end state where all plans and strategies will eventually take” the
organization (p. 67). The process can be unnerving because it requires “venturing into unknown
territory” and doing things differently from before (p. 69).
Often there is a tension between efficiency and a mixture of innovation and customer
service (p. 70), especially when the change goes against the way a majority, if not all, of the
industry does something (e.g., fossil-fuel energy generation). In the public sector this dilemma
(or tension) sometimes means seeing the greater good, providing essential services to the public,
improving the service, and not funding inefficiencies. Investment is required into a new system
that in the long run will save money. The process has to overcome the sense that negative
scenarios are inevitable and take into account that the old routine will eventually lead to disaster.
Step 4 Communicate for Buy-In. Step four involves communicating the results of step
three to induce understanding and develop commitment in a critical mass of people. At this stage
even the most intelligent people may communicate poorly without realizing it, but at this step
faith must be created in the management. The widespread communication must be clear,
accurate, and credible to address people’s anxieties and anger. Clutter must be removed, so that
the important issues are addressed. Cynicism must be stopped by “walking the talk,” or closing
the gap between words and deeds.
Step 5 Empower Action. Step five involves the removal of physical, institutional, and
psychological barriers that often undermine transformational efforts. Those involved have to be
empowered to “rise to the occasion” and approach an issue in a new way (p. 9). Once people are
aware that change is necessary, and that others have survived change, they are often converted
from obstacles to active helpers. However, sincere empowerment is crucial, because people tend

to internalize incapability of change “after years of stability, incremental change, or failed
attempts” (p. 110). In this stage, information is power, and lack of information disempowers (p.
114).
In the public sector, the bureaucratic over-devotion to performance evaluation
disempowers actors because it is an old system that rewards previous goals, rather than
evaluating innovation and new ideas (p. 106). Evaluation of change is more than just return on
investment. It is comparable to a life-cycle analysis of fossil-fuel electrical generation; change
evaluation must take in all factors that contribute to the change, not merely money spent and
money made. At this point, obstacles can seem insurmountable and overwhelming; however, the
change movement must acknowledge that not everything can be done at once. Issues must be
viewed with pragmatism and focus, leading to step six.
Step 6 Create Short-Term Wins. Step six involves sinking the opposition’s cynics and
skeptics by providing credibility to the efforts and establishing momentum. In the public sector
this approach can often involve reducing bureaucratic red tape and gaining the support of
important political partners, as well as rewarding the hard workers. The wins have to be
unambiguous, visible, and quick to provide validity to the cause. By management’s building faith
in the process, power is taken from cynics and more individuals are drawn to the change (p. 125).
Rather than attempting to tackle everything at once, a few, or only simple, tasks (e.g., low-
hanging fruit) are attempted to create an energy with a sense of optimism and accomplishment.
The initial wins often reiterate and eventually lead to subsequently more substantial wins. In this
step, it is important that success never be “hoopla,” or propaganda, because then skepticism
grows and credibility falters (pp. 136-138), especially in the public sector.

Step 7 Sustain Acceleration. Step seven involves consolidating successes along with
continuing to tackle more and more waves of change. The momentum of previous wins is
intended to grow, urgency is maintained, and false pride is diminished by avoiding premature
declarations of victory. It is generally helpful in this step to focus on addressing an external
problem (e.g., climate change) instead of continuously beating up on those involved in the
organization. Power must be attained at this point for management (or the organization) to begin
addressing the larger-scale problem (i.e., no longer the low-hanging fruit) without becoming
complacent or overwhelmed. At times this strategy includes questioning the status quo, not
serving a “conservative charter” that states not to “stir the waters too much; be practical” (p.
149). Once these issues are overcome, the “wall start[s] to fall,” like a row of dominoes until the
change makes it to the end goal (p. 150). These adjustments are often proactive, enabling the
organization to “anticipate the issue rather than suddenly finding it explode” in their face (p.
152).
Step 8 Institute Change. Step eight involves nurturing the changes by establishing
connections to the organization to ensure the continuation. In Kotter’s (2012) words:
Tradition is a powerful force. Leaps into the future can slide back into the past.
We keep a change in place by helping to create a new, supportive, and sufficiently
strong organizational culture. A supportive culture provides roots for the new
ways of operating. It keeps the revolutionary technology, the globalized
organization, the innovative strategy, or the more efficient processes working to
make you a winner (p.159).
The changes have to be embedded into how the organization runs, the vision must be linked to
all actions, and actors in the organization must share in the vision. Often the rewarding, or
promoting, of individuals who are absorbed in the change creates “an increasingly solid and
stable foundation” (p. 171).

Kotter (2012) emphasizes the organizational-change process is not rigid, but rather just as
the world has overlapping cycles of change, so do organizations. Kotter argues that change is
about the behavior of people, and it often fails when people are “ignoring how the world is
changing” and are “frozen in terror by the problems they see, or … do little but bitterly
complain,” a phenomenon all too relevant to the issue of transitioning to renewable energy (p.7).
However, when done right, these eight steps create a self-reinforcing dynamic for change in an
organization. Kotter’s research shows that in the turbulent 21st
century, “winning organizations”
follow this process of “adaptation and transformation” (p. 177).

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
The situations revolving around the adoption of renewable energy are complex and
convoluted. Comparative approaches in past research on policy issues regarding adoption of
renewable energy have often taken a high-level approach (e.g., comparing nations and
international differences); or have been approached in a singular fashion (i.e., from a cultural,
political, economic, or institutional perspective). Therefore, there is a much smaller body of
comparative, path-dependent work focused on the municipal level of renewable-energy adoption.
Moreover, research on the adoption of renewable energy has often taken a highly
theoretical, and often political, approach (as exhibited by the different comparative schools).
However, there is a large body of work in organizational-change management that offers
comprehensive insight on how organizations redirect, restructure, reorganize, et cetera in a
pragmatic manner. The procedures required in transitioning from conventional, fossil-fuel
produced energy to the adoption of renewable energy seemingly parallel the organizational-
change processes.
This project is practical, in an attempt to survey and compare a wide breadth of variables
in the adoption of renewable energy between two Colorado municipalities (Aspen and Fort
Morgan). The research will be conducted in a comparative approach of most-different systems in
order to explore and contrast the cases and show a robustness for the particular relationship
between the variables in the processes. The research will synthesize the theoretical approach of
historical self-reinforcing dynamics of path-dependence with the elements of Kotter’s 8-step path
to successful organizational change. The research will demonstrate whether the synthesizing of
the theories is appropriate (i.e., that the factors align); and if so, whether the observed
relationship holds in multiple divergent settings (in both municipalities). Ultimately, the intent of

the synthesis is to pair the logical and rational basis of the theoretical approach with the
humanist, applied foundation of organizational-change theory.
This study utilizes a small comparative case-study approach with the use of public and
private document review, review of a previous synthesis case study, passive and active
observation, and personal communication. While most comparative research incorporates
quantitative measures, the current research does not. However, the research incorporates multiple
sources (i.e., triangulation of data) in the integration of theoretical perspectives from two distinct
backgrounds (comparative politics and change management). The qualitative case study will
include an initial review and analysis of appropriate cultural (e.g., public opinion), political (e.g.,
political partisanship), economic (e.g., affluence), and institutional (e.g., policies) factors of the
chosen municipalities. Because of time and resource constraints, all dimensions of each
perspective with not be analyzed. There will also be a review of local geographic location,
historic municipal demographic data, and contemporary municipal utility data. The case study
will also incorporate personal communication with actors involved in the municipalities and with
organizations associated with the pursuit of renewable energy by both entities. Specifically:
David Hornbacher, the Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives, and Ashley Perl, the
Climate Action Manager, for the City of Aspen; and Brent Nation, the Director of Water
Resources and Utilities, and Jeff Wells, City Manager for the City of Fort Morgan.
The intention is to develop a detailed understanding of whether comparative, path-
dependent factors in the adoption of renewable energy, in two Colorado municipalities that own
the energy utilities, can be paralleled to the processes of organizational-change management,
considering that both processes are iterative and self-reinforcing. The results could generate a

theoretical and pragmatic approach for the pursuit of renewable energy sources on a community
and local municipal governmental level.
I performed all data collection, analysis, and interpretation acting as the primary
instrument for data collection; therefore, there is no need for interrater-reliability checking. It is
important to note that I work within one of the municipal organizations and that therefore this
position could affect the responses provided during personal communication or during
observations. Specifically, underlying assumptions of my perspective may lead individuals to
skew responses in a perceived favorable manner. Such a researcher must remain aware of
potential bias and seek to avoid it.

