House Bill 26-1337 moved through fiscal revision this morning, advancing a legislative effort to expand Colorado’s nuclear energy footprint. The bill establishes an ambitious state policy to begin construction on at least one nuclear project by 2040. To streamline development, the measure designates the Colorado Energy Office as the central permitting coordinator, providing a single point of contact to help developers navigate complex regulatory hurdles. The bill also incentivizes utility participation by allowing companies to recoup up to $20 million in expenditures for necessary siting and design studies.
The recent fiscal revision transforms these policy goals into an operational framework by creating the “Advanced Nuclear Energy and Technical Assistance Office.” This office will be staffed by a dedicated state nuclear engineer and a project manager. Rather than drawing from general tax dollars, the office will be self-funded through an annual fee of up to $1.15 million charged to developing utilities.
HB26-1337 passed the House Energy & Environment Committee last week with a narrow 7–6 vote. While all Republican committee members supported the measure, Democrats were split. High-profile party members like Representative Junie Joseph voted against it, while Democrats Alex Valdez (a co-sponsor), Amy Paschal, and Manny Rutinel joined Republicans to advance the bill. Ty Winter, a co-sponsor, described the legislation as a “meaningful step for nuclear energy and Colorado’s energy future.” He also praised nuclear power for providing “reliable base load power, good-paying blue-collar jobs and stability for energy-producing communities.”
Valdez and Winter did not respond to requests for further comment by the time of publication.
Despite this support, the bill faces intense opposition from grassroots organizations. The Colorado Renewable Energy Society (CRES) issued a formal letter of opposition, arguing that “nuclear is the exact opposite of clean” because it produces waste that remains “dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years.” CRES also highlighted the economic risks, citing Georgia’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 as a warning. Those reactors were completed seven years behind schedule at a cost of $36.8 billion, leading to a 23.7% increase in ratepayer bills. Opponents further argued that the 15-year timeline for nuclear construction is too slow compared to the one-to-two-year window for wind and solar projects.
Ean Tafoya of Colorado GreenLatinos told the Colorado Sun that the bill is a “tone-deaf […] betrayal” of environmental justice. Critics also raised concerns regarding the high water-usage rates required for nuclear facilities, a sensitive issue as many Colorado cities face chronic droughts.
The bill’s future remains uncertain as it faces a deadline of May 13, 2026, when the General Assembly adjourns. To become law, it must pass second and third readings in the House before moving through the Senate. CRES has already begun mobilizing opposition by releasing a voter toolkit to help citizens vocalize their concerns to lawmakers.
Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.
Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays ready to lead, no matter who’s in charge.
