When Colorado Governor Jared Polis first proposed his ambitious plan to transition the state to 100 percent renewables by 2040, he painted a picture of a market-driven, cost-effective shift to clean energy. In 2017, then candidate Polis confidently dismissed concerns over the financial burden, emphasizing that his plan would rely on a “bottom-up approach, using market mechanisms” rather than government mandates.
However, seven years later, the reality of his plan starkly contrasts with his original assurances. Independence Institute warned of his vision’s immense financial costs and impracticality, and as it turns out, we were right.
Price tag grows ‘mind-boggling’
From the outset, Polis refused to provide a detailed cost analysis of his plan while simultaneously rejecting Independence Institute’s 2017 projection that the transition could cost $45 billion. Polis insisted our estimates were inflated, and modeled a plan that wasn’t even his. Yet, Polis never offered an alternative figure, saying he just knows it will be less.
Fast forward to 2024, and the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) now acknowledges that wind, solar, and battery storage alone—the primary components of Polis’ renewables strategy—represent the most expensive path to decarbonization, with projected costs ballooning to $61 billion. That figure doesn’t even include transmission costs. Worse yet, even at this exorbitant price driven by a massive build-out of wind, solar, and batteries, the plan “barely meets reliability targets.”
A recent Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) meeting revealed just how astronomical the financial demands have become. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest utility provider, is planning to spend $7.5 billion on new projects by 2029, $43 billion on distribution over the next 20 years, and an additional $38 billion on transmission upgrades. Keep in mind these figures are just for Xcel. Other utilities serving Colorado also will make large investments at a significant cost to ratepayers to comply with Polis’ plan.
PUC Chairman Eric Blank openly admitted that these numbers are “mind-boggling.” Affordability, a supposed pillar of Polis’ approach, is a fantasy as Coloradans face skyrocketing electricity rates to fund these mandates.
Heavy hand of government
Another glaring departure from Polis’s initial vision is his recent embrace of an “all-of-government” approach to decarbonization. In October 2024, his administration released a directive emphasizing a top-down strategy, contradicting his earlier claims that the transition would be primarily a bottom-up, market approach. This shift demonstrates that the economic realities of his plan have forced him to rely on government intervention, subsidies, and mandates rather than the free-market solutions he originally championed.
Independence Institute was right
Throughout this process, Polis and his allies have tried to discredit or dismiss Independence Institute for pointing out the fundamental flaws in a 100 percent renewables plan, but time has vindicated our analysis. Our concerns about cost, reliability, and the impracticality of achieving a fully renewable grid without massive government intervention and huge costs to ratepayers have all been proven correct. Even the Colorado Energy Office’s own findings now align with our early warnings.
Our most recent analysis shows that Coloradans could be forced to pay over $600 billion in total, and still, residents are likely to suffer from hours of blackouts during the coldest parts of the winter. This is a gargantuan regressive tax over which Colorado voters have had no say, and the media has had no interest in discussing.
The governor’s initial rhetoric about a cost-effective, bottom-up, market-based transition was either naive or deliberately misleading. Coloradans are now staring down the reality of soaring costs, government overreach, and an electricity grid that won’t meet reliability standards.
If Polis had been transparent from the beginning and acknowledged the actual costs and challenges of his plan, the state could have pursued a more balanced and pragmatic approach to energy policy. Instead, we are left with an expensive, unreliable experiment in ideological policymaking, with taxpayers and ratepayers footing the bill.
Amy Oliver Cooke is director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.