Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Nuclear topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee advances study of advanced nuclear but faces broad public opposition
Summary
The Colorado House Energy & Environment Committee voted to adopt sponsor amendments and send House Bill 13‑37 — which would set up state coordination to explore advanced nuclear and SMR development — to appropriations after hours of pro‑ and anti‑nuclear testimony. Supporters cited jobs and firm low‑carbon power; opponents warned of costs, water and waste risks.
Representatives on the House Energy & Environment Committee voted to adopt sponsor amendments and advance House Bill 13‑37, a proposal to create a state coordination function to evaluate advanced nuclear technology, including small modular reactors (SMRs).
The bill’s sponsors said Colorado must prepare for a large projected increase in electricity demand and that advanced nuclear could supply reliable, carbon‑free baseload power. Representative Valdez, a sponsor, argued the bill would create a central point of contact and planning capacity so local governments, utilities and developers can coordinate responsibly. “We are a bipartisan team … with a very rare opportunity working together … to help solve two of Colorado’s big problems, which are energy and … pollution,” he told the committee.
Proponents from industry and advocacy groups testified that nuclear is a proven source of carbon‑free electricity and that new designs are modular and factory‑built, which may lower construction risk. Christy Hartman of the Nuclear Energy Institute said the bill “does not commit Colorado to a specific project. It ensures Colorado is prepared.” Dr. Alicia Kassem Griffith of Nano Nuclear Energy described a 15‑megawatt microreactor design she said would use helium cooling and passive safety features, adding that a state permitting coordinator would be essential for developers and communities.
Opponents warned the committee that the bill shifts risk and cost to ratepayers, could strain scarce water supplies and provides insufficient plans for spent fuel and public participation. Ellen Buckley of the Women’s Lobby of Colorado said the fiscal note and recurring costs raised alarm; public health organizations and environmental groups urged a no vote, citing unanswered questions about waste management, costs and environmental justice. “We urge you to vote no on this dangerous bill,” Buckley said.
Committee members pressed witnesses on safety oversight, noting the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s role and the existing state regulatory process. Pam Gorman, who identified herself as a nuclear fleet operations manager for Xcel Energy, pointed to NRC oversight and on‑site spent fuel management while the federal government pursues a longer‑term solution. On cost recovery, representatives heard that the bill contemplates up to $20 million for a feasibility study; utility witnesses said such costs would be routed through the Public Utilities Commission process, where intervenors and the commission would review prudency before recovery.
The committee adopted a sponsor strike‑below amendment (L004) that clarifies PUC oversight language and creates a process in which an approved application confers a rebuttable presumption of prudence for expenditures consistent with PUC approval. The committee subsequently adopted the amended package (recorded voice votes and roll calls were recorded in committee minutes) and the sponsor moved the bill to the committee on appropriations with a favorable recommendation.
What’s next: The bill was forwarded to appropriations for further review of its fiscal impacts and statutory changes. The PUC’s role and the details of cost recovery were central to the committee’s amendments; sponsors say further PUC review would be required before any study or construction proceeds.