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Municipal Governments and Sustainability
According to the International City County Management Association (2016), in a survey
of over 1,800 local governments, 32% have adopted a sustainability plan. With a focus on
sustainability, a super-majority of the goals address strategies related to economic development,
with other priorities including energy conservation and disaster mitigation. Only 47% of the
entities identified environmental protection as a priority, with a much larger body (91%)
identifying economic development. The governments identified the following as either
significant or very significant factors in the adoption of sustainability plans:
 Fiscal savings (84%)
 Leaderships of local elected officials (82%)
 Federal or state funding opportunities (75%)
 Potential to attract development (71%)
 Concern over the environment (68%)
The research also identifies the following as the factors hindering the efforts:
 Lack of funding (88%)
 State or federal funding restrictions (61%)
 Lack of staff capacity/support (59%)
 Lack of information on how to proceed (51%)
 Lack of community/resident support (49%)
 Opposition of elected officials (49%)

Rather than pursuing the adoption of renewable energy the local governments conducted
energy audits (63%) and improved lighting efficiency (64%), heating and air conditioning
systems (49%), exterior lighting (e.g., streetlights) (45%), and traffic signal efficiency (35%).
While some of the efforts are promising, only 19% of respondents had “dedicated budget
resources specifically to sustainability or environmental protection” (ICMA, 2016). Additionally,
only nine percent had dedicated staff in multiple departments; another nine percent had dedicated
staff in only one department, and only six percent had the dedicated staff in “the chief elected or
chief appointed” offices (ICMA, 2016). The lack of staffing and proactive policies does not align
with the 76% of the entities that had faced major weather disasters (e.g., 53% dealt with a flood,
51% with a blizzard, and 24% with a hurricane) that are often associated with climate change
and the effects of GHG emissions from fossil-fuel energy generation.
The results indicate a large number of U.S. municipalities are not actively seeking
remedies to the problems associated with climate change, particularly not for reasons of
environmental protection or through actions such as renewable-energy generation. According to
Fischlein, Smith, and Wilson (2009), municipalities “hold a unique set of organizational
challenges” because of the size, resource access, and complex ownership models; however, the
presence in all 50 U.S. states (and therefore, a large share of the generation) marks the
importance of municipal generators for climate change and renewable-energy adoption issues.
Considering the wide breadth of hurdles that municipalities must overcome to proceed in
renewable energy adoption, it seems a miracle that any have.

Synthesis of Comparative Theory and Organizational Change
There are countless examples of research that synthesizes separate theories to explain
outcomes, or intended outcomes. For example, Sovacool and Dworkin (2014) demonstrate the
need for change in the approach to global energy justice through a synthesized framework of
diverse philosophical theories on justice from Rawls to Friedman. The authors describe the
current conventional system as iterative, “something very close to addiction,” by which self-
replicating policies are locked in and create a dependency that justifies “expenditures to operate,
maintain, and improve” the current system (p. 272). For example, subsidies that “promote energy
inefficiency” increase the barriers to emerging technologies (p. 266). Sovacool and Dworkin
(2014) state that only “comprehensive solutions implemented holistically and simultaneously”
can successfully address the issues of equitably sharing both the benefits and burdens of energy
production and consumption (i.e., energy injustice) (p. 362). Additionally, the social, political,
and economic factors are just as important as the technology in overcoming the “barriers,
obstacles, and impediments” to energy justice (p. 362). While the authors demonstrate the need
for energy justice (a component of which is sustainability), little research has been done
specifically on synthesis of comparative political theories and organizational change, and almost
none on the specific outcome of municipal adoption of renewable energy.
British Columbia Hydro Case Study
Scodanibbio (2011) documented how steps of organizational-change management were
incorporated into a policy window that led to the emergence of British Columbia (BC) Hydro’s
(the third-largest electricity utility in Canada) Water Use Planning (WUP) program. The research
suggests that with the threat of ecological collapse, due to extensive consumerism, a shift in the
dominant paradigm might be the solution to the problems that scientists, politicians, and the

