31 documented community energy projects with verifiable data — including the three that cannot be placed on a map and the one with exploding batteries. A USD $1 billion pipeline is not judged by its successes.
Real projects
The map, with its caveats placed on top
Pin color = project status. Pin shape and opacity = location precision. Click any pin to see capacity, beneficiaries, operator, financing, and reported problems
No pin on this map is an exact location
Zero of the 31 projects have site coordinates. All positions were
geocoded from the municipality or village name stated in the source. A
municipal centroid is defensible; rooftop precision would be a fabrication. That is why approximate
pins are drawn translucent and dotted, municipal-precision pins are drawn as an
area rather than a point, and the legend says so in plain language.
Three projects do not appear on the map at all — they do not have a single
defensible centroid. They are listed below the map so they are not silently erased.
Source: assets/data/proyectos.json, built from
Research_Colombian_Projects.md and Research_Colombian_Operators.md. The 5 archetypes from
the research are not on the map: they are "indicative estimates," meaning modeling,
not projects — you can simulate them further below. Capacity units vary by project (kWp, kW, kVA,
MWp, MW) and are never homogenized: Coqui declares 101 kVA (apparent power), Puerto
Cachicamo 110.3 kW. Beneficiary units also vary — families, households, dwellings,
students, people, communities, islanders, inhabitants, users — and are not converted to households either.
The three projects not on the map
Project
Declared location
Status
Why it cannot be located
Embera Resguardos in Choco (UNDP/UARIV)
Carmen de Atrato and Unguia, Choco
Under construction
Four resguardos (indigenous reserves — La Puria, Consuelo Parte Baja, Citara, and Ziparado de Tanela) in two distant municipalities. No single defensible centroid. Collective reparation program: 40 panel units for over 6,000 victims of the conflict from Embera Chami and Embera Katio communities. Capacity not stated.
Ecoparcelas — Asociacion Atucsara
Cauca (no municipality specified)
Operational
The source locates the project only at the department level. A food and energy sovereignty model active since 1994, with over 250 families: 15 completed eco-plots and 15 additional ones expected, combining solar with agroecology. Capacity not stated.
Soling del Sinu — Caribbean Island Microgrids
Bolivar and Cordoba (three islands)
Technical problems
Isla Fuerte, Isla Mucura, and Santa Cruz del Islote: three distinct and distant islands with no single centroid. Batteries exploded in Mucura in October 2023; the Santa Cruz del Islote system has collapsed. 10-year operation contract signed in September 2022. Neither capacity nor total beneficiaries stated.
Failures are also in the data
This dataset deliberately preserves what went wrong, because on a due-diligence page
it is the most valuable content there is:
Soling del Sinu — batteries exploded in Mucura (October 2023), Santa Cruz del Islote system collapsed.
Isla Grande — operational, but with unresolved technical failures.
Bahia Malaga — inaugurated in May 2025 with reported problems.
Capurgana/Acandi — the source does not state the project's operational status. It is shown as status not documented, not as operational.
This is exactly the pattern the research anticipates: battery replacement is the primary risk
of the ZNI off-grid archetype, and "post-inauguration O&M abandonment" is cataloged
with medium probability and high impact. These four cases are not anecdotal exceptions — they are
field evidence of a risk the model mitigates with a revolving fund from day 1, a professional
O&M contract for the first 3 years, and SENA certification for local technicians.
A pipeline is not judged by its successes
31 documented projects in 16 departments, 22 operational, from a USD $1 billion+ pipeline identified across over 400 evaluated projects. Only 10% is investment-ready and 45% is concept stage — and that distribution is the Venture Builder's reason for existing, not a problem to hide.
Simulator
The five investment archetypes
Select an archetype to preload parameters and keep editing any slider. Presets are a starting point, not a lock
What this simulator calculates — and what it does not
The two IRR figures it returns are project IRRs: the return on the
energy savings the community no longer pays to the grid or to diesel. That avoided expenditure is the entire
cash flow. They are not the institutional investor IRR, which is
8-12% (14-18% with 50-60% FENOGE co-financing) on a completely
different basis — see the reconciliation of
both bases.
