Beneath our noses a titanic economic experiment around energy is taking place in Colorado, one with massive, real-world consequences for every resident of the state.
In one corner we have the free market, especially as it relates to the cost of transportation and the fuels needed to power it. The Trump administration’s commitment to energy independence for the country, permitting reform, and the free market has unlocked our nation’s natural resources, and consumers everywhere benefit.
The price of a barrel of oil has dropped from $80 in January 2025 to $56 a barrel in December – a decrease of about 30%. Importantly, these cost cuts are making their way to the gas pump. In Colorado, prices in November were the lowest since 2019 (excepting the year of Covid – 2020), and are headed lower according to the Energy Information Administration, while AAA reports that the cost-per-gallon of regular gasoline in Colorado was $2.39 at the end of December. Transportation is required to stock grocery, hardware and clothing stores and bring materials to industries and manufacturers, a reduction in transportation prices for trucks, railroads, and airplanes will eventually bring down the cost to consumers, all else being the same.
When the government doesn’t stand in the way of energy acquisition, the free market makes pricing efficient – and good for the consumer.
In the other corner, we have the utility-related energy market dominated by the top down, big government approach of Democrat politicians that claim their expertise will guide society to a better future. They and they alone have dictated energy policy in Colorado since 2019.
The good news for consumers is that since January 2024, the price of energy building-blocks like coal and natural gas has stabilized (though natural gas prices are highly seasonal, and were nearly $9 per million Btu in 2022). Throughout 2024 and 2025, natural gas prices averaged $2.88 per million Btu and are projected to modestly increase through 2026. Coal is similarly stable, with prices hovering around $2.45 per million Btu. When the raw materials for generating electricity cost the same (or less), the price we pay for electricity should also be stable – right?
Costs keep climbing
In Colorado, the answer is “no.” Xcel and other energy providers have sought and received permission to increase rates a half-dozen times since 2019 (an additional 10% Xcel increase was pending approval in late 2025, with yet another request made in the last week of 2025). You and I will be paying more to keep the house warm and the lights on in the future – but why? Why do we have to pay more when the prices of power-generating resources like gas and coal are stable?
The answer is found in the Governor Polis’ Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap. Since 2019 Democrats have forced utilities to replace a well-functioning infrastructure based on traditional and reliable fuels with a newer and far more expensive one that is – by its very nature – unreliable (i.e., sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine).
Progressives say that because wind and sunshine (the fuels for renewable energy) are free, renewable power is inexpensive. Let’s apply some common sense to that assertion.
In the first place, massive numbers of wind turbines and solar panels have to be built for the new grid. A little over 2900 are in operation now, and that number will have to double to meet Democrat-mandated goals by 2040. According to a 2022 report from the Canadian Center of Science and Education, the material requirements for wind and solar power are substantial and far larger than those for gas, nuclear, and coal. It takes 572 tons of material (like concrete, copper, steel, and rare-earth minerals, etc.) to generate 1 Terawatt-hour of electricity using natural gas; to create that same amount of energy using solar power takes 29 times as much material (16,447 tons).
Wind power is also material-intensive, requiring 14,074 tons. Not only do companies incur substantial expenses to acquire these resources, they also emit tons of greenhouse gases to mine, refine, and transport them. These environmental impacts are avoidable – but not if you’re committed to a new, “green” energy agenda.
Second, once constructed these small-scale power plants (the wind turbines and solar panels) have to be connected or integrated into a system to move electricity to consumers. That requires tremendous expenditures on transmission and distribution (i.e., power cables, transmission towers, etc.). How much do these things cost? In Colorado, Xcel is planning to spend $4.7 billion from 2026 to 2030 on transmission and another $4.9 billion for distribution to make its infrastructure suitable for the future – an expense that will be passed along to consumers. In other states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey) where a “green energy agenda” has been promoted by Democrats, a 2025 study from the Electric Power Supply Association found that these transmission-distribution costs now account for up to 45% of the average residential electric bill. The same is likely true in Colorado.
Third, because renewable power is inherently unreliable, utilities must overbuild renewable resources, have back up power that uses fossil fuels, acquire battery storage, or a combination of the three. By contrast, traditional power grids can efficiently generate additional power on demand – there’s no need to incur the cost of industrial-scale back up power or battery storage. But Coloradans are being forced to pay for these owing to the shortcomings of wind and solar power.
Finally, the costs of materials, transmission, and back-up power/storage and overbuilding don’t take into account the price Coloradans will eventually pay for disposal once wind turbines and solar panels have completed their useful life. While we don’t know what that price will eventually be, according to Xcel Energy documents in Minnesota the cost of disposing of one wind turbine was $532,000 in 2019 – and there are thousands of turbines in Colorado that will need to be replaced sooner or later.
The high price of ‘green’
Colorado energy customers are beginning to learn the real costs of the “green energy agenda,” and the downside to rejecting a free market approach to energy. In Colorado the Public Utilities Commission once required utilities to use the cheapest energy available for the sake of consumers – that’s no longer the case.
Thanks to Democrat legislation passed since 2019, energy prices have steadily increased and legislation in Colorado has been imposed to make things even worse. Colorado utility rates increased over 42% between 2019 and 2024. Pending increases will put that number over 50% by the end of 2026. Worse than that, the average monthly bill is set to rise to over $600 per month by 2040 thanks to the hallowed “green agenda.” Colorado’s electricity costs are now higher than those in every surrounding state (Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah). Robert Idel of Rice University has calculated the unsubsidized cost of solar-derived electricity in Texas and found it is ten times as expensive as natural gas, and four times as expensive as coal. Wind is cheaper, but not by much.
When the high cost of renewable power is combined with Democrat-supported laws that demand its use, is it any wonder that Democrats’ commitment to their environmental agenda is impoverishing the poor and middle class in Colorado?
So what will happen in Colorado? What should happen is that the cost of energy should decrease proportional to the reduction in fuel prices, whether the fuel is used to heat our homes or power our cars. Indeed, this kind of market adjustment is already at work when it comes to your cars – the cost to fill up the tank has decreased dramatically.
In the economic contest that’s underway, it’s imperative that the free-market approach be victorious. If it isn’t, the only tangible result of the “green” agenda will be the amount of green that leaves your pocket every month.
Scott Bottoms represents House District 15 in the Colorado legislature.
