Written Testimony to the Colorado state Senate Transportation and Energy Committee on SB23-079: Nuclear Energy as a Clean Energy Resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to this committee.
I am a retired software engineer from Durango Colorado, a 6-year volunteer with Citizens’ Climate Lobby, and a 4-year member of Club 20. I do not speak on behalf of either organization, but my work with both groups informs my opinions on this issue. My comments here represent my own personal views.
Current Colorado law defines “clean energy resource” as “any electricity-generating technology that generates or stores electricity without emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”[1] Nuclear energy meets that definition, yet it is excluded from the list of acceptable energy sources[2] that the law allows.
SB23-079 would include nuclear energy as another zero-carbon resource for utilities to consider, subject to community support, economics, and safety review processes.
The Colorado legislature has set ambitious decarbