The Colorado House Energy and Environment Committee passed HB25-1040, “Adding Nuclear Energy as a Clean Energy Resource,” to the House floor on an 8 to 5 vote. Testimony went long and late into the evening. I couldn’t stay the entire time and submitted my written testimony online. I’ve provided it below, along with brief explanations of the two amendments that passed and general commentary on opposition arguments.

Testimony to the House Energy and Environment Committee
Regarding HB25-1040
Thursday, February 13, 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Amy Cooke, and I specialize in energy and environmental policy at the Independence Institute, Colorado’s state-based free-market think tank. Additionally, I co-founded Always On Energy Research, a nonprofit that models state energy plans, Integrated Resource Plans, and federal regulations for cost and reliability. Today, I represent myself to testify in strong support of Colorado House Bill 25-1040.

I have been a vocal advocate for nuclear power for over a decade—not only because it provides clean, reliable, and safe energy, but also because of its critical role in national security. Consider this: China currently operates 56 nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 54.3 gigawatts (GW) and has 30 more reactors under construction, adding 32.5 GW of capacity. In contrast, the United States must act decisively to remain competitive in energy security.

My perspective is also shaped by my recent experience in North Carolina, where nuclear power comprises approximately 30% of the state’s generation portfolio. Nuclear’s reliability is indisputable. During Winter Storm Elliott, rolling blackouts affected millions, yet nuclear power plants remained online, consistently delivering electricity when it was needed most.

I am encouraged by the bipartisan support for nuclear energy at the federal level and for this bill. Make no mistake: nuclear power is experiencing a long-overdue renaissance in the United States.

• Illinois recently lifted a four-decade moratorium on new nuclear construction.
• Wyoming is emerging as a nuclear energy leader in the Mountain West, with approval for a 35,000-square-foot training facility and TerraPower’s advanced nuclear reactor receiving key state permits.
• Today, nuclear power provides clean, safe, and reliable energy to millions of Americans across 28 states.

As power demand increases and grid reliability declines, more states are turning to nuclear energy as a solution. Unfortunately, Colorado is getting left behind.

HB25-1040 is essential to sending a clear message: Colorado is open to reliable power, business development, and nuclear energy investment.

Colorado’s current energy policies send mixed signals. For years, the state pursued a 100% wind, solar, and battery goal by 2040. However, the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) report from 2024 concluded that this strategy is the most expensive way to decarbonize and barely meets reliability standards. The estimated $61 billion price tag excludes additional costs for transmission and distribution infrastructure. This problem will only worsen as electric vehicles and heat pumps further increase demand.

Our modeling at Always On Energy Research has confirmed that a wind, solar, and battery grid requires massive overbuilding, curtailment and transmission infrastructure investments, making it the costliest approach to decarbonization and still we’re likely to experience blackouts.

Our modeling also showed that the total system cost of nuclear as baseload power is significantly less expensive compared to wind, solar, and batteries.

Source: Independence Institute’s Colorado’s Energy Future Report Series

Polling shows likely Colorado voters favor nuclear energy more than 2:1 (53% support, 25% oppose). 54% said they favor including nuclear power in Colorado’s clean energy mix by 2040, with support crossing partisan lines to include 65% of Republicans, 52% of Unaffiliated voters, and a plurality (48%) of Democrats.

Some argue that nuclear development is already possible under current policy. Yet, institutional hostility remains an obstacle. In 2018, Colorado passed a law recognizing nuclear energy as an “emission-free, cleaner resource” alongside biogas and biomass—and the CEO was tasked with promoting it. However, a search of the CEO’s website reveals no visible promotion of nuclear power.

Also important to 94 percent of likely voters is reliability. With a capacity factor of roughly 93 percent, it is the most reliable energy source.

If you were to draw a Venn diagram with two groups—those concerned about climate change in one circle and those prioritizing grid reliability in another circle, the overlap is nuclear power.

The climate and reliability debate must be grounded in facts. Former Senator Mark Udall faced criticism in 2008 for stating that if climate change is a priority, nuclear power must be part of the solution. He was right then, and he is right today.

If emissions reduction and reliability are your issues, then nuclear power is the answer.

I respectfully urge a YES vote on HB25-1040 to ensure Colorado embraces clean, reliable, safe, and cost-effective nuclear energy.

Thank you.

Amendments

Two amendments to the original bill were added. One allows regulated utilities such as Xcel Energy to spend up to $15 million for studies regarding “potential sites, facility designs, and other activities related to the development of nuclear energy in Colorado” and to pass those costs along to ratepayers.

A second amendment that passed is blatantly discriminatory. Nuclear energy cannot be classified as a clean resource for property tax purposes, meaning it won’t receive the same property tax benefits as wind, solar, and battery storage (WSBS). It highlights opponents’ fear that reliable nuclear power will compete with preferred unreliable, intermittent sources. At the same time, opponents claim that nuclear can’t possibly compete with wind and solar because they are so much cheaper. Which is it?

Commentary on Opposition Arguments

It’s clear that some in Colorado need remedial education on nuclear energy. I break down opposition arguments into two categories.

Predictable

• Using the incomplete levelized cost of energy (LCOE) versus the total system cost of a resource as an argument that WSBS are cheaper than nuclear is predictable and also shows a lack of understanding about how power ends up in your home.
• Conflating nuclear energy with nuclear weapons.

Denial

• We are incapable of learning from past mistakes, which may be true for opponents who want the state to rely upon ancient technology like wind and solar. The argument denies that 94 nuclear reactors provide clean, reliable, safe power for tens of millions of people across 28 states.
• Uranium extraction (from the ground!) keeps nuclear from being “clean.” Further, the U.S. imports uranium from “unstable countries like Kazakhstan.” Three points on this. First, the U.S. has recoverable reserves, but regulations make uranium mining a challenge. Second, Canada is our number one source for reactor uranium followed by Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Australia. Mentioning Kazakhstan isn’t wrong, just incomplete. Third, where do these people think the rare earth minerals that go into wind turbines and solar panels come from? If you said they are extracted from the ground, give yourself a gold star!
• Nuclear isn’t safe. That’s wrong. Nuclear “turns out to be thesafest of all energy sources by any measure and in any study,” according to Forbes.