Susan Atkinson’s opinion (Herald, April 20) is right that energy policy has real consequences. When projects are delayed or costs increase through tariffs and regulation, consumers pay the price. That’s basic economics. But it’s also important to look at the full picture.
Renewable energy has been heavily supported for decades through subsidies, tax credits and mandates requiring utilities to purchase it. These policies have helped expand wind and solar, but they distort the true cost of energy. At the same time, fossil fuels are often labeled as “subsidized,” which is misleading. Oil and gas companies deduct expenses like drilling costs just as other industries deduct business expenses – that’s standard tax treatment, not a special subsidy. Unlike renewables, fossil fuels do not receive broad federal tax credits simply for producing energy.
Here in Colorado, oil and gas already operates under some of the toughest environmental regulations in the country, including strict methane controls and extensive permitting requirements. Yet calls for more restrictions continue, often without clear evidence of additional benefit. Restricting responsible production in Colorado doesn’t reduce demand – it simply shifts it to states and countries with lower environmental standards.
We also need to be honest about reliability. Renewables contribute, but they are intermittent and cannot replace dependable energy sources like natural gas without significant cost and infrastructure expansion. Power has to be available and affordable when people need it, not just when conditions allow.
If we want affordable and reliable energy, policy decisions must be grounded in reality, not just ambition.
Kelly Hegarty
Durango
