Senate committee advances bill to label nuclear a "clean energy" resource; HB10-40 moves to committee of the whole, 6-3

House Bill 10‑40, a proposal to add nuclear energy to Colorado’s statutory definition of “clean energy resource,” advanced out of the Senate Transportation and Energy Committee on a 6–3 vote after nearly four hours of testimony and multiple panels of supporters and opponents.

Supporters said the bill would allow communities and utilities to consider modern nuclear options—including small modular reactors—when planning ways to replace retiring coal plants and meet future demand. Opponents said the bill would divert policy attention and public funds away from proven renewables and raise unresolved safety, waste and cost questions.

The bill’s sponsors framed the measure as a narrow, technical change: it would add nuclear power to the list of technologies in Colorado statute (section 40‑2‑125.5) that are treated as “clean energy” for purposes of planning and compliance, not as a mandate to build new reactors. Senator Liston, who opened the presentation to the committee, said HB10‑40 “just adds nuclear energy to the statute definitions of clean energy” and emphasized that “this is not a mandate nor does it require that a city or utility to use nuclear energy.”

Why it matters: proponents argued that designating nuclear as a clean energy resource would let communities and utilities consider advanced nuclear technologies when they prepare resource plans and replace baseload capacity lost as coal plants retire. Several witnesses from utilities and construction trades told the committee that nuclear could provide firm, 24/7 carbon‑free power and jobs to communities facing early coal plant retirements. Opponents warned that modern small modular reactors are unproven at scale in the U.S., that long‑term spent fuel disposition remains unresolved, and that nuclear projects carry higher up‑front costs that could be borne by ratepayers.

Key testimony and themes

- Utilities and labor: Travis Dillon, chief executive officer of Colorado Springs Utilities, testified in support and said the utility needs “clean, firm baseload power that is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.” Representatives of building trades and IBEW told the committee nuclear projects could preserve or create high‑paying skilled trades jobs in places losing coal employment.

- Local economic transition: Multiple speakers from Pueblo and northwest Colorado — including a representative of a local just‑transition study and Pueblo County Commissioner Paula McPheeters — said communities shuttering coal plants face immediate tax‑base and jobs shortfalls, and that advanced nuclear could be one option to be evaluated locally.

- Environmental and public‑health concerns: Witnesses including Megan Kemp, John McDonough (Colorado Sierra Club), Dr. Velma Campbell (occupational and environmental physician), and representatives of environmental justice groups urged the committee to reject the bill, citing disposal, cost and health worries. McDonough said, “HB 10‑40 is an internally inconsistent and problematic bill,” and Dr. Campbell asked the committee to “vote no.”

- Technical framing: Proponents stressed the distinction between designating a technology as a clean energy option and ordering construction. Senator Roberts said the bill “would change how Colorado quantifies nuclear energy solely for the purpose of our already existing carbon emission reduction goals” and does not itself build a plant or set subsidies.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Move House Bill 10‑40 to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation (moved by Senator Simpson). - Outcome: Passed; tally 6 yes, 3 no. Legal threshold: motion carried. - Roll call (as recorded during the committee session): Yes — Catlin; Henriksen; Malika; Elton; Simpson; Sullivan. No — Exum; Cutter; Chair Winter. (Tally recorded by committee clerk: 6–3.)

Discussion, next steps and limits of the bill

Committee members and sponsors repeatedly noted that HB10‑40 does not appropriate state funds or require construction: it would only add nuclear to the statutory list used in state and utility planning. Opponents pressed that designation could change political and funding dynamics and make it easier to direct ratepayer or taxpayer resources toward nuclear proposals in the future; sponsors replied that formal regulatory approvals and utility resource‑planning processes (including PUC reviews and permitting) would still apply.

The committee received extensive technical and policy testimony but did not adopt committee amendments adding new disposal or technology‑specific limits. Two proposed committee amendments (one narrowing the statutory definition to “next‑generation” reactors and one requiring an explicit disposal/recycling plan) failed on roll call. After the bill was advanced, the matter moves to the committee of the whole where additional amendments or debate are possible.

Ending note

Supporters argued the bill simply opens a discussion and keeps options available as Colorado replaces retiring coal capacity and plans for rising demand; opponents urged caution, pointing to cost and waste‑management uncertainty. The committee’s favorable recommendation sends HB10‑40 to broader Senate consideration; whether the full Senate will adopt additional restrictions or funding provisions remains to be seen.