Take ACTION: OPPOSE HB26-1337 Facilitating Nuclear Energy Development

OPPOSE HB26-1337 Facilitating Nuclear Energy Development HB26‑1337 promotes nuclear energy development by streamlining approvals, guaranteeing utility cost recovery, and requiring new nuclear feasibility studies paid for by ratepayers. The bill increases costs, weakens oversight, and diverts resources from faster, more affordable clean energy solutions. HB1337 Raises Costs for Ratepayers. It guarantees utilities—especially Xcel Energy—full cost recovery for nuclear projects. The bill shifts financial risk from utilities to customers despite nuclear power’s long history of cost overruns and high electricity prices. Prioritizes corporate profits over consumer protection. It Gives Nuclear Unfair Special Treatment. It singles out nuclear for expedited approvals and guaranteed cost recovery and fails to evaluate nuclear alongside cheaper, proven clean energy options like wind, solar, and battery storage. HB1337 wastes Public and Ratepayer Money by forcing ratepayers to fund up to $20 million in new nuclear studies. It duplicates work already completed through the Phase I Just Transition Solicitation and the Pueblo Innovative Energy Solutions Advisory Committee even when additional funding already exists through the Carbon Free Future Development Fund. HB1337 Creates Long‑Term Environmental, Health, and Justice Risks. Nuclear waste is radioactive for tens of thousands of years with no permanent disposal solution. Uranium mining and processing have disproportionately harmed vulnerable communities, including the Diné (Navajo). Nuclear plants require large amounts of water, threatening agriculture, ecosystems, and drinking water in arid regions such as the Arkansas River Valley and San Luis Valley. Streamlined approvals and siting in “energy communities” risk undermining public input and perpetuating sacrifice zones, including communities like Pueblo. HB26-1337 Serves Private Industry, Not Public Need. Nuclear expansion appears driven largely by electricity demands from wealthy tech companies and AI data centers rather than demonstrated community or civilian energy needs. HB26‑1337 locks Colorado into costly, risky nuclear investments while weakening oversight and environmental justice protections. Legislators should reject the bill and prioritize affordable, proven clean energy solutions that can be deployed quickly and equitably.

CO2026AHB 26-1337

Facilitating Nuclear Energy Development

Last Action

House Committee on Appropriations Lay Over Unamended - Amendment(s) Failed

House • May 14, 2026

Latest Version

House Energy & Environment Preamend (05/04/2026)

Take action now

What's your district & how can legislators reach you?

Tell us about yourself

Your Message to the legislators

Dear (name and title inserted automatically),

I am writing to share my concerns about HB26 1337, which facilitates nuclear energy development in Colorado. I respectfully ask you to consider the potential impacts of this bill on ratepayers, communities, and the state’s clean energy future.
Nuclear energy poses significant long term environmental, health, and environmental justice risks. Radioactive waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years, with no permanent disposal solution, and uranium mining has historically harmed Indigenous and other vulnerable communities. In addition, nuclear plants require large amounts of water, creating serious concerns in Colorado’s arid regions. Streamlined approvals may also limit meaningful public input.
The bill gives nuclear power preferential treatment through expedited approvals, guaranteed cost recovery, and mandatory feasibility studies, without requiring equal evaluation of proven, lower cost alternatives such as wind, solar, energy efficiency, and battery storage. By shifting financial risk from utilities to customers, HB26 1337 could expose ratepayers to significant costs, especially given the industry’s long history of cost overruns. Requiring up to $20 million in new studies, despite existing analyses and funding sources, further raises concerns about fiscal responsibility.
Finally, much of the projected demand for new nuclear generation appears driven by large corporate electricity users—such as data centers—rather than clearly demonstrated community needs. For these reasons, I urge you to oppose HB26 1337 and stand up for ratepayers, energy affordability, and fair, evidence based energy policy.
I hope Colorado’s energy policy will continue to prioritize affordability, accountability, and equitable benefits for residents statewide. Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully urge you to oppose HB26 1337.