Bill defining nuclear energy as 鈥榗lean鈥� clears first vote at Colorado Capitol
Proponents hope to jumpstart nuclear development for communities transitioning away from coal. But the proposal remains mired in controversy.
Craig Press/File photo
A bill that would add nuclear to the definition of “clean energy” under Colorado’s renewable energy standard cleared its first House committee Thursday at the Capitol.
Proponents of have pitched the measure as a critical first step for opening the state up to new nuclear energy development, which has been since the state’s first and only nuclear plant ceased operations in 1989.
The bill represents a breakthrough for nuclear energy talks at the Capitol after other Republican-led efforts failed to advance out of committees in previous sessions. This year’s legislation has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but it remains a controversial proposal that has garnered skepticism from some Democrats.
At the federal level, bipartisan support for nuclear energy is growing, with Congress aimed at making it cheaper and faster to build nuclear reactors. Colorado lawmakers sponsoring House Bill 1040 hope that by adding nuclear to the state’s renewable energy standard it can unlock those incentives for future projects.
Proponents say embracing nuclear power could be an economic boon for Colorado’s coal-dependent communities as the state transitions to other forms of energy. Coal plants in Hayden and Craig by the end of the decade while Pueblo’s last remaining plant is poised to shutter by 2031.
Support Local Journalism
“Northwest Colorado has always powered Colorado,” said Garfield County Commissioner Perry Will, who testified on the bill during Thursday’s committee hearing. “Now, coal is shutting down and oil and gas is in decline. We can’t afford another energy collapse. If we’re serious about energy transition, we have to leave the door open for nuclear energy options.”
Craig and the surrounding area could lose more than 400 high-paying jobs, along with as much as 47% of local tax revenue, and the nearby coal mines that fuel it.
Rep. Ty Winter, R-Trinidad, a bill sponsor whose district includes Pueblo, said he sees nuclear development as a way of bringing “increased tax revenue, blue-collar jobs and economic stability” to communities that have long relied on coal to be their economic powerhouse.
But local officials and residents in coal communities on nuclear’s ability to fill that void.
That debate was on full display during Thursday’s hearing, which saw hours of testimony by industry proponents who hailed nuclear as a safe and effective answer to replacing fossil fuels while others raised concerns about its health risks and environmental impact.
Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs, said nuclear facilities require immense amounts of water to cool and questioned how it “makes sense to push an energy source that further strains” the state’s water resources.
Velasco was one of five Democrats who voted against the bill.
Proponents say advancements in nuclear technology have led to alternate cooling methods, like molten salts. They also point to the emerging development of small modular reactors that take up a fraction of the footprint of a typical nuclear plant.
But the technology , with only three small modular reactors currently operating worldwide.
“Even a small reactor can release dangerous radiation if sabotaged or if an accident occurs, especially since many are proposed new populated areas,” said Ean Thomas Tafoya, a Colorado-based organizer for the national Green Latinos group.
“We can’t afford to gamble on costly, dangerous and speculatively wasteful nuclear projects when better alternatives exist,” Tafoya continued.
Environmentalists also pushed back on the notion that nuclear energy can be called a clean energy source since it produces waste primarily in the form of spent fuel rods.
Proponents say those rods can be repurposed for future use, though other waste is produced through irradiated materials and tools. Most nuclear waste is hazardous for decades and a small amount can be highly radioactive and require isolation from the environment for thousands of years, .
Rural Colorado communities have raised skepticism over ideas to open up their areas . Rep. Winter said House Bill 1040 isn’t a mandate for the state to embrace nuclear but rather starts the process for communities that want to have that conversation.
“We’re not forcing counties or constituents to put in nuclear facilities,” Winter said. “This is a choice bill.”
House Bill 1040 is also sponsored by Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Frisco, and Sen. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs. It passed the House Energy and Environment Committee Thursday with a vote 8-5, with four Democrats joining the committee’s four Republicans in voting for the measure.
It now heads to the full House for a preliminary vote.
