Gov. Jared Polis’ path to zero-emission energy for Colorado is really a yellow brick road. Not only is its goal an Oz-like fantasy but it also is so costly, it might as well be paved in gold.

An in-depth news report by The Gazette this week on the governor’s green-energy agenda sheds new light on the hefty costs of relying entirely on renewable energy rather than charting a more realistic course for Colorado.

The Gazette report looks at an analysis commissioned by the Polis administration’s energy office in April, which makes clear the governor’s preference for wind and solar power is the priciest approach to reducing carbon emissions. To bring down its cost substantially, the analysis considers an alternative scenario that incorporates our state’s clean-burning, plentiful natural gas — resulting in only a nominal increase in carbon emissions.

That’s a buzz kill for dogma-driven, green-energy hard-liners. But it also strongly suggests even the governor’s administration might be looking for wiggle room on its ambitions of zero carbon emissions for power generation in Colorado by 2040. And if the administration really is open to such smarter approaches — its public statements on the subject have been vague and at times self-contradictory — it would offer a new sign of hope for Colorado consumers.

As reported by The Gazette, the April analysis conducted for the administration by Ascend Analytics — “Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in Colorado’s Electric Sector by 2040” — finds that reliance solely on wind and solar power, with battery backup, “is the most expensive scenario” of seven emissions-reduction options examined. The analysis notes, “the amount of solar and storage capacity required to maintain reliability drives the cost up substantially.”

“…The most efficient pathway to a carbon free grid in 2040,” the Ascend analysis finds, is one that uses “a substantial amount of clean hydrogen and a modest amount of geothermal to complement wind, solar and batteries.” That compromise is fully 15% cheaper than attempting to rely on wind and solar power only.

And Colorado energy ratepayers could save a lot more still, the analysis finds — if only elected leaders would relent on the technologically dubious and economically unrealistic goal of eliminating fossil fuel use in power generation by 2040.

Under that scenario, the state would continue to allow the use of gas-fired power generation “to provide firm capacity and backup generation,” the Ascend analysis explains. About 71% of the electricity generated in that approach would come from in-state wind and solar power; 17% would come from out-of-state imports of “near zero-emissions electricity,” and the rest would be Colorado natural gas.

The natural gas is critical because it is reliable and would drive “base load” energy generation that is vital to keeping power flowing on the state’s energy grid amid what the study characterizes as “times of high energy use or extreme system stress.”

It also would be fully 30% cheaper than imperiling the state’s grid with the exclusive use of less reliable wind and solar power, the Ascend study indicates, affording Colorado “the lowest cost path” to what the study still views as “deep decarbonization.”


Might our governor and his fellow green-energy visionaries eventually come around to the wisdom of that approach or something similar — as deadlines loom for the costly and highly problematic renewables only goal? Whether it would require regulatory or statutory change to ease up on the current agenda, rank-and-file consumers would be grateful.

Sure, Polis would have to yield just a little to fossil fuels. Perhaps, he could view it as a concession to reality.