GUEST OPINION: Is ‘energy centrism’ taking shape in Colorado?
In our two-party political system, we spend most of our time focusing on the differences between Democrats and Republicans. We expect, and often demand, that elected officials stand up to their opponents in the “other” party.
Don’t get me wrong: Principled disagreements between political opponents are a good thing. It takes real courage to face off against an opponent and debate those disagreements on the public stage.
But do you know what takes more courage than standing up to a political opponent? Standing up to your political friends.
To see that kind of courage on display, let’s review two recent moves by elected official in Colorado on a critically important issue for the country — energy policy.
The first move, by Democrats, took place at the state Capitol in Denver.
Rep. Alex Valdez, a Denver Democrat and the former CEO of a rooftop solar company, introduced a bill — HB25-1040 — to designate nuclear power as “clean energy” under state law.
Changing this definition would allow nuclear power plants to contribute to the state’s 2050 goal of 100% zero-carbon electricity, alongside renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal.
Colorado hasn’t generated electricity from a nuclear power plant in more than 35 years, after the closure of the Fort St. Vrain reactor — the state’s first and only such facility — in 1989.
However, as the state’s fleet of coal-fired power plants nears retirement, several communities have expressed interest in repowering those sites with new nuclear reactors. Those communities include Pueblo in southern Colorado and Hayden in the state’s northwest.
Besides the production of around-the-clock electricity with zero carbon emissions, nuclear supporters in Colorado point to the jobs that can be filled by former coal plant workers and the boost that new reactor projects will provide to the local tax base for schools and other essential services.
But for many environmental groups — which play a major role in the Democratic coalition — nuclear is an unacceptable option. They believe the technology isn’t safe, costs too much, and could siphon investment from other zero-carbon sources, especially wind and solar.
During public hearings, those environmental groups came out in force. Groups to testify against the bill included the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Green Latinos, Conservation Colorado and Earthjustice.
But Valdez, chair of the House Energy and Environment Committee, stood his ground. Citing expert testimony and other research, he defended nuclear’s safety record — especially the small reactors that have powered Navy vessels for 70 years and the updated small reactor designs that are now being considered for civilian use.
After the bill cleared his committee, it secured bipartisan majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly and was signed by Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a fellow Democrat, at the end of March.
The second courageous move on energy policy, by Republicans, took place in Congress.
Two Colorado congressmen, Gabe Evans and Jeff Hurd, joined 19 other House Republicans to defend a series of federal tax incentives for a wide range of energy technologies, including nuclear, wind, solar, carbon capture, geothermal and biofuels.
Some tax breaks have been around in various forms for many years. Others were introduced during the Biden presidency. Taken together, these tax breaks have totaled around $80 billion and spurred private sector investments worth around $500 billion, according to August data from the Rhodium Group, and have been beneficial for Colorado’s economic growth.
Even so, some conservative groups — including the influential Heritage Foundation — are demanding a full repeal.
But Evans and Hurd, whose districts are invested in producing fossil fuels and renewable energy technologies, are pushing back. In a March letter, they joined other Republicans to warn against “disruptive changes to our nation’s energy tax structure” which could “raise energy costs for hard working Americans.”
There is room for reforming the energy tax credits, Evans and Hurd wrote, but those changes should be “conducted in a targeted and pragmatic fashion … without undoing current and future private sector investments.”
With Republicans holding a razor-thin majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, the votes of Evans and Hurd will be important — and possibly decisive — on this issue.
Therefore, standing up to demands by their colleagues for a full repeal is not the easy choice. Far from it.
“They stuck their necks out,” Heather Reams, president of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, told The Colorado Sun.
Whether you agree with the policies of Valdez, Evans or Hurd, one thing is clear about their stances on energy — they are willing to reject the political extremes, lead others towards the center and put pragmatic outcomes ahead of ideological victories.
Put another way, these three leaders are staying true to the sensible middle, which is a proud tradition in Colorado politics. Only time will tell if this brand of energy centrism — new in some ways and old in others — starts gaining ground elsewhere.
Simon Lomax is a visiting fellow with The Western Way, a conservative nonprofit that seeks pro-market solutions to environmental challenges. He is a former energy and climate reporter for Bloomberg News and a former congressional fellow with the American Political Science Association.