public are realizing. Responses to environmental degradation are “largely inadequate, with too
little being done, too slowly and often too late” (Scodanibbio, 2011, p. 1006). Therefore, the
research sought to identify the “processes influencing policy change, aimed towards the adoption
of more sustainable behaviours” (p. 1007). The article explores historical contexts to recognize
the scenarios in which “business as usual,” or the status quo, shifted.
Historically, BC Hydro’s mission was to “produce abundant, inexpensive power” through
a period of minimal governmental regulation, in an attempt to expand economic growth during
the 20th
century (p. 1007). However, the company’s tactics included forcible resettlements of
communities, leading to a growing resistance to the company. As the environmental movement
advanced and ecological concerns related to fish populations emerged, interest groups began
opposing BC Hydro’s practices and facilities. In 1989, Canadians’ concern for the environment
reached a notable peak, and public opinion shifted from viewing Hydro’s policies as
economically prosperous to growing distrust and desire for governmental regulation (p. 1008). In
1991, motivated by a surge of environmental concerns, the New Democratic Party entered the
governmental sphere after years of a “pro-industry” government (p. 1008). The office established
a number of pro-environmental regulations (e.g., protection of lands and marine areas), as well as
a Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). Through a multi-stakeholder and
consensus-based approach to decision making, the office began to acknowledge environmental
groups that had previously been “marginalized by core policy processes” (p. 1008). Essentially,
stakeholders were given authority through the institutionalization of the environmental concerns.
During the time period, several events occurred in which fish habitats, a symbol of
British Columbia’s identity, were damaged by the operation of BC Hydro’s dams on several
streams. As problems grew, so did the public’s concerns, outcry, and media attention. As

external problems grew, internal problems followed. BC Hydro lacked clarity on how to regulate
because of the “complex institutional and jurisdictional arrangement for managing water and
natural resources in Canada,” reminiscent of the electric sector in the United States (p. 1009).
With increasing regulations (e.g., flow constraints) BC Hydro could not meet the required level
of power production, and costly legal actions were worsening the situation; licensing issues
provided minimal parameters for the issues at hand (p. 1009). A commissioned report on
compliance illustrated the necessity of revising the company’s licenses for both BC Hydro’s and
the government’s sake (p. 1009).
The increased participation of concerned interest groups reached a tipping point when the
government came under attack for not enforcing environmental legislation against BC Hydro.
BC Hydro realized that customer expectations had shifted and the company was no longer “being
a good corporate citizen” (p. 1010). The company understood that the days of ecological
destruction for economic progress had passed, and that as “society’s relations with the
environment changed,” the company’s would have to evolve as well (p. 1010). The company
hired “innovative and enlightened individuals” that became champions of the environmentally
conscious strategic plans, advocating the case to convince the leadership positions to transform
the company (p. 1010). In the attempts to economically justify a change in strategy, the inability
to estimate costs of inaction (i.e., increasing regulation and loss of autonomy) led BC Hydro to
realize that proactive action was more cost-effective (p. 1010). The eventual collaboration of the
company and governmental agencies led to reviews of current practices and generation of
different approaches.
However, in 1995, BC Hydro applied to expand generation at a plant. With pressure from
interest groups, the government approved BC Hydro to proceed as long as an “operating plan”

was incorporated in the study of the facility’s expansion (p. 1011). The operating plan, later
named the Water Use Plan (WUP), was agreed upon by a wide variety of stakeholders (e.g., local
and national governments, and the company) through a collaborative decision-making process
that led to “mutually acceptable solutions” (p. 1011). With a wide breadth of Hydro’s facilities
facing similar pressures from the government, the WUP solution for the current expansion was
mandated for all facilities, leading to the institutionalization of the change in operating the
facilities.
Policy Window. Scodanibbio’s (2011) historical analysis process was a synthesis of
Kingdon’s (1984) Multiple Streams Framework and Lober’s (1997) Collaboration Forming
Model. Kingdon’s (1984) Multiple Streams consists of: an identified problem, a policy (i.e., the
solution), and the political climate. Upon intersection, the streams create what is known as a
policy window in which a shift or policy change occurs. Scodanibbio’s (2011) approach also
incorporates Lober’s (1997) contribution of the organizational stream, in which an organization
outside government (i.e., private sector) develops new considerations and seeks to improve
“corporate behavior” (p. 1007).
Scodannibbio (2011) found that when the dam’s problem was linked to a plausible policy
solution during a window of opportunity (social, political, and economic context) the
organization’s changing corporate behaviors produced the program. Ultimately, a “more
progressive government, the growth of the environmental movement, and new approaches [i.e.,
solutions]” to complex resource decisions provided for the adoption of the program (p. 1006).
The steps towards adoption included:
1. Creating short-term wins through successful pilot projects (i.e., the first WUP for the
initial expansion request),

