New Colorado bill looks to label Nuclear energy as “Clean” under state law, opponents still wary

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KRDO) - Colorado lawmakers are looking into giving nuclear energy a green thumbs up, through a new bill that would designate it as clean energy in the eyes of state law. Sponsors of the bill say it would open up federal funding opportunities for cities and the state, and also supplement Colorado's renewable energy sources.

The bill, HB25-1040 titled "Adding Nuclear Energy as a Clean Energy Resource", is sponsored by both state representatives and senators, including Larry Liston from El Paso County, claims that the definition of "clean energy resource" is what determines which energy resources may be used by a utility to meet the clean energy goals of 2050.

The bill also boasts that nuclear is currently the single largest source of carbon-free electricity that is generated within the United States, and even around the world. Adding that there are 94 nuclear reactors in the U.S, which generate about 50% of the country's carbon-free electricity, and for that reason, it should be included in the 'clean' conversation.

Within its pages, the bill goes on to list out multiple reasons why they believe allowing nuclear reactors will be helpful and simpler to construct in rural Colorado, areas that are losing their coal and natural gas plants due to state mandates on green energy.

The Comanche Generation Plant in Pueblo, the largest coal-powered plant in the state which is owned by Xcel, is set to close by January 1, 2031. It's been previously debated whether nuclear would replace the void of energy once it's shut down, however no concrete plans have ever materialized.

The reactors that the bill have in mind, are mostly smaller sized ones, aptly called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), rather than the large scale plants that may first come to mind.

"Literally you could put a nuclear reactor in this parking lot and have room left over. That's how efficient they are." Liston said about SMRs, when he met with KRDO13 to discuss the bill on Monday.

The bill claims that SMRs can create up to 900 jobs, which last up to 4 years, while creating 300 permanent jobs in the process.

Moreover, sponsors like Liston, believe that Colorado's demand for energy is only going to grow, and the state cannot solely rely on wind, solar, and battery power.

"When it gets cloudy and cold and no wind,  if we just rely on wind and solar, we're going to get caught with our pants down." argued Liston."

Nuclear energy is incredibly dense, according to the U.S Department of Energy, a one inch pellet of uranium is the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 149 gallons of oil, and 1 ton of coal.

And while nuclear reactors can run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the waste they produce is highly radioactive and must be contained on site. The uranium, or whichever element is used for the reactor, can take hundreds, if not thousands of years to deteriorate.

"There are studies showing that children under the age of five... within five miles of a nuclear reactor have increased rates of cancers. There are other studies showing adults within a 12 mile radius of nuclear reactors having increased rates of cancer, specific kinds of cancer, esophageal and etc." explained Jamie Valdez, a Pueblo resident who runs a local organization called "Roots to Resilience", to advocate for the environmental and public health of Pueblo residents.

Valdez added that the impact of mining for the radioactive materials also creates an environmental burden, often impacting Tribal lands and their residents, based on the location of those mining areas.

"I don't see how they can even consider calling this clean energy. It just is unfathomable to me."

Valdez claims that from the outset the bill is trying to get past a technicality in state law through its 'clean energy' designation.

"The definition of clean energy, according to Colorado state law, only requires that an energy resource be carbon free, and that's not necessarily clean. I mean, it can be carbon free, and still create toxic waste, and environmental and health impacts." Valdez argued, in reference to nuclear reactors.

He also believes that the states current supply of renewable energy, such as wind, solar and batteries, are only growing and developing further, while he claims that nuclear still remains highly experimental and untested.

He also questions the aspect of reliability for SMRs, that is touted within the bill.

"When they're talking about it being reliable, it's not as reliable as they like to have people think it is. Plants shut down for no apparent reason. They have to be shut down for maintenance. They have to be shut down to change the fuel rods." explained Valdez.

The latter point, of shut downs being necessary for fuel rod replacement, is something that Liston did mention as well, however he also argued that nuclear plants can last far longer than windmills or solar panels.

"The life cycle of a nuclear plant can be 50, 60 years. Some are being repurposed and they'll be as old as 80 years, whereas wind and solar... their lifecycle is maybe 15 years and these solar, it's probably not that long." said Liston.

While the bill is still in its early stages, Liston claims he has bipartisan support in both the state house and senate. It passed its initial vote from Committee, and will be discussed on the House floor on Wednesday.