Bipartisan push for nuclear energy in Colorado seeks to help coal towns transition

After years of failed attempts by Republican lawmakers to classify nuclear energy as “clean” in Colorado, some Democrats are signing onto the idea.  

House Bill 1040 would add nuclear to the definition of clean energy under the state’s renewable energy standard — a roadmap for divesting from fossil fuels. The bipartisan group of lawmakers sponsoring the bill sees it as a bid to jumpstart nuclear energy projects throughout the state, particularly in coal-dependent communities.  

“As the senator for regions like Craig and Hayden and northwest Colorado, which is going through an energy transition away from coal, exploring other types of energy development in the region is really important,” said Sen. Dylan Roberts (D-Frisco). 

---

---

Roberts said those communities — home to multiple coal-burning plants scheduled to close before the end of the decade — already have the workforce and infrastructure to support nuclear energy development, which has been dormant in Colorado since the state’s first and only nuclear plant ceased operations in 1989. 

With the state’s mandate for large-scale utility providers to reach 100% renewable electrical energy by 2050, lawmakers say nuclear power is part of an “all above approach” to reaching that goal. 

---

---

“We can’t get to 100% renewable just with solar and wind,” Roberts said. “So having other things, like nuclear or geothermal or pumped hydrogen, is how we get to our 2050 goals.”

Rep Ty Winter (R-Trinidad) said developing new forms of energy production will help secure local jobs and tax revenue while providing the power that Colorado depends on. 

“Rural Colorado has always produced the energy that runs this state,” said Winter, who introduced the bill in the House alongside Denver Rep. Alex Valdez, a Democrat. “So we’re still doing what we do best and that’s heating and feeding Coloradans.” 

Sen. Larry Liston (R-Colorado Springs), who has led the charge on similar versions of the bill that have been killed in previous legislative sessions, is more confident of its support this time around. 

He’s hoping Democratic sponsors and an education campaign touting the benefits of nuclear power will ease its passage after two years of setbacks. 

“I’m doing this because I want Colorado to succeed and have safe, reliable clean energy — and it’s not a partisan issue,” Liston said.

Nuclear energy’s complicated legacy 

Experts haven’t reached a consensus on nuclear energy’s standing as a clean energy source, which continues to fuel debate among environmentalists. 

Advocacy groups like the Sierra Club remain “unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy” which it labels a “uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity” on its website. 

“Everybody has a slightly different definition for what ‘clean’ means,” said University of Colorado Boulder professor Bri-Mathias Hodge. 

While nuclear facilities don’t emit carbon, power plants mainly produce waste in the form of spent fuel as well as irradiated materials like tools and clothing. 

Most nuclear waste is hazardous for decades, though a small amount can be highly radioactive and require isolation from the environment for thousands of years, according to the World Nuclear Association. 

“Nuclear’s big problem throughout history has been the long-term waste storage,” Hodge said. “There’s been lots of efforts over the years for a better long-term strategy … but that has never been fully resolved.”

Along with lots of concrete for shielding, running nuclear power requires immense amounts of water to cool down the system, which could further strain an already limited resource in Colorado. 

Rural areas like Craig and Hayden do have one major advantage — high-capacity transmission lines capable of delivering nuclear energy’s power. Such infrastructure is usually a major roadblock for renewable energy projects due to its cost, Hodge said. 

And even as communities look to embrace wind and solar energy as the state phases out coal, Hodge said it will likely take novel approaches to reach the state’s 100% renewable goals. 

“I do think to get that last 5%, 10%, maybe 20%, we do need some other types of technologies we don’t typically use,” Hodge said. 

But nuclear power’s complicated legacy — marked by one of the worst energy disasters in global history in Chernobyl — hangs over the industry. While coal-burning plants have been linked to chronic health concerns, a single mistake with nuclear energy could have catastrophic results. 

“We don’t have that long track record of success to point at,” Hodge said. 

Changing the narrative 

A coalition of rural Colorado leaders is trying to change that perception. 

The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado is an economic development group representing Mesa, Garfield, Rio Blanco and Moffat counties. While the group hasn’t taken an official stance on House Bill 1040, it has advocated for nuclear energy projects in the northwest region as a way of diversifying local economies. 

“The transition away from coal is pivotal, because it is impacting not just the local ecological landscape, but really the community’s identity,” said Matt Solomon, the group’s project manager and a former Eagle town council member who ran unsuccessfully to represent the northwest region in the state Senate. 

“The challenge is to replace this single resource with an economy that is both environmentally sustainable and that also provides growth for economic opportunity,” he continued. 

Craig and Moffat County could lose more than 400 high-paying jobs, along with as much as 47% of local tax revenue, due to the closure of the Craig Station power plant and the nearby coal mines that fuel it. The plant is scheduled to close in 2028. 

Any new energy project “has to be capable of generating the tax revenue at least equal to that of coal plants,” Solomon said. 

Sponsors of House Bill 1040 say the legislation is written in a way that would provide property tax revenue by not giving nuclear energy the same tax breaks as other renewable power. 

When it comes to what a nuclear facility would look like in a place like Craig or Hayden, Solomon pictures small modular nuclear reactors. 

The emerging technology has seen limited development, with only three small modular reactors currently operating worldwide. But it has the potential to lead to smaller-scale plants that require less resources to manage, Solomon said.

“There’s a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings, but once people learn facts and are open to having conversations, a lot of those concerns can be alleviated and mitigated,” Solomon said. “Modern nuclear technology has to fit into a strict regulatory framework and there are daily inspections, continuous monitoring to ensure there is that safety.”

In a survey of 428 northwest Colorado residents conducted by the group last May, an overwhelming majority — 88% — said they strongly or somewhat favored using nuclear energy as a form of energy production in the region. 

“Colorado has set itself as a leader in this energy transition, nationally,” Solomon said. “And other states are looking to Colorado as an example and we have an opportunity … to support the greater ripple effect of the Rocky Mountain region’s transition from coal.” 

But much of that could hinge on the fate of 1040. 

Legally defining nuclear power as a clean energy source has the potential to unlock heaps of federal funding for clean energy projects. And because the state has set a deadline for renewable energy development, lawmakers want utility companies to look at nuclear as an option for getting there. 

“This new modern nuclear technology, whether it’s small-scale reactors or a larger project, I think could be explored in a more serious way if the state recognizes it as part of our overall move to renewable and clean energy,” Roberts said. 

House Bill 1040 has been assigned to the House Energy & Environment Committee. A previous version of the bill died last year in a Senate committee hearing, with Democrats voting 4-3 along party lines to kill the measure.