2. Developing buy-in through guiding coalitions (i.e., the interest groups),
3. Institutionalizing the change and providing financial resources to compensate for
foregone power (i.e., the establishment of WUP for all facilities and a governmental fund
to cover losses),
4. Forming a strategic vision through visionary leaders (i.e., new hires at BC Hydro),
5. And creating urgency by establishing an immediate need for a solution (given British
Columbia’s extensive reliance on hydro-facilities for power and the conflict with flow
constraints).
Figure 4. Illustrates Scodanibbio’s (2011) synthesis of historical contexts leading to a policy
window and the organizational-change factors (e.g., urgency and vision) that created an
institutionalized response (i.e., the creation of the WUP) (p. 1013).
Ultimately, Scodanibbio (2011) found that change occurs through the participation of
“visionary leaders that champion issues; resources; […] financial incentives […]; and lastly, an

element of chance,” i.e., “the opening of a policy window, or the grasping of the opportunity
provided by it” (p. 1013). Although the BC Hydro case is an attempt to address the ecological
damage to waterways and animal habitats, the issue at hand is similar to that of the proposed
study: an issue arises, old operating procedures offer no solution, new options for addressing the
issues become available, and processes that reinforce a change in paradigm are instituted.
The intent of this synthesis is to combine the pure research aspect of comparative theories
with the applied characteristic of organizational-change theory. Essentially, a case study audit of
successful change operations will be delineated to generate a problem-solving change process
that can be utilized to understand how change in renewable-energy adoption has occurred, as
well as how organizations can engender the success of the change in the future.
Aspen, Colorado
Community Demographics
The City of Aspen serves as the county seat of Pitkin County, located about 160 miles
southwest of Denver. As of the 2010 U.S. Census, Pitkin County had a population of over 16,000
people and is continuously growing (“Pitkin County: At a Glance,” n.d.). Aspen is the first city
is the state of Colorado (and third in the country) to run on 100% renewable energy (Robbie,
2015).
Cultural.
Within Aspen’s City Council priority list is a set of guidelines. One of these guidelines
reads to “Make decisions based on 30-year vision” (“Top Ten Goals,” n.d.). Additionally, as a
fairly geographically secluded municipality the City has always been interested in locally owned
and operated energy-generation facilities; most pointedly, for the co-benefits of a local back-up
power option (energy security) and environmental benefit.

Political. The city of Apsen, and Pitkin County, have historically voted for and elected
Democratic legislators. (“Pitkin County Elections,” n.d.). The five County Commissioners (Patti
Clapper, Rachel Richards, Michael Owsley, Steve Child, and George Newman) all won on
Democratic tickets. The City of Aspen’s City Council (Steve Skadron, Adam Frisch, Art Daily,
Ann Mullins, and Bert Myrin) is also elected but in a non-partisan election. However, the State
legislators of Aspen fall in Colorado House District 61, which is currently being served by
Democrat Millie Hamner, and was previously served by Democrat Christine Scanlan. Aspen also
falls in Senate District 5, which is currently being served by Democrat Kerry Donovan (2015-),
who was preceded by Democrat Gail Schwartz (2007-2015). Therefore, an educated guess would
suggest that a Council elected by a similar constituency would reflect similar values.
Economic. Aspen’s median household income is higher than the state’s ($66,635 and
$59,448, respectively). Pitkin County has a per-capita income of $64,381, making it the fourth-
highest of all counties in the United States, and the cost of living index is extremely high
(192.61). (“Pitkin County: At a Glance,” n.d.; Aspen City, 2016). With year-round arts, cultural,
and recreational events, tourism is the anchor of the local economy. Ninety-six percent of the
population has a high school education, with almost 60% having a college education.
Institutional. In 2007, Aspen’s City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan. This plan
serves as the community’s RPS and commits Aspen to reducing emissions “30% by 2020 and
80% by 2050, below 2000 levels” (“Canary Initiative,” n.d.). In addition to the Canary Initiative,
the City of Aspen hosts several other green initiatives such as the Aspen ZGreen (a program that
offers resources to citizens and visitors to reduce their environmental impact), a recycling
program (that promotes recycling as well as waste reduction), and a utility-efficiency program
(that offers rebates, incentives, information, and energy audits); these programs and initiatives

