HB1337 is a Colorado bill intended to speed the development of nuclear energy projects in the state. It declares state policy in favor of nuclear energy development and sets two statewide goals: identifying at least one nuclear energy project site by 2035 and beginning construction of at least one project by 2040. The bill directs the Colorado Energy Office to act as the state’s permitting coordinator for nuclear projects, serving as a single point of contact for developers, stakeholders, and permitting agencies, while also helping align state and local permitting with federal requirements and assisting developers in navigating applicable regulations.
The bill also gives investor-owned electric utilities with more than 500,000 customers a central role in early project development. By August 1, 2027, such utilities must solicit information from communities, local governments, and potential developers interested in hosting or developing a nuclear project, and they must help identify possible sites in collaboration with public utilities, local governments, and developers. In doing so, they must consider workforce transition opportunities, infrastructure, water and land-use rules, environmental justice, community support, and preference for sites in federally defined energy communities. The bill further requires the Public Utilities Commission to allow expedited, up-front cost recovery for certain study-related expenditures and to act within six months on petitions for nuclear project cost-recovery mechanisms.
In practical terms, HB1337 would add a new statutory framework in Colorado law for advanced nuclear energy development, including new duties for the Colorado Energy Office and new planning and cost-recovery procedures before a project is built. It authorizes utilities to seek approval to spend and recover up to $20 million for studies on potential sites, facility designs, and related development activities, and it requires recovery through existing rate mechanisms or deferred accounting. The bill also instructs the Energy Office to recommend factors and cost-recovery approaches to the Public Utilities Commission by December 1, 2027, including possible phased certificates of public convenience and necessity and other mechanisms intended to balance project incentives with customer bill protection.
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful but not unanimous support in committee: the House Energy & Environment Committee voted 7-5 to refer the bill, as amended, to Appropriations. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record here does not show detailed arguments, but the close vote indicates the measure is somewhat contentious. The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-development and pro-planning, with an emphasis on preparing Colorado for federal funding and long-term nuclear deployment, while also acknowledging the need to manage utility costs and regulatory oversight.
The main points of contention are likely to involve whether the state should actively promote nuclear power, how much ratepayer money utilities should be allowed to spend in advance, and whether the bill’s planning and siting process adequately addresses safety, environmental justice, local control, and customer bill impacts. Supporters appear to favor the bill as a clean firm energy strategy and an economic development tool, while skeptics may question the financial risk, the role of utilities in site selection, and the appropriateness of state support for a nuclear buildout before a specific project exists.
HB1337 would create new provisions in Colorado statutes governing advanced energy development and utility regulation. It adds a new part to Title 24 directing the Colorado Energy Office to coordinate nuclear project permitting and recommend cost-recovery factors to the Public Utilities Commission, and it adds a new section to Title 40 requiring large investor-owned utilities to solicit project interest, identify sites, and obtain commission approval for certain study costs and cost-recovery mechanisms. The bill would also establish statewide nuclear development goals and could affect future utility rate cases, permitting processes, and project siting decisions for nuclear energy projects proposed after the effective date.
The bill’s overall tone is supportive of nuclear energy development and reflects a policy push to prepare Colorado for future nuclear projects. The committee vote of 7-5 to advance the bill indicates that support exists but is not broad or unanimous. Based on the bill’s structure, the sentiment among supporters is likely focused on clean firm power, economic development, and federal funding readiness, while opposition or caution appears tied to cost, utility bill impacts, and the risks of state-backed planning for a technology that has not yet been sited in Colorado.
The most notable areas of contention are cost recovery, utility ratepayer exposure, and the state’s role in advancing nuclear energy. Critics are likely concerned that allowing up to $20 million in study costs and expedited up-front recovery could shift development risk onto customers before any project is approved or built. There may also be disagreement over whether the Public Utilities Commission should be required to approve petitions within six months, how much deference should be given to utility-led siting efforts, and whether the bill sufficiently protects environmental justice, local government interests, and community consent. Supporters, by contrast, appear to prioritize speed, coordination, and positioning Colorado to compete for federal funding and future clean firm generation.