"With FENOGE" and "without FENOGE," never "without co-financing." Both IRRs you see are
calculated after the Ley 1715 tax incentives, and the only difference
between them is FENOGE co-financing. That is why the second one says "without FENOGE." The
"without co-financing" figure from the archetype table further below measures a different thing on a different basis and
should not be compared with this one.
A three-digit return here is not an error. For the ZNI archetype, the
research itself reports a project IRR of >100% "due to the magnitude of diesel savings".
When a community stops burning COP $400M per year in fuel, the return on savings is
indeed enormous. That does not mean an investor receives 100%.
If incentives exceed the net investment, the simulator writes "Immediate return," not a number.
If the IRR is mathematically undefined, it writes "n/a." It never invents a figure to fill the gap.
The presets do not reproduce the research's archetype table
They are two distinct sets of figures and this must be stated before someone tries to reconcile them:
Parameters differ. The ZNI archetype CAPEX/Wp is COP $16,800/Wp in the
research — including batteries and a +40% extreme logistics premium — and COP $5,500/Wp in the preset. The
Rural PDET irradiation is 5.0 in the research and 4.8 in the preset; ZNI is 3.8
(Pacific) and 5.5 in the preset.
The calculation basis differs. The research calculates on net or
gross investment without applying the tax package; this simulator calculates on the effective
cost, after FENOGE and the 36.5% from Ley 1715.
That is why the simulator will not return the 28-40% or the 8-12% from the table below, and
it should not. Neither series is derived from the other. The simulator presets come from
the site's build contract; the table, from Investment_Pillar_Expanded.md §17.
Both are published without blending them into an average that would mean nothing.
A note about the name "irradiation"
The original specification for these presets had a key irr: 4.8. Read against the
formulas, that 4.8 is irradiation in kWh/m2/day — not a 4.8% internal rate of return.
The key was renamed to irradiacion precisely because it collided with the calculated IRR,
and a 4.8% return where a solar data point should be is exactly the kind of error
nobody catches until it is already in a deck.
Payback under one year
If an archetype returns a payback period in months, suspect the model before the
project: without O&M cost, the ZNI archetype yielded 0.79 years. The 2% annual O&M —
documented in the research as "O&M reserve (2% CAPEX)" and "annual OPEX (~2% CAPEX)" —
is included here for precisely that reason. One research archetype places it at ~1%, so
it is a parameter, not a constant.
Research comparative table
Parameter
Rural PDET
Peri-urban
ZNI
Agricultural
Public
Capacity
100 kWp
300 kWp
50 kWp + batteries
500 kWp
200 kWp
CAPEX
COP $720M
COP $1,400M
COP $840M
COP $2,400M
COP $1,080M
CAPEX/Wp
COP $7,200
COP $4,667
COP $16,800
COP $4,800
COP $5,400
Project IRR (with co-fin.)
28-40%
25-35%
>100%
30-45%
35-55%
Project IRR (without co-fin.)
8-12%
14-18%
Negative
12-16%
12-16%
Payback (with co-fin.)
2.2-2.9 years
2.5-3.1 years
<1 year
2.0-2.7 years
1.4-2.2 years
Primary risk
Security in conflict zones
Household payment delinquency
Extreme logistics, battery replacement
Cooperative governance, agricultural prices
Administrative complexity, change of administration
Key funder
FENOGE / OCAD Paz
FENOGE / private
IPSE
Green banking
FENOGE / SGR
Real-world reference
Sol de Perija; Energia para la Paz
Barranquilla; La Estrecha
Coqui/Nuqui; Puerto Cachicamo
Ecoparcelas Atucsara; Natagaima
ConEnergia FENOGE
Source: Investment_Pillar_Expanded.md §17. The IRR rows are project IRRs
calculated on the research basis (net or gross investment, without the tax package applied)
— they are not the institutional investor IRR (8-12%) and do not match the outputs of the simulator
above, which uses a different basis. The ZNI "without co-fin." row says "Negative" and the payback row says "<1 year":
the source does not give a number, and one is not invented.
The research itself warns that the archetypes' financial estimates are indicative
and must be validated with detailed engineering and local quotations for each project.
Success stories
It already works. Six times
The barrier is not technical or regulatory. It is one of scale, execution capacity, and capital — exactly what a Venture Builder solves
Medellin, Antioquia · 2020
La Estrecha
The genesis of the movement. Colombia's first grid-connected energy community, in the
El Salvador neighborhood: EPM, Universidad EIA, ERCO, and NEU with UK support. The
only community in the country with a legalized grid connection and
commercial boundaries registered with XM. The source states the number of panels, not the system's
capacity — so kWp is not stated.
24families
43panels on 3 rooftops
74%high satisfaction
Jamundi, Valle del Cauca
Bocas del Palo
The first energy community in Colombia's Pacific region and the most direct precedent for the model:
70% FENOGE co-financing + 30% Celsia, 30-year loan-for-use agreement, Celsia O&M for the first 2 years.
The Afro-Colombian Community Council manages the surplus —
COP $13.5M already transferred. Agrivoltaic array with vegetable cultivation under the
panels: the productive dimension that adds food sovereignty to the investment case.
101.4kWp agrivoltaic
115families
53%bill reduction
Inirida, Guainia
Sol de Inirida
The largest solar plant in the Non-Interconnected Zones and the first project-financed
installation in a ZNI, funded by Bancolombia. Supplies 22% of the municipality's energy
consumption and eliminated over 1 million liters of diesel per year. Proof that a ZNI project can be
structured with commercial banking, not only subsidies. The source does not state beneficiaries.
2.49MWp
7,560panels on 3.5 ha
22%of municipal consumption
Cartagena, Bolivar · with pending failures
Isla Grande
The direct legal precedent: operations are managed by Comunidad Energetica Orika
Isla Grande S.A.S. E.S.P. — an energy community constituted as a company, with the
community council as co-owner. This is the SAS + community association structure, already
functioning. Before, diesel generators ran 4 hours per night. Over 20 islanders
SENA-certified. Unresolved technical failures reported.
544.5kWp (900 panels)
392dwellings
1,929kWh in batteries
Nuqui, Choco · December 2024
Coqui
From intermittent diesel to 24/7 service in the Pacific. High unit cost —
COP $53.6M per household (~USD $13,400) — but the economic value created justifies it:
elimination of diesel expenses, nighttime economic activity, ecotourism, and women-led
entrepreneurship. The source states 101 kVA (apparent power, not
kWp): the unit is preserved as-is.
101kVA solar
88households
430kWh in batteries
Fonseca, La Guajira · November 2025
Sol de Perija
First battery energy storage system within a community generation model in
Colombia, with SCADA module. Funded by a USD $8.49 million donation from the
Government of Korea via KIAT — international cooperation validating the model at a significant
scale for a single community. Benefits peace-accord signatories at the AETCR Pondores reintegration site. Shared
community storage is viable when the cost is spread across 200+ families — unlike
residential batteries, which the Medellin P2P pilot found unviable for low-income prosumers.
1MW solar
6.2MWh in batteries
200+families
The seven consolidated lessons
The technical model works: La Estrecha demonstrated grid connection; Isla Grande, the solar-diesel-battery hybrid; Bocas del Palo, agrivoltaics.
Community demand is real: from 24 families in La Estrecha to 2,000 in Cali, communities participate when the financial barrier is lowered.
Savings are tangible and measurable: from 7% (P2P Medellin) to 60% (Cuadras Energeticas Barrancabermeja) and up to 100% (Cali, COP $0).
International cooperation flows: Korea USD $8.49M, USAID USD $13M, MAF/GGGI EUR $16.8M+, Journey Fund USD $100M.
FENOGE co-financing works: 70% in Bocas del Palo, 50-60% in mass programs, COP $349,375M budgeted for 500 communities.
The legal structure exists: SAS E.S.P. (Isla Grande), community associations (Bocas del Palo), direct international cooperation (Sol de Perija).
The primary risk is not technical: it is one of scale, execution capacity, and capital mobilization.
There are the savings that drive the project IRR
1,664 localities in Non-Interconnected Zones cover ~52% of the territory, with 1.83 million inhabitants in deficient service. Their energy matrix is 78% diesel and only 22% renewable. When a community stops burning hundreds of millions per year in fuel, the ZNI archetype's return on savings exceeds 100% — documented, not a model artifact.
Pipeline
Where each dollar of the pipeline sits
Only 10% is investment-ready. 45% is concept stage. That distribution is the Venture Builder's reason for existing, not a problem to hide
Pipeline distribution by stage
These are pipeline percentages, not project counts or dollar amounts. The source gives the
percentage breakdown and does not detail how many projects or how many dollars are in each stage; that is why the
funnel is in percentage, not in units. The conversions shown in the tooltip are the
ratio between stages, not conversion rates measured over time — nobody has followed a cohort
of projects through these four stages. Base: the USD $1 billion+ pipeline identified by CTH
across over 400 evaluated projects.
Project type
Typical capacity
Identified opportunities
Investment range each
Rural PDET communities
50-200 kWp
High (170 PDET municipalities)
USD $100K - $300K
Peri-urban communities with PPA
200-500 kWp
Medium-high
USD $200K - $600K
ZNI off-grid microgrids
20-100 kWp + batteries
Medium (1,664 ZNI localities)
USD $150K - $500K
Existing agricultural cooperatives
200-1,000 kWp
Medium
USD $300K - $1M
Municipal public buildings
100-300 kWp
High (1,060+ EcoEscuelas schools)
USD $150K - $400K
Community solar farms (GDC)
1-5 MWp
Low-medium
USD $1M - $5M
The "identified opportunities" column is qualitative in the source (high,
medium-high, medium, low-medium). It is not converted to a number: the counts in parentheses are the
reference universe — PDET municipalities, ZNI localities, schools — not the number of evaluated
opportunities. Source: Investment_Pillar_Expanded.md §3.
Priority 1 · Caribbean
La Guajira: the country's maximum irradiation (5.5-6.0+ kWh/m2/day); 1,409 Wayuu
families already served in Miichi Ka'i; 160 communities in Manaure. Atlantico: Barranquilla with up to 14 MWp approved for ~10,000 stratum 1-2 households
(FENOGE + MinEnergia). Phase 1 under construction: 2 farms of ~1 MW each. Sucre / Bolivar / Cordoba: FENOGE farms in San Antonio de Palmito and Arroyohondo;
ZOMAC municipalities. Cesar: Erco projects; Korean cooperation in Sol de Perija.
Priority 2 · Andean axis
Antioquia: energy startup ecosystem (43% of the country is in Medellin);
the country's first regulated community (Laureles); EPM/Comfama projects. Valle del Cauca: Bocas del Palo operational; Hogares Sostenibles program
EMCALI/Cali for 2,000 families, with COP $36,800M invested and bill reductions from 48% to
100%. Tolima: 6 Erco plants with COP $18,000M financing from Banco de Bogota.
Priorities 3 and 4 · PDET and ZNI
Peace territories (PDET): 170 municipalities in 16 subregions, with over
COP $700,000M invested in electrification and 48,000+ families already connected (target: 72,000+).
ENTerritorio structures 24,754 PV solutions for COP $544,588M via OCAD Paz. Non-Interconnected Zones (ZNI): 1,664 localities covering ~52% of the territory, with
1.83 million inhabitants in deficient service. ZNI installed capacity: 335,271 kW, of which
78% is diesel and only 22% renewable. There are the savings that make the ZNI project IRR
exceed 100%.
The pipeline is not the diligence
Seven risk categories, 20 cataloged risks with their probability and impact, and a 55-item checklist that saves in your browser.