After years of attempts to open Colorado up to nuclear energy, a bill before the legislature this year is showing new promise for the effort.
In an annual ritual, Sen. Larry Liston, a Colorado Springs Republican, has regularly introduced legislation that would add nuclear energy to the state’s definition of clean energy sources. Only this year, in a marked break from prior bills, the proposal, House Bill 1040, has drawn bipartisan support — a key hurdle in a building where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1.
Nuclear technology has improved enough to minimize the concerns of yesteryear, Liston argues — and it could fill a critical gap as Colorado moves away from carbon-spewing fossil fuels.
Explicitly classifying nuclear as clean energy could qualify it for new grants. The bill, if passed, would not immediately kick-start any new nuclear development, but it could put some momentum behind the concept.
Liston said he never saw his nuclear interest as a partisan issue, but rather as one of educating people about how the nuclear industry has changed.
“It’s nothing like what people think of, with Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island and the technologies of 40, 50, and 60 years ago,” Liston said, referring to nuclear meltdowns in 1986 and 1979, respectively. “Those types of nuclear plants won’t be built, at least here in Colorado.”
He points to new technologies like small modular reactors that have relatively small footprints and molten salt reactors that don’t use water as a coolant in energy production. And, of course, he highlights the constant stream of energy, with zero carbon emissions, that they could provide.
Nuclear energy accounts for about 18% of the United States’ total energy production, according to the World Nuclear Association, making it the single-largest source of non-fossil fuel electricity in the country. Natural gas and coal account for about 60% of the energy mix.
While other countries may rely more on nuclear power, the scale of the U.S. energy market means it produces the most nuclear power of any country, according to the association. That’s true even as construction on new nuclear plants effectively was halted for more than 30 years following the Three-Mile Island accident and amid the rising economic viability of other energy sources.
Seeking “creative ways” to meet goals
Rep. Alex Valdez, a Denver Democrat carrying the bill in the House, said his support grew while he was looking for “creative ways” to meet the state’s ever-growing electricity demands — not just from households and electric cars, but from industrial needs, like data centers for emerging technologies.
“There’s been such a dramatic increase in demand that we expect to continue here in the state of Colorado for quite a while,” Valdez said. “We need to do everything we can to keep up with that demand while being mindful of air quality and pollution and all the things that are really important to people all along the Front Range and through Colorado.”
The other sponsors, Democratic Sen. Dylan Roberts and Republican Rep. Ty Winter, also raise concerns about the workforce as the state transitions away from fossil fuels, chiefly coal. Roberts, from Avon, and Winter, from Trinidad, represent areas that are set to be among those hardest hit by the move.
“In addition to other sources of alternative energy, like geothermal and pumped hydrogen, adding nuclear to this list and allowing it to count toward our carbon emission-reduction goals is a way to attract more attention and potential investment into the region,” Roberts said.
Winter describes himself as an “all-of-the-above” Republican when it comes to power, from the sun in the sky to geothermal energy and natural gas in the ground. In addition to electricity, Winter hopes any nuclear projects would bring “good-paying, blue collar jobs” to help keep families in his rural Colorado district. They also could effectively extend an olive branch to Colorado communities feeling pinched by new regulations and the shift away from the fossil fuels that served as their economic bedrocks and tax bases.
“This is a good opportunity for the state of Colorado and the urban legislators to reach across the aisle and get behind us,” Winter said, “and help fix some of the consequences that are rolled down into districts like mine.”
Concerns about nuclear energy
Research by Stanford and the University of British Columbia found that small modular nuclear reactors like the ones highlighted by lawmakers can create a higher volume of nuclear waste than traditional, large-scale nuclear power plants for the energy they produce.
But other emerging technologies show promise for recycling the spent fuel for future power generation, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
This year’s bill has run into some early opposition from environmental justice groups. In addition to concerns about the historic environmental harms from nuclear energy, they also question if this move by the state would pivot attention away from traditional green energy.
“It’s quicker, less expensive and a proven job creator to have clean energy from wind and solar,” said Ean Thomas Tafoya, the vice president of state programs for GreenLatinos, an environmental advocacy group. “… Setting up a pathway for any kind of subsidy for nuclear energy is very concerning to GreenLatinos.”
A 2024 study commissioned by the Colorado Energy Office on how to meet the state’s 2040 decarbonization goals found that adding just a pair of small nuclear reactors would make it one of the most expensive paths to zero carbon emissions by then. Nuclear plants can cost billions, though estimates vary for the small nuclear reactors.
“Apart from the danger of nuclear waste, defining nuclear as clean is a dangerous barrier to achieving our climate goals and does not make economic sense,” Heidi Leathwood, climate policy analyst with 350 Colorado, an environmental advocacy organization opposed to the bill, said in a statement. “The bill would take public funding away from renewable energy, and it would allow utilities to meet their clean energy requirements by charging ratepayers for expensive nuclear projects.”
Jamie Valdez, the founder and director of Roots to Resilience, an environmental justice advocacy organization for Pueblo and southern Colorado, also questioned how certain the promises around nuclear energy would truly be. Many of these technologies are still in the experimental phase, he said, including key promises about recycling nuclear waste.
The looming closure of the Comanche coal-fired power plant there gives the community a runway for any decisions it needs to make, like Valdez’s preferred outcome of all-in investment in solar, wind and geothermal energy.
“We’re just in a really good position to take our time and make better decisions for our community moving forward than we have in the past,” Valdez said. “Pueblo deserves better. We need to put a higher value on our health and our local environment, but also our labor. We need to not hinge our economic future on one major plant, like a nuclear or a gas plant or something like that.”
It’s too early to say how the bill, if it passes, would affect Colorado’s energy mix moving forward. Xcel Energy, the largest energy provider in the state, is “committed to looking at all energy resources that are safe, clean, and reliable as we plan to serve future energy needs,” spokesperson Michelle Aguayo said in a statement. The utility has registered an amend position on the bill, signaling it hopes for changes.
“HB25-1040 is in the early stages of the legislative process,” she added. “We will continue to work with the bill’s sponsors and other stakeholders to make sure the bill is in the best interest of our customers.”
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.
