By June C. Waller

This year, state legislation (Senate Bill 26-022) has put the energy transition front and center for Colorado Springs residents. As someone who has lived and worked in Colorado Springs for 60-plus years, I’ll be the first to reinforce that our community deserves energy that is affordable, reliable, and built for the future. That means clean air, healthy communities, honest conversations about the decisions in front of us, and the foresight to adapt to change.

In his recent column, “Senate Bill 22 critical to keeping energy costs affordable, power reliable,” Brian Wortinger argues Senate Bill 26-022 is critical to keeping energy costs affordable. He also states that the bill is to protect families from rising electricity costs and reliability risks.

Wortinger misses a critical part of the equation. The information from utilities is not complete. The argument for the bill hinges on affordability without offering real data about the energy options on the table. What are the costs of options needed to replace the coal plant? What are the costs of delaying moving from fossil fuels or replacing the coal plant? Lastly, what are the immediate costs of delaying the transition from coal to clean energy?

Wortinger’s framing leaves out a critical part of the story: the fact that Colorado Springs Utilities has not yet been transparent about the cost of options for replacing the coal plant, as well as the very real and immediate costs of delaying the transition away from fossil fuels.

SB 26-022 would allow Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) — and other utilities across the state — to delay established clean energy targets by up to a decade and limit the authority of public health agencies to act to address pollution. The bill would also allow CSU to keep the Ray Nixon coal plant open past its planned closure by 2030. That’s not a minor adjustment — it’s a major step backward.

SB 26-022 fails to consider the added costs of health complications such as asthma attacks, emergency room visits, missed workdays, and long-term health conditions caused by air pollution. As a community, we cannot ignore these costs when health care expenses increase yearly. These effects are not abstract. Keeping coal plants like Ray Nixon online longer means more years of pollution in our air — pollution that disproportionately affects children, seniors, and people with underlying health conditions.

We’re also being asked to assume that delaying the transition is the more practical path forward. But compared to what? Continuing to rely on aging fossil fuel infrastructure carries extreme risks, including volatile fuel prices and rising maintenance costs.

Solar and wind energy, by contrast, already offers stability and predictability. With thoughtful planning, we can move forward in a way that protects both public health and the long-term interests of our community without putting progress on hold.

There is also a basic accountability issue. Colorado Springs Utilities has yet to present a clear, credible plan to follow through on its long-term energy plan from 2020. Before delaying the goal of meeting the state’s 80% emissions reduction target by 2030, the public deserves transparency. Without it, claims about cost and reliability are hard for us to assess.

Finally, the idea that this bill is a “modest, responsible adjustment” deserves scrutiny. Colorado has already made significant progress toward its climate goals while maintaining reliability. The solution isn’t to weaken those goals — it’s to continue investing in the tools and infrastructure that help us meet them.

We also recognize that delaying action on pollution and climate comes with consequences; therefore, we do not want a delay. We don’t have to choose between affordability and clean energy. Our community can — and must — do both.

Colorado Springs is a community that values both practicality and responsibility. Granting Colorado Springs Utilities broad discretion to delay climate targets and limiting oversight from public health agencies is not a modest change, it’s foolhardy. It shifts decision-making away from science-based processes and good planning, and is costly in time, energy, money, health and climate.

SB 26-022 moves us backwards. Colorado Springs deserves better.

June C. Waller is a retired affordable housing professional. In her more than 60 years in Colorado Springs, she has advocated for democracy, and a healthy community for children and seniors.