By just about every metric imaginable, Colorado’s renewable energy standard has been a success.
It has created jobs in the wind and solar industries. It has provided additional income for rural landowners. It has reduced the reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation at a reasonable cost.
What’s not to love?
Several GOP lawmakers have found something, it would seem. Last week, they used a 5-4 majority in a state Senate committee to advance Senate Bill 44, which would reduce the portion of energy generated from renewables.
It would cut in half the 30 percent renewable requirement that investor-owned utilities, such as Xcel, would have to meet by 2020. It would also bust down the standard for rural electric associations from 20 to 15 percent from 2020 onward.
In addition, Senate Bill 46, scheduled to be heard this week, would reduce the amount of energy rural co-ops are required to generate from what is called “distributed generation.” In short, that is energy generated on the customer side of the meter.
Neither of these bills is in the best interest of Colorado, which has been a leader in renewable energy development.
The industry provides thousands of jobs for installers, manufacturers and maintenance, argues Pete Maysmith, executive director of Conservation Colorado.
Maysmith said it’s disappointing that the issue of clean energy development, which traditionally has enjoyed bipartisan support in Colorado, has become partisan.
Furthermore, it would seem to be detrimental to constituencies that Republicans consider their own.
Former Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. told us that the standard has been a boon to farmers and ranchers, who typically get $4,000 to $6,000 in annual lease payments for each wind turbine located on their land. Those payments can provide a buffer during lean years.
It seems that rolling back renewable standards is popular in state legislatures.
Last year, there were 14 rollback bills proposed around the country, with two of them passing, according to an analysis done by the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University.
It’s not unusual for such ideas to make the rounds, often pitched by one interest group or another. The sheer volume, however, doesn’t make them good ideas. In fact, we would argue to the contrary in Colorado’s case — and hope lawmakers keep the standards in place unchanged.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
