Nobody heats their home with a press release.
Nobody keeps the freezer running on good intentions.
And no small business owner has ever looked at a dark cash register during a power outage and said, “Well, at least the regulatory framework was aspirational.”
The Denver Gazette reports that researchers Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling of Always On Energy Research are proposing a “social cost of blackouts” framework for electricity planning. The idea is to give regulators a tool similar to the federal government’s “social cost of carbon,” except this one would measure the immediate cost and human impact of power outages when policymakers evaluate energy rules and resource plans.
That sounds technical, but the kitchen-table translation is simple.
If government is going to count the cost of carbon, it ought to count the cost of the lights not coming on.
That is not radical. That is adult supervision.
Colorado has been charging hard toward emissions goals. Cleaner energy may matter. Most Coloradans are not sitting around hoping for dirtier air and uglier skies. We like blue mountains, clean water, healthy kids, and being able to see Pikes Peak without guessing where God left it.
But here is the part regular people understand better than some policy rooms do: tradeoffs are real.
Reliability is not a luxury.
Affordability is not a luxury.
Electricity that works when you need it is not some outdated frontier preference, like churning butter or asking kids to answer the phone politely.
A blackout is not an academic event. It is grandma’s oxygen machine. It is a restaurant losing inventory. It is a parent trying to keep kids warm. It is a farmer, a hospital, a gas station, a traffic light, a freezer full of groceries, and a family already wincing when the utility bill shows up.
The Gazette story notes that the proposed framework would try to put dollar figures on projected power shortfalls, and it comes as Colorado is shifting away from coal while utilities and state officials continue wrestling with reliability concerns. Xcel said it has flagged resource adequacy risks for years, while the governor’s office said reliability is already part of planning.
Fair enough.
But if reliability is already part of the conversation, then measuring it honestly should not scare anybody.
That is the common-sense point.
This proposal may not be perfect. Maybe the formula needs work. Maybe regulators will argue over the assumptions until everyone in the hearing room starts aging in real time. That is what regulatory hearings are for, apparently.
But the question it raises is exactly the question Colorado should be asking before ideology outruns the grid.
What does this policy cost if it works?
What does it cost if it fails?
And who pays when the failure lands in real life?
Too often, energy debates get packaged as if the only moral choice is speed. Move faster. Retire faster. Mandate faster. Electrify faster. Then, when regular people ask about bills and reliability, they get treated like they just wandered into the room wearing a coal miner costume.
That is not leadership.
Leadership tells the truth about goals and consequences.
Colorado can pursue a cleaner future. We should be thoughtful about emissions, technology, transmission, storage, generation, and the air our kids breathe.
But the future still has to turn on when someone flips the switch.
Candles are lovely on a birthday cake.
They are not an energy strategy.
Colorado’s path forward has to be cleaner, yes. But it also has to be affordable, reliable, and honest enough to admit that physics does not bend for slogans.
That is not anti-environment.
That is pro-common sense.
Source: The Denver Gazette
Share your thoughts...