A bill adding nuclear power to Colorado’s definition of “clean energy resources” won final approval in the state legislature last week.
If signed by Gov. Jared Polis, the proposal, HB25-1040, wouldn’t greenlight the construction of any new nuclear power plants.
It would, however, allow future nuclear projects to contribute to the state’s renewable energy goals and receive local grants previously earmarked for wind, solar and geothermal projects. The passage also shows lawmakers have warmed up to the idea of bringing nuclear power back to Colorado for the first time in more than 35 years.
“It gives a signal to industry that Colorado is receptive and open to all the new types of nuclear technology,” said sponsor State Sen. Larry Liston, a Colorado Springs Republican.
This isn’t the first time Liston has put forward the policy proposal.
His Democratic colleagues defeated the same legislation over the last two years, but it was clear Liston’s latest attempt had far better odds at the start of the current legislative session. Two high-profile Democrats – State Rep. Alex Valdez and State Sen. Dylan Roberts – signed on to co-sponsor the bill before it sailed through both legislative chambers with broad bipartisan support.
Liston said a shifting conversation around clean energy buoyed the bill.
Surging electricity demand has revived interest in nuclear energy across the U.S. As new data centers and EVs gobble up power, self-described “nuclear bros” argue the nation can’t rely on intermittent resources like wind and solar alone to meet its growing energy needs. Utilities also require “baseload power,” largely supplied by coal plants, to keep the grid humming at all hours.
Liston said a new generation of nuclear reactors could offer a “clean, safe and reliable” solution. Unlike the hulking designs of the past, top government officials and Big Tech firms have thrown their weight behind small modular reactors, or SMRs, similar to compact fission-powered systems on aircraft carriers or submarines.
Nuclear advocates claim factories could eventually mass produce small nuclear reactors, offering lower costs and faster construction than larger nuclear power plants. If energy demand rises over time, additional reactors could be shipped to the site and combined into a more powerful system.
Those potential benefits have caught the attention of local leaders in Pueblo, a community bracing for the loss of Comanche Station, Colorado’s largest coal-fired power plant. Xcel Energy plans to shutter the facility in 2031, almost 40 years earlier than originally planned.
Local officials worry the closure will take jobs and a steady source of property tax revenue away from southern Colorado. In January 2024, a local committee supported by Xcel Energy concluded that an advanced nuclear facility was the best option to “make Pueblo whole and provide a path to prosperity.”
Xcel Energy released an initial plan to replace Comanche Station with renewables and natural gas in October 2024 but left the door open to adding less proved technologies like geothermal or advanced nuclear after 2030. State utility regulators are currently considering the proposal.
Meanwhile, the local leaders behind the Pueblo report formed an advocacy group called the Cleaner Coal Communities Coalition, which supported the bill to reclassify nuclear as “clean energy” in Colorado. Unions like the Colorado AFL-CIO and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 111 also backed the proposal.
Liston said those groups were critical to winning over lawmakers.
“Blue-collar people have come to realize this means not just jobs but good careers for them down the road,” Liston said.
Even though nuclear energy offers a climate-friendly alternative to fossil fuels, environmental groups don’t think it should count as “clean” energy.
The Fort Saint Vrain Generating Station, Colorado’s first and only nuclear power plant, closed in 1989. The U.S. Department of Energy, however, continues to store spent nuclear fuel in a heavily guarded repository at the same location, which has been converted into a natural gas power plant.
Wind and solar don’t risk burdening communities with radioactive contamination and multigenerational waste challenges, said Jamie Valdez, a Pueblo-based environmental advocate and founding member of the Nuclear-Free Colorado Coalition.
He was disappointed lawmakers approved the legislation, which he fears could “siphon” resources away from far safer renewable resources.
Other environmental advocates say nuclear energy is simply too expensive. In 2023, NuScale, a leading startup behind the push for small nuclear reactors, canceled a plan to build a major project in Idaho after costs nearly doubled. Other projects have struggled to launch due to stiff competition from natural gas and solar.
“The math just doesn’t math on these projects. The price-per-kilowatt-hour for renewable wind and solar is vastly lower than nuclear,” said Ean Thomas Tafoya, the vice president of state programs for GreenLatinos, an environmental justice group.
But it appears Gov. Jared Polis is willing to give the nuclear industry a chance to cut costs. When asked if he plans to sign the legislation, Ally Sullivan, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, said Colorado is currently transitioning to clean energy to save people money and protect the environment.
“If nuclear energy becomes cost-competitive with other clean energy sources, it could become part of Colorado’s clean energy future, and we should continue to evaluate all options to meet our bold 2040 goal,” Sullivan said in an emailed statement.
“The governor looks forward to reviewing the final version of the bill.”
To read more stories from Colorado Public Radio, visit www.cpr.org.