were made possible by a Council that dedicated funding to the appropriate resources. The
Council recounted the longstanding commitment of the community to protect the environment
and supported progressive policies because of the threat that global warming poses to the quality
of life in Aspen, as well as the global community. Additionally, several of the current City
Council’s Top 10 Priorities are environmentally focused (“Top Ten Goals,” n.d.).
Municipal Energy
The City of Aspen has been a member of the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska’s
(MEAN) power pool since 1982 and began receiving power in 1984. Previously Aspen had met
its electricity demand through locally owned hydroelectric facilities (Ruedi and Maroon Creek)
and purchased its additional power from a private company (now Xcel Energy) and Western
Area Power Administration (WAPA) (P. Overeynder, personal communication, August 23,
2016).
Renewable Energy Adoption. Aspen, Colorado has historically been in support of
renewable energy production, with a significant portion (75%) of the City’s capacity being met
by hydro-generation and wind contracts prior to the pursuit of 100% renewable energy initiative.
However, in the 1990s the City Council established a goal of reaching 100% renewable
electricity for the city-owned utility by 2015. At that time, the goal was not institutionalized, but
was rather a vision that the City Council desired for the long-term benefit of the community.
The Council directive in the 1990s led to the establishment in 2005 of the Canary
Initiative as an arm of the City’s Environmental Health department and to five new job positions.
The local economy was mildly affected by the Great Recession in the 2000s; however, it was the
environmentally minded community that led to the renewable energy pursuits. The Canary
Initiative was aptly named, as Aspen, a “High alpine mountain town,” sees “the effects of

climate change before many other places,” making it the canary of the mineshaft “for global
climate impacts” (“About Us,” n.d.). This department then created the Climate Action Plan,
which was adopted by the City Council in 2007, which created written documentation on the
community’s dedication to climate action.
With the Council’s direction to reach 100% renewables, internal staff drafted potential
projects that could contribute to the City’s capacity level. Two of these potential facilities were
the Castle Creek Energy Center and the Ridgway Reservoir. In 2012, the City decided to actively
pursue the first of these facilities, as it was locally sited. However, as the City began work on the
initiative, interest groups in opposition to the facility became vocal. In order to mitigate the
concerns of local citizens, the City funded third-party investigations that found that the facility
would not have a negative effect on the stream. However, a mass media campaign with extensive
funding (including the Koch brothers) began dominating the conversation. After a year of the
campaign the Council decided to ask the public for an advisory vote on whether to proceed with
the project (Best, 2013). When the results came back 51 to 49 against, the Council did not vote to
establish the facility.
Although the local facility was seemingly defeated, for the time, the City still maintained
its determination to reach 100% renewables by 2015. Therefore, staff began to pursue the second
facility at Ridgway Reservoir. Without the opposition of interest groups, with the economic
feasibility of the project, and with the dedication of Council and staff, Aspen worked with the
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association to have the facility built and receive half of
the power produced, with the opportunity to purchase more or even own the facility in the future.
The facility also produced several regional jobs.

With an impending deadline, Aspen began pursuing power-purchase agreements with its
current provider, MEAN, to make up the difference. Again, Aspen had a history of pursuing
renewable energy, which in the case of MEAN had meant previous negotiations for a larger
share of the power pool’s hydro-electricity from Western Area Power Administration (WAPA).
However, by this time the City had maximized the allocation available from WAPA. Therefore,
staff had to persuade MEAN’s membership (60+ individuals) to invest in wind-generation
facilities, when a majority of their portfolio and investments were in coal-fired infrastructure.
Aspen’s staff worked diligently to arrange terms with MEAN that allow the City to produce and
purchase over half (53.4%) of the annual electricity locally; this figure does not include the
additional 2% allowed for behind the meter.
In 2015, Aspen reached its vision of 100% renewable energy (46% hydroelectric, 53%
wind power, 1% landfill gas) through a series of power-purchase agreements with MEAN. The
City continues to advocate for the transition with messages like the following:
The City of Aspen strives to be an environmental leader and to promote
environmental stewardship throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, across the state
of Colorado, and around the globe. We recognize Aspen’s dependence on climate
and natural resources for a thriving economy, healthy ecosystems and exceptional
quality of life (“Current Projects & Programs,” n.d.).
During the first year of 100% renewable energy adoption, Aspen saw a total increase of
only $215,000 in energy costs. None of these costs led to an increase in customer rates, and
Aspen still maintains the sixth-lowest rates in the state.

In addition to continuing marketing for the Climate Action Plan and running the
previously mentioned sustainability programs, the City through the Canary Action Team has also
institutionalized inventories to measure progress of the initiatives. For example, a community
greenhouse-gas emissions inventory is updated every three years to track progress from the 2004
baseline, to the 2020 goal, and on. Additionally, the City has established internal emissions
mandates (2% reductions a year), and tracks the progress through a separate system; between
2004 and 2014 it reached a reduction of 42%, 12% more than the target. The City also sustains
an internal “Green Team” that engages employees in events and educational opportunities
centered on environmental topics. The City is also a member of the Mountain Pact, “a group of
mountain communities working together to address the impact of climate change,” and supports
the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which aims to “create the political will for climate solutions by
enabling individual breakthroughs in the exercise of personal and political power” (“Current
Projects & Programs,” n.d; Citizens’ Climate Lobby, n.d.). The Canary Initiative is also a
member of the Roaring Fork Climate Alliance with local non-profits that work together on
climate issues. Lastly, in 2016 the City released the first Sustainability Report, comprehensively
outlining the City’s progress, and invited dialogue on sustainability matters for the community
(“Sustainability report,” n.d.).
In summation, the affluent City of Aspen transitioned to 100% renewable energy sources
by 2015 through a series of institutional mechanisms established by a City Council with a
dedicated vision for the long-term sustainability of the community and collective stewardship for
the global economy. Short-term wins were established through successful negotiations with
MEAN and the City, and with a large liberal constituency and political makeup, organized and
funded a department that implemented policies (RPS) and programs (incentives) that pursued

renewable energy sources regardless of opposition from well-positioned interest groups and
fluctuations in the economy (A. Perl, personal communication, August 17, 2016).
Fort Morgan, Colorado
Community Demographics
The City of Fort Morgan serves as the county seat of Morgan County, located about 80
miles northeast of Denver. Morgan County’s population grew rapidly in the ‘90s but has
plateaued around 28,000 since 2010 (“Morgan County,” 2016). The population is projected to
grow steadily in the next 15 years, with in-migration of young families, and retention of residents
over 70 years of age. However, this growth will be heavily dependent on services provided by
the County and City.
Cultural. Around 52% of the population identifies as white or Caucasian, 40% identify
as Hispanic or Latino, and 5.6% identifying as either black or African American (Connect Fort
Morgan, Comprehensive Plan). This unique mixture of cultures is generally an effect of the
employment options provided by local industries, including Cargill’s meat packing plant. With
26 different languages and dialects spoken in the local school district, Fort Morgan is the most
diverse city in the state of Colorado (Dodge, 2015).
Political. The partisanship of local legislators is as to be expected for a small, rural
community. All three of Morgan County’s commissioners, Brian McCracken, Laura Teague, and
Jim Zwetzig, are Republicans. Additionally, although the City Council elections are non-
partisan, my experience with former (Terry McAlister, Brent Nation, Joe Segura Jr, Debra
Forstedt, and Scoot Bryan) and current (Ron Shaver, Lisa Northrup, Christine Castoe, Dan

Marler, Kevin Lindell, and Clint Anderson) Council members has led to me to infer that a
majority, if not all, of these legislators also have a conservative political leaning.
In terms of State legislators, Fort Morgan falls in Colorado House District 65, which is
currently served by Republican John Becker, and was previously served by Republican Jerry
Sonnenberg and Republican Diane Hoppe before that. Fort Morgan also falls in Colorado Senate
District 1, which is currently served by Republican Jerry Sonnenberg, who was preceded by both
Republican Greg Brophy and Mark Hillman before that.
Economic. The County’s median household income is $46,223, which is significantly
lower than the State’s ($59,448). This difference is mainly due to the lower wages associated
with “agriculture and government jobs, alongside fewer higher wage professional service jobs”
(“Morgan County,” 2016). Additionally, the cost of living is lower than the State’s (94.92 and
100, respectively). The aging population is set to “put downward pressure on local government
tax revenue due to changes in spending on taxable goods” (“Morgan County,” 2016).
While the Great Recession did not heavily affect the County, since 2011 the expanding
workforce has come mainly from construction, agriculture, manufacturing, and mining. The base
industries in the County consist mainly of agriculture and producing of animals and animal
products. In 2015, the average weekly wage in the County was 26% lower than the statewide
average ($767 and $1,042, respectively). More than a quarter (26%) of the population holds less
than a high school education, almost one third (32%) are high school graduates, with about 7%
holding bachelor’s degrees (Connect Fort Morgan, Comprehensive Plan).
Institutional. The City of Fort Morgan does not currently have, nor has it in its traceable
history had, institutional mechanisms that promote the adoption of renewable energy. The City
has never implemented an RPS, nor has it created programs that incentivize either renewable

