HB1040 would expand Colorado’s statutory definitions of “clean energy” and “clean energy resource” to include nuclear energy, including nuclear projects funded through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Nuclear Reactor Programs. The bill’s stated purpose is to recognize nuclear power as a carbon-free source that can complement wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectricity, and hydrogen in Colorado’s clean energy portfolio.
The bill also includes a targeted property-tax carveout: for purposes of property taxation under the referenced statute, “clean energy resource” would not include nuclear energy. In effect, the measure broadens nuclear’s eligibility in clean-energy policy definitions while preserving a separate tax treatment for property-tax purposes. The act would take effect after the referendum period unless referred to voters.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily definitional. It amends two energy statutes to place nuclear energy within the state’s clean-energy framework and adjusts a property-tax definition to exclude nuclear from that specific context. This could affect how state agencies, utilities, planners, and clean-energy programs classify nuclear generation, and it may influence eligibility for policy treatment, planning, and investment signals tied to clean-energy status.
Overall sentiment appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill passed the House with a clear majority and later passed the Senate on third reading, suggesting substantial bipartisan support for including nuclear energy as part of Colorado’s clean-energy strategy. At the same time, the Senate Transportation & Energy Committee rejected two proposed amendments before advancing the bill, indicating some disagreement over its details or scope.
The main point of contention is whether nuclear energy should be treated the same as other clean-energy sources in state law. Supporters emphasized reliability, emissions reduction, land-use efficiency, job creation, and grid stability, while the separate property-tax exclusion suggests concern about extending every clean-energy benefit to nuclear. The recorded votes show some opposition, likely reflecting broader policy debates about nuclear safety, waste, cost, and whether nuclear should be grouped with renewable resources.
HB1040 amends Colorado statutes to add nuclear energy to the definitions of “clean energy” and “clean energy resource” in energy-planning and emissions-reduction law, while expressly excluding nuclear energy from the “clean energy resource” definition for property-tax purposes. This changes how nuclear generation is classified under state law and may affect eligibility, planning, and programmatic treatment in clean-energy policy, but it does not itself authorize a new facility or mandate utility procurement.
The bill appears to have broad but not unanimous support. It advanced through committee and passed both chambers, including a strong Senate third-reading vote, indicating that many lawmakers viewed nuclear energy as a useful addition to Colorado’s clean-energy toolkit. However, the committee votes on amendments and the presence of dissenting floor votes show that the measure was still controversial for some members.
The central dispute is whether nuclear power belongs in the same statutory category as renewable and other clean-energy resources. Supporters argued it is carbon-free, reliable, and useful for meeting rising electricity demand and decarbonization goals. Opponents or skeptics appear to have focused on the policy implications of labeling nuclear as clean, especially given the bill’s separate exclusion for property-tax purposes, which suggests concern about extending all clean-energy benefits to nuclear facilities. The amendment votes in the Senate committee also indicate disagreement over the bill’s precise language and scope.