It could cost Colorado taxpayers more than $318 billion to reach Gov. Jared Polis’ goal of attaining 100% renewable electricity by 2050, according to a think tank.

A report issued by the Independence Institute, a Denver-based group that advocates for policies to “enhance personal and economic freedom,” shows the cost to taxpayers for converting the electrical grid alone could be $318 billion by 2050. Energy Policy Analyst Jake Fogleman said it’s possible the average monthly residential electric bill could cost up to $628 a month by 2040.

“Since there hasn’t been any government anywhere on Earth that has 100% renewable energy, at least not for any sustained duration or period of time, we wanted to take a look at what exactly that would look like,” Fogleman said. “And we also wanted to model the costs of doing so because we hadn’t really seen very many good estimates out there.”

Polis and proponents of the transition away from fossil energy argue it’s ultimately good for the earth, as well as create a healthier environment for people and save Coloradans money, anticipating that, over the long term, renewable energy would be more economical to produce. Critics said the transition is happening too quickly, that it would be financially costly to people and businesses alike and that a diverse energy portfolio that incudes fossil-fired and renewable energy is more reliable and sustainable.

The governor’s roadmap outlines how to achieve its major goals, notably by transitioning to 100% electric cars on the road by 2050, which means all new car sales would need to be electric by 2040, as well as via a “large-scale shift” to electric heat pumps, powered by zero carbon electricity, for space and water heating” in buildings.

The Institute commissioned the Center of the American Experiment — the Independence Institute’s sister group in North Carolina that Fogleman said has been doing similar reports looking at efforts by various states, such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina — to assist with the report. Fogleman said they used an in-house model to calculate the costs and reliability impacts of various greenhouse emissions goals.

The report said that, since 2004, when the state enacted its first renewable energy portfolio standard, all-sector electricity prices in Colorado increased by more than 70% — from an average of 6.95 to 11.85 cents per kilowatt hour through 2022. Colorado’s prices are now the highest on average in the entire Mountain West region, according to the report.

“The landmark Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap modeled a pathway to meet the State’s 2050 GHG emissions reduction targets,“said Conor Cahill, the governor’s spokesperson, in a prior statement to The Denver Gazette. Cahill was referring to the Polis’ administration’s campaign to sharply curb fossil-based energy consumption in Colorado. “A cost-benefit analysis is a key component of policy development and ensures that these policies are good for both the environment and the economy.”

The Denver Gazette asked the governor’s office for a detailed cost-benefit analysis in January but received no documentation on the expected costs of the entire program. None of the biennial progress reports on the program contains cost estimates for the various programs, nor do they show the overall costs through 2050.

Instead, the governor’s office cited the differences in the wholesale price of coal, natural gas, wind and solar energy, arguing that, over the long run, the transition away from fossil-fired energy will translate to lower electricity bills.

“The clean energy dividend will mean significant cost reductions in utility bills. Coal energy costs about $0.11 kw/ hour, natural gas is about $0.05-07 per kw/hour with wind power at about 2 cents a kWh and solar power at 3 cents,” Cahill said in response to the request. “So, the real question is, what would be the costs of staying on coal energy, rather than switching to less expensive forms of energy?”

He added: “The governor is always focused on saving people money and sees huge opportunities to save people money on energy, including through the market-driven momentum toward low-cost clean energy, which can also mean tax reductions. For instance, EV consumers will save money on federal and state gas taxes.”

The state has an estimate for the cost to owners of buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to meet an Air Quality Control Commission rule that takes effect on Oct. 15 — $2.55 billion for mandatory energy efficiency upgrades that must be completed by 2030.

The Colorado Energy office looked forward 27 years, to 2050, in estimating the benefits of the program.

“The building performance standards will help reduce energy consumption, which will lower bills,” Ari Rosenblum, spokesperson for the Colorado Energy Office, said in an email to The Denver Gazette. “The energy savings and GHG reduction from implementing the rule are expected to result in a total benefit worth $10,843,398,013.”

The state’s plan relies heavily on federal subsidies and grants to offset some of the costs to consumers for the transition. Fogleman said that doesn’t reduce

the costs — it just shifts the burden across a broader tax base, rather than putting it all on ratepayers.

“In my report, we intentionally do not include things like subsidies either at the state level or the federal level, because our argument is that subsidies don’t actually reduce the cost of producing this energy,” Fogleman said. “It’s simply socializing a portion of the costs to people that live in other states that aren’t even enjoying the benefits of the energy.”

Fogleman pointed out that even if Colorado achieves its goal, the actual reduction in global warming would be “microscopic.”

“Assuming achieving 100% renewable energy, 100% electric home heating and 100% electric vehicles, it would avert 0.0015 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2100,” Fogleman said.

Fogleman argued that any gains from the governor’s program could easily be wiped out by countries like China, which is increasing its CO2 output on a daily basis.

“There’s actually an interesting report from a sister organization, the John Locke Foundation, where they call it ‘China carbon time,’ where it talks about in how many minutes China’s emissions dwarf Colorado’s emissions,” said Fogleman, citing the report that says China plans to add 270,000 megawatts of new coal-fired production in the next three years. “And I think it’s something like for every eight minutes that China operates, they dwarf Colorado’s daily carbon emissions.”

But it’s the costs to the public that is his primary concern, Fogelman said. He warned that the state’s system of regulated grid operators increases the costs of the transition.

“Some of the largest drivers of the costs are because we operate on a vertically integrated regulated utility system,” Fogleman said. “It’s all the capital expenditures that utilities like Xcel would invest in and then get to recoup (from ratepayers) with a guaranteed rate of return plus the property taxes that we’d have to pay to cover those assets plus transition expenses.”

Fogleman said that, under Colorado law, “renewable” excludes certain forms of “zero carbon or clean energy,” such as nuclear energy. He said nuclear energy is No.1 source of “clean energy nationwide.” The federal Energy Information Administration said the nation’s 93 nuclear power reactors produce about half of America’s carbon-free energy and 18.2% of all electricity, he noted.

“We would encourage a little bit of more pragmatism in energy policy by not myopically limiting their view onto things like just wind, solar, and batteries,” Fogleman said. “Take a broader view to exciting technologies that could potentially lower costs and also contribute to a clean environment and not be so urgent and push arbitrary deadlines that are going to also increase the cost elsewhere.”

Cahill, the governor’s spokesperson, maintained that the benefits of the transition are vast and comprehensive.

“While Colorado takes significant action to reduce emissions and build resilience in the face of climate change, the savings from the transition are vast and include financial, social, health, and environmental benefits,” Cahill said.

As of Friday, the governor’s office offered no response to a new request for the total cost of the transition. The Colorado Energy Office also declined to comment.