energy (e.g., favorable rate structures) or energy conservation (e.g., lightbulb exchange
programs). Additionally, the City Council has never prioritized, nor budgeted for, increased
funding for issues surrounding renewable electricity generation or sustainability. Lastly, I am the
only member of the City’s leadership team that is interested in a renewable-energy production
facility for environmental reasons.
Municipal Energy Provider
The City of Fort Morgan has been a member of the Municipal Energy Agency of
Nebraska’s (MEAN) power pool since the early 1980s in a series of long-term power-purchase
agreements. Previous to that, records lead the City Attorney to conclude that the City was in a
series of short-term power-supply agreements with other Nebraska-based power pools since the
closing of Fort Morgan’s power plant in the early 1950s (J. Meyers, personal communication,
August 12, 2016).
Failed Hydropower Facility. Beginning in 2010, a single member of the Fort Morgan
City Council, Jim Powers, was avidly recommending that city staff pursue a hydro-electric
power-generating facility on a pressure-reducing vault on the pipeline that supplies the City its
water supply. Jim Powers was known to be a “hardcore Republican,” and his motivation was
two-fold. First, the City’s water-treatment plant was outside of the city limits, and the power
supply was coming from the local rural electric association (REA). The prices for the electric
supply were much higher than those of the City; therefore, Jim hoped that during negotiations of
the facility, the energy produced could be utilized to offset the electrical costs for the City’s
plant. Secondly, Jim was privy to the large financial paybacks that hydro-power facilities
contributed to previous projects on the same pipeline (owned by Northern Water).

Jim’s reasoning did not imply pursuit for environmental reasons, but rather economic
reasons. However, his history of community involvement has always expressed a long-term
planning perspective. After continuous remarks by him, city staff began discussions with
Northern Water, the owner of the pipeline, for a feasibility report on a hydro-facility. The
requirement to work in conjunction with both Northern Water and the local REA created a
serious of institutional blocks to the process. At that time, the City had not established an RPS in
any form, nor did it offer incentive programs or directives to pursue sustainability. In meetings
between city staff and the REA, short-term opportunities were presented by the City Manager of
the time, including selling the City’s electric utility in its entirety to the REA for a quick profit.
The lack of a coalition pursuing the objective, or considering the long-term sustainability of the
system, continued to create obstacles to the pursuit of the facility. There were neither community
groups nor staff members advocating for the construction of the facility.
The City’s economy was generally unaffected, either positively or negatively, by the
Great Recession, because of its heavy dependence on agriculture and industry; therefore, the
migrant workforce was relatively unchanged, maintaining the City’s historically lower
socioeconomic status. In the time of uncertain economic environments, the Council retained a
very conservative approach to budgeting capital projects and shied away from projects that were
not articulated as necessary. This stance led Northern Water to fund the feasibility study with no
contributions from either the City or the REA. Additionally, the Council maintained the City’s
level of dependence and self-sufficiency, with little interest in the impacts of other entities.
Completed in 2012, the feasibility study recommended that the facility, which would not create
new jobs, be postponed till the power-purchase rate of the energy produced increased about one
cent in order for the facility’s revenues to substantiate the costs of construction. After

presentation of the findings, the study remained filed amongst the Director of Utilities’ files,
until research for this project began.
In summation, a fiscally conservative Council gave little direction (i.e., only one council
member had genuine interest), or dedication of funding, to pursuing the proposed hydro-facility.
The facility, which would have limited effects on the local stagnant economy, lacked interest
groups supporting the cause; with no sense of urgency or vision for what the project could do for
the community, steps to implement change were not pursued.
Current Renewable Energy Project. In 2012, a private developer, Joe, approached the
County Commissioners about deploying a waste-to-energy facility in Morgan County. The
facility would require waste contracts with Morgan County as well as Washington and Logan
counties. Joe had decided upon Morgan County because of the publicly owned landfill. As a
public body, the County does not run a profit on the landfill and was therefore more amenable to
lowering the load of waste received; in contrast to a private business’ incentive to take in as
much waste as possible to increase profits. After a few initial meetings, the commissioners of the
counties involved recognized the fiscal savings and benefits of the project to the local
community, e.g., reduction of waste extending the useful life of the landfill without further costs
for mitigation of regulated emissions or increasing capacity. At this time the County invited city
officials (notably the City Manager) to begin attending discussions of the project. Initially, the
County invited staff, believing that the City could operate the facility to contribute to its
electrical load; the County was unaware that the City had purchased power rather than producing
it locally.
Upon receiving more information about the potential project, the City Manager became
more interested in the opportunity to offset costs with MEAN, the City’s power provider. During

Renewable Energy Adoption for Colorado Municipalities

Renewable Energy Adoption for Colorado Municipalities

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (18)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (16)

Ähnlich wie Renewable Energy Adoption for Colorado Municipalities

Ähnlich wie Renewable Energy Adoption for Colorado Municipalities (20)

Renewable Energy Adoption for Colorado Municipalities