It long has been fashionable among the zero-emissions set to “calculate” the wide-ranging costs to society of carbon-emitting fuels. The perils posed by that carbon footprint are said to range from ill health to doomsday for all humanity.

The probability of either of those scenarios, or any in between, varies from one advocacy group to the next.

So it was refreshing to learn this week of a new approach that looks at the flip side of that coin — the “social cost of blackouts.” As reported by The Gazette, the new framework, advocated by the organization Always On Energy Research, would measure the immediate costs and human impacts of power outages when evaluating regulations and resource plans that could reduce reliable generation.

In other words, regulations and plans such as the Polis administration’s mad dash to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. It would rush headlong into the wild green-energy yonder — without reliable base load power generation fueled by coal and natural gas. 

The intermittent nature of wind and solar power need backup, after all. The state’s agenda, once fully implemented, risks leaving the state in the dark at some point. In a deep freeze, too, on a January night — or in the broiler on some July afternoon.

Colorado’s Front Range communities have been there — just last December, in fact — when Xcel Energy turned out the lights. The multistate utility giant, a state-regulated monopoly, shut off power to parts of Jefferson County, Boulder and other Colorado Front Range communities in advance of high winds. The ensuing havoc turned out to be costly.

It took a toll on families and businesses left in the dark and at risk. As The Gazette reported at the time, Boulder’s Chamber of Commerce counted $25,000 average losses per business, impacting 20,000 workers. Golden’s chamber reported $2 million in damages from roughly 100 businesses. Economic damages from the blackout were estimated at $689 million.

Of course, that was the result of a planned shutdown — which sparked a policy debate in its own right — but the walloping impact on the affected communities offered a foretaste of what might lie ahead in a future that zeroes out reliable energy sources. There might not be enough power generation to meet demand in peak periods.

Always On Energy Research’s Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling advocate a tool for state energy regulators similar to the federal government’s “social cost of carbon.” That metric estimates long-term damages from each additional ton of carbon dioxide, recently valued at about $190 per ton, and is used nationwide when calculating the cost of carbon-emitting projects as well as the value of federal tax credits.

Always On’s framework similarly would measure the immediate costs and human impacts of power outages whenever assessing new energy policies that could reduce reliable generation. The researchers say blackout risks — which can cause billions in financial losses and deaths during extreme weather — are undervalued absent an effort to assess reliability risks.

As The Gazette’s report notes, unlike the social cost of carbon, which focuses on theoretical long-term climate damages, the social cost of blackouts addresses immediate, real-world harm to families, businesses and public safety.

It’s an overdue metric. After all, it’s essential to know how deep the water is before diving in.

To learn more: https://www.aoenergy.org