By Brian Wortinger

I love Colorado’s outdoors. I’m an avid skier and hiker and my happiest days are spent deep in the mountains with no one around for miles. I want to protect that environment as much as anyone along the Front Range. But ambitious climate policy works best when it is sequenced to protect the people with the least margin — especially lower-income families and the communities that support our military missions.

Colorado’s climate policy has driven real progress across the Front Range and moved us closer to our climate goals. However, we must acknowledge replacing our existing power plants with new resources carries a significant financial burden — one ultimately reflected in higher electric bills.

That burden can be managed effectively if our policies are flexible and recognize the different capabilities of utilities across the state. Unfortunately, our current law provides no such flexibility. Every utility is required to meet the same targets on the same timeline, regardless of the price or practical implications.

And the financial effect is substantial. In my home community of Colorado Springs, ratepayers could see their electricity bills rise by 35% to 50% during the next five years if we are required to meet the state’s 2030 targets without additional time or tools.

This means that within the next five years an average family in my community will pay between $650 to $1,000 more per year for the electricity they use. That is an extreme burden to put on any home.

Across Colorado, many households have little financial cushion. Nationally, only 63% of adults say they could cover a $400 emergency expense — everyone else would have to borrow, sell something, or go without. In Colorado, 37% of households are already below the basic-needs threshold, which means cost spikes land hardest on the very people we should prioritize for protection.

Ironically, these challenges also have a major effect on our protectors. The Front Range hosts multiple major military missions whose continuity depends on reliable, affordable power. My experience in uniform, coupled with my post-graduate research on the 2005 BRAC process, showed me clearly variable cost is often the deciding factor in whether a community keeps a mission or an installation.

For Colorado, that means risking the loss of billions of dollars in annual defense spending — and the significant state and local tax revenue that spending generates. Communities that demonstrate stable, affordable, dependable energy are simply more competitive when missions are evaluated. That’s not an argument against ambition; it’s an argument for thoughtful pacing to make sure our grid becomes stronger and more affordable rather than more brittle and expensive as we decarbonize.

This is why I support Senate Bill 26-022, a bipartisan proposal that offers narrow, time-bound flexibility for my community while keeping Colorado’s emissions targets intact. The bill simply lets utilities that document real reliability or affordability challenges file an updated Clean Energy Plan by Dec. 31 and seeks to include explicit guardrails that protect utility customers. This is a modest, responsible adjustment that effectively puts back nearly $1,000 into the pockets of every family every year.

We can — and should — keep our climate credibility while timing the transition so it doesn’t regressively raise bills for the Front Range’s military and working families, students, seniors and small businesses.

If we want durable public support across Colorado, we must pair ambition with protection for the households who can least absorb shocks.

In short: this is how Colorado leads — together. We can keep our clean-energy goals on track, strengthen reliability for critical missions, and protect Front Range families from avoidable cost spikes. Supporting SB26-022 is the bipartisan, equity-minded step that gets us there.

Brian Wortinger is a retired U.S. Army Colonel (former Garrison Commander, Fort Carson), a retired public-power employee, and a financial advisor in the Pikes Peak region. He authored post-graduate research examining community-cost considerations during the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).