A major effort to smooth the way for a return to nuclear-generated power in Colorado gets a first hearing Thursday in a legislative committee, as boosters of the out-of-favor technology claim growing energy demands and better design prove the time is right for a revival.
The state’s longstanding coalition of nonprofit groups that advocate for environmental and economic justice, meanwhile, vow a united front against the nuclear-friendly effort, and say some of their allies have betrayed the clean energy cause in favor of risky economic development.
House Bill 1337, up for debate Thursday afternoon at the House Energy and Environment Committee, would create a permitting czar in state government to speed complex nuclear development, allow shareholder-owned utilities to charge customers for up to $20 million in nuclear research expenses, and encourage cities to step forward to host the first new power plants.
“The state is really on quite a cliff when it comes to the amount of energy that we need compared to the amount that is capable of being produced,” said Jesse Braughton, with the lobbying and policy firm 3015 that has been working on the bill with sponsors and Xcel Energy.
“Xcel Energy is a utility that is actively working to get nuclear off the ground here in Colorado,” Braughton said. A key problem for locating and permitting a possible nuclear reactor, she said, “is that there is no coordinator. There is no kind of main person or office that is able to see the full picture and then from there, streamline the actual construction projects with the regulatory pieces. So that is really the genesis behind this piece of legislation.”
Bill cosponsor Rep. Alex Valdez, D-Denver, said he’s promoting the bill as an important conversation because Colorado’s electricity needs are growing so fast, a return to nuclear power may be the best answer. Colorado’s greenhouse gas-cutting goals are vital, Valdez said, arguing that nuclear power is cleaner than the natural gas plants being proposed as reliable, dispatchable electric power.
The legislature officially added nuclear to Colorado’s list of allowed clean energy sources in 2025.
France should and can be the model for U.S. states in how to support safe, economically viable nuclear power, Valdez added. Rather than dirty the environment with new uranium mining or storing spent nuclear fuel, much of the energy in the current supply of nuclear fuel can be recycled and reused inside modern nuclear designs, he said.
Backers of the bill are claiming support from Gov. Jared Polis. His office Tuesday did not indicate whether he supports the bill in its current form or will sign if it makes it through the legislature, but did say he’s an enthusiast for the technology as part of Colorado’s future.
“Governor Polis supports efforts to create more reliable, safe and affordable clean energy in Colorado, and that includes nuclear energy,” said governor’s spokesperson Eric Maruyama. “If it can be developed in a safe and low-cost way, nuclear energy could be a key part of Colorado’s energy future. The governor will review the final version of the bill if it reaches his desk.”
Environmental groups that will testify against the nuclear-support bill say it’s laughable to call it safe, affordable or clean power for the present day. They say lower-income customers already disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change will be asked to pay for nuclear cost overruns by shareholder-owned utilities like Xcel Energy.
“It’s so tone-deaf, it’s ridiculous,” said Colorado GreenLatinos’ Ean Tafoya, who said a broad environmental coalition is angry at bill sponsor Valdez, for a “betrayal” of environmental justice values in promoting nuclear development.
Xcel and some Pueblo economic development leaders have talked about siting a nuclear project on the grounds of the sprawling coal-powered Comanche Station as those fossil fuel units close over the next few years, Tafoya noted. Xcel doesn’t even serve the Pueblo area, he said.
“So the pollution stays in the community, and the power doesn’t power the localized community. So if you were to put one in Pueblo, it wouldn’t even lower the rates for the people who live there,” Tafoya said.
The pronuclear proposal comes as Colorado leaders debate whether current supply and near-term projects for producing electricity will be adequate for both the expected growth of power-hungry AI data centers, and the growing reliance of the regional grid on clean, renewable sources that by nature don’t produce around the clock. Braughton’s client at the legislature is Nano Nuclear Energy, a NASDAQ-listed company developing a new generation of small modular reactors.
Nano and other entrepreneurs are working on smaller, “stackable” reactors they say are completely different from past generations of enormously complicated, sprawling water-cooled reactors with 10-story concrete cooling towers and breakdown-prone technology. The smaller reactors can be hauled on semitrailer trucks, buried underground for safety, and in Nano’s case, are helium-cooled without using precious Western water resources.
A prime advantage of nuclear is that, once built, the system does not produce carbon emissions causing climate change like a fossil fuel coal or natural gas plant, backers say. Nuclear is also “dispatchable,” meaning it can be brought online quickly during afternoon air conditioning power peaks or when wind and solar assets are not producing enough reliable power.
Colorado had a full-size operating nuclear plant, built and run by Xcel’s Public Service Co. at Fort St. Vrain, until it was closed in 1989 after a series of operating challenges. It was decommissioned by 1992.
Environmental groups and community activists respond that Colorado shouldn’t want the big data centers the nuclear plants are proposed to power; there is still no proof that a new generation of safer reactors can be built on time and on budget; they will likely be placed in lower-income industrial areas already subjected to the worst of pollution threats; and, there’s still no permanent U.S. location accepting dangerous spent nuclear fuel, despite decades of trying.
Tafoya was recently testifying against a Trump-backed series of changes to nuclear approval regulations at the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission. He learned there that some national environmental names like the Clean Air Task Force might be endorsing proposed state nuclear development like that being considered for Colorado.
Far from opening up a freer market, Tafoya said, Colorado’s bill tilts the energy field toward one form of technology.
“Basically, what they’re saying is, let’s build a project on a fast pace, picking winners and losers, all at the same time we’re rolling back safety,” Tafoya said. “That should be very concerning for environmental justice communities.”
The House bill would:
- Name the current Colorado Energy Office “to serve as the state’s permitting coordinator for nuclear energy projects,” coordinating with developers, federal, state and local permitting agencies; and look for federal funding possibilities for nuclear projects.
- Recommend to the Public Utilities Commission what factors it should consider when looking at a proposed nuclear power project and how the utility would be able to recover costs from ratepayers.
- Require investor-owned utilities with more than 500,000 customers to “solicit requests for information from communities and local governments interested in hosting a nuclear energy project and from potential development partners,” while collaborating with the PUC and local governments on potential sites. Only Xcel would fit that size while also holding an existing nuclear operating license, in Minnesota.
- Allow the investor-owned utility to recover up to $20 million to “finance studies regarding potential sites, facility designs, and other activities related to the development of nuclear energy projects in the state.”
While environmental groups argue that increased battery storage can help fill the gaps left by intermittent renewable energy, Valdez said taking apart or recycling batteries is a much larger potential environmental disaster his green allies should be worried about.
If you oppose even considering nuclear power, Valdez said, “What’s the other option? That’s the question.”
Nuclear power support is a big topic to start debating just days before the end of a legislative session focused on balancing the state budget with painful Medicaid cuts and other controversial maneuvers. Supporters of the bill say the timing has been deliberate, and could be speeded along with the support of the governor and others.
“It might sound like this is kind of out of the blue or a big piece of policy coming in late,” Braughton said. “We’ve been working on this all session. These are conversations we’ve been having since last year.”