Elkader's alternative energy projects heading in opposite directions
The Blink EV charging station was one of two alternative energy projects undertaken by Elkader the last few years. Installed in the city lot near the utility pole close to FreedomBank in 2021, the station has been visited just 51 times and currently sits with an “error” message that will require a $1,800 fix. The city council is still weighing its options. (Photo by Willis Patenaude)
By Willis Patenaude | Times-Register
The City of Elkader has made significant investments in alternative energy projects the past three years, including solar panels installed on the water treatment plant and city shop, as well as an electric vehicle (EV) charging station, which were approved by the council in May 2022 and September 2021, respectively.
While both were done with potential benefits in mind, since approval and installation, both have produced drastically different outcomes, with one showing short-term gains and the other continuing a problematic trend since inception.
The EV charging station was a joint venture with the Clayton County Energy District (CCED), which council member Tony Hauber, who approved the project, called a “really efficient investment to support tourism.”
As stated in a CCED Lunch and Learn session in September 2022, a year after the charger was installed in Elkader, a motivation behind the investment was to transition Clayton County from a charging station desert into a destination for EV owners. There was a belief that the presence of a charging station would be economically beneficial.
Exactly how much revenue has been generated as a result of the charger remains anecdotal.
Said Elkader City Administrator Jennifer Cowsert, “If someone stops to recharge in Elkader, then they have a couple of hours to roam around downtown too and shop, eat, make plans to come back and stay, etc.”
The CCED made a similar claim in 2022, related to the fact the charger would be located on Blink’s company charging map and on town maps, and be visible on signs around town, which would help drive tourism.
The CCED claimed another factor was the retention of energy dollars, as well as simply supporting a cleaner environment by reducing carbon footprints, the reliance on foreign oil and reducing tailpipe emissions. This response was echoed by Cowsert in a recent exchange. “I hope it has positively benefited the environment,” though she acknowledged that was not measurable.
Hauber shared a similar sentiment, noting that, while tourism was a “big justifier” for the investment, “We can’t lose sight of the long-term returns from supporting EVs in our local community. More electric vehicles mean fewer emissions in town and less economic reliance on foreign oil prices. Both are good long-term goals to work toward.”
The investment was largely paid for through an Upper Mississippi Gaming Corporation grant, though the city of Elkader paid $3,200 for the electrical hook-up. The charger has been used 51 times since it was installed in 2021, or about 17 times per year, resulting in total revenue of $326.48 received from Blink. However, once taxes and the electric bill the city pays are figured in, the charger has actually cost the city $492.31.
The charger now sits broken with an error message and no one can figure out why.
Cowsert stated, “We don’t know what happened,” while indicating the company informed the city the error message “meant the head had to be replaced,” which would cost $1,800. Simply upgrading the system would also be cost prohibitive, because it would require upgrading the electric at the unit, which would be far more expensive.
The Elkader Council discussed the potential fix, but has yet to reach a decision while they look for funding sources.
Council member Daryl Bruxvoort said he would “consider any initiative” put before the council, including repair of the EV charger, and vote in what he believes “is the best interests both current and future of the citizens of Elkader.”
Hauber admitted the charger has “not lived up to [his] personal expectations,” while still supporting investment in electric vehicles. He suggested that, if the city reinstalled a charger, it should be relocated more centrally downtown. In his estimation, this “might get the results more in line with original expectations.”
On the other side of the coin, the solar panel project has been more successful, especially since the panels are still working. Installed by Eagle Point Solar on the city shop and water treatment plant, the panels came at no cost to the city and have proven to be a positive investment.
Bruxvoort pointed out the investment allows the city to “retain as much energy wealth as possible,” while noting Elkader’s susceptibility to high energy costs and how the “burden falls most disproportionately on the lower income residents,” often with fixed or limited incomes. Bruxvoort believes, “We need to retain as much of that wealth in Clayton County and Elkader as possible.”
This argument was also put forth by Hauber throughout his council tenure, and most recently in an interview, where he noted the impact and opportunity solar has created. Municipalities can produce energy like the state produces corn, he said, white pointing out that, despite this, more than $2 million a year is leaving the economy for energy consumption.
Hauber voted for the solar panel project and pointed out that, though “costs have gone down at incredible rates for the last decade, energy prices have still outpaced inflation in their growth. Instead of that increase in profit going to investors in Madison, it could be used here to support our town and infrastructure, and it would make us more reliant as our energy would require less transmission.”
According to small data samples provided by Cowsert, the solar panel project has alleviated some of the cost. The city shop, for example, provides 18 months worth of data since it went online in January 2023. For fiscal year 2023, the city paid $3,800 for electricity for the street department, while only paying $3,600 in fiscal year 2024.
The water treatment plant went online in May 2023, allowing for one year of data. For the 2024 fiscal year, the city spent $20,284.22 on electricity for the water department, which was $1,190 less than the previous fiscal year.
The solar panels have required little maintenance, which is all paid for by the investor, KMDE, LLC out of Dubuque, and is one reason Hauber asserted “the solar panels are great.”
“The solar panels have reduced our energy burden at no up front cost to us thanks to the use of a power purchase agreement. They have zero maintenance cost to us. They have no drain on our resources,” Hauber said. “I don’t know what math or logic could possibly be applied to say that the solar panels are not worth it.”
Currently, no future alternative energy projects are being discussed, but both Hauber and Bruxvoort would support future endeavors. Hauber consistently points toward the profits made by Guttenberg’s municipal energy corporation as an example, while, on a personal level, Bruxvoort believes “Elkader needs to consider and participate, where economically viable, in the transition to clean energy.”
