Across the country in recent months, policymakers in some of the most progressive states are quietly learning a hard lesson about climate policy: no matter how lofty the emissions targets or how urgent the rhetoric, real-world costs still matter.
Except, apparently, in Colorado.
At the behest of Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, New York has delayed implementation of several of its most stringent climate policies, including its “cap-and-invest” carbon-pricing program and its all-electric buildings law, which would have banned natural gas use in new construction.
California lawmakers have slowed or reworked parts of their climate agenda amidst a cost-of-living crisis and public backlash. Massachusetts Democrats advanced legislation to scrap the state’s 2030 emissions reduction targets. Pennsylvania lawmakers, with the support of Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, pulled the state out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program.
Affordability, once dismissed as a talking point of “climate deniers,” has now become the unavoidable reality shaping policy on both sides of the political aisle.
Colorado missed the memo
Rather than take stock of these developments, Colorado policymakers have been moving full steam ahead with even more aggressive mandates, often without consideration of the long-term price tag for households and businesses.
Last month, as part of a rulemaking initiated by the Polis administration, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission finalized sweeping new “clean heat” rules for the state’s gas utilities. These mandates will require utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 41 percent by 2035, while pointing toward a statewide expectation of a 100 percent gas phase-out by 2050, that will cost ratepayers billions to carry out.
But rather than stop there, Governor Polis is pushing to accelerate the state’s broader climate deadlines even further. Last session, he endorsed last-minute legislation that would have moved Colorado’s net-zero target for electricity generation up from 2050 to 2040, marking a dramatic escalation at a time when utilities are already voicing economic and reliability concerns under current mandates. Despite immense pushback from utilities, labor groups, business organizations, and local governments at the time, his administration has continued to meet with environmental groups in recent months to discuss a plan to reintroduce the measure this session.
Worse yet, costly climate ambition has evidently become a political bidding war for prospective state leaders. Senator Michael Bennet, currently a leading candidate to replace Polis in the governor’s mansion this November, has formally endorsed the creation of a statewide cap-and-trade system for Colorado. That’s the same type of carbon-pricing structure New York is struggling to implement because of its impacts on energy prices. Yet Colorado’s political class appears eager to import those same affordability challenges here.
Doubling down
The trend is unmistakable. While other progressive states reassess the affordability of their aggressive climate policies, Colorado is racing ahead faster, farther, and with fewer questions asked.
Climate hawks often tout Colorado as a national leader, but such “leadership” comes at a price. And yet the public has never been given a transparent accounting of what such ambition means for them.
What will it cost to electrify most or all homes in the state? What happens to families or businesses that can’t afford those upgrades? What are the consequences if grid reliability suffers? What penalties will be imposed if early targets are inevitably missed?
Our political leadership has yet to offer clear answers to these questions, only the insistence that the targets must become ever more ambitious.
Colorado is not New York or California. We don’t have to retrace either state’s steps, whether that means over-promising on climate policy or backtracking after reality catches up. But right now, Colorado appears determined to outpace even the most progressive states while ignoring the very affordability warnings they have already encountered.
Climate policy should not be immune from scrutiny. If reducing emissions is truly the goal, then policymakers should welcome open debate about tradeoffs, costs, alternatives, and timelines to reach a durable policy consensus that balances environmental benefits with consumer choice and affordability.
Instead, Colorado’s leadership is simply demanding residents accept faster deadlines, deeper mandates, and broader economic disruption regardless of what it means for their pocketbooks.
Some progressive states are beginning to ask whether they have gone too far, too fast. Colorado lawmakers should take the opportunity this legislative session to start asking the same question.
Jake Fogleman is Director of Policy at Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.
