HB 26-1337 establishes a state framework to facilitate the development of nuclear energy projects in Colorado. It declares state policy to encourage nuclear energy 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, serving as a single point of contact for developers, stakeholders, and permitting agencies, while also helping streamline state and local permitting and align those processes with federal requirements.
The bill also requires the Energy Office to build capacity to pursue federal funding and, by December 1, 2027, recommend to the Public Utilities Commission factors for approving utility acquisition of nuclear energy projects or other clean firm resources, along with possible cost-recovery mechanisms. Those mechanisms could include partial or phased certificates of public convenience and necessity, concurrent capital cost recovery, or capped cost premiums. The bill preserves federal authority by recognizing that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission retains exclusive permitting authority over nuclear plant construction and operation under federal law.
For large investor-owned electric utilities with more than 500,000 customers, the bill imposes additional planning duties. By August 1, 2027, such utilities must solicit information from communities, local governments, and potential developers interested in hosting nuclear projects, and they must identify possible siting opportunities in collaboration with other utilities, local governments, and developers. In doing so, they must consider jobs and workforce transition opportunities, infrastructure, water and land-use rules, environmental justice, just transition concerns, community support, and preference for energy communities, while also aligning siting with large-load development when practical.
The bill would also change utility cost recovery in a significant way by allowing expedited, upfront recovery for certain study-related expenditures and authorizing up to $20 million for studies on potential sites, facility designs, and related development activities. The Public Utilities Commission would be required to approve that study-cost application and to rule within six months on petitions for nuclear-project cost recovery, considering both incentives for development and protection of customer bills. In practical terms, the bill creates new planning, coordination, and financing pathways for nuclear development and would likely affect the Colorado Energy Office, the Public Utilities Commission, large investor-owned utilities, local governments, and communities that may host projects.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s posture is supportive of nuclear energy development, with the legislation framed as a pro-development and clean-energy planning measure. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, but the bill’s last action indicates it was laid over in House Appropriations and an amendment failed, suggesting some unresolved concerns or procedural resistance. Likely points of contention include the use of utility ratepayer funds for studies, the size of the proposed cost recovery, the pace of regulatory approval, and whether Colorado should actively promote nuclear power given cost, safety, waste, and siting concerns.
The bill would add a new part to Colorado law directing the Colorado Energy Office to coordinate nuclear project permitting and to recommend utility acquisition and cost-recovery standards to the Public Utilities Commission. It would also add a new statute requiring large investor-owned electric utilities to solicit project interest, identify potential sites, and seek expedited cost recovery for planning studies, while authorizing the commission to approve up to $20 million in study-related expenditures and to act on cost-recovery petitions within six months. The measure does not alter federal nuclear licensing authority, but it would create new state-level planning, siting, and financing requirements for nuclear energy projects proposed after the effective date.
The bill appears generally favorable toward nuclear energy and is structured to accelerate project development rather than restrict it. Its policy declarations, deadlines, and funding provisions suggest strong support from sponsors for building a state pathway for nuclear deployment. At the same time, the lack of recorded testimony and the fact that it was laid over in Appropriations with an amendment failing indicate that fiscal, regulatory, or policy concerns may have limited consensus.
The main areas of contention are likely to be the financial exposure for utility customers, the mandate for expedited cost recovery, and the state’s role in promoting a technology that can raise concerns about cost, safety, waste disposal, and long-term feasibility. The bill also creates tension around siting, especially where local governments or communities may resist hosting a nuclear project, and around the balance between state coordination and federal nuclear regulation. Environmental justice, just transition, and community support requirements may also be debated by stakeholders who differ on whether the bill sufficiently protects affected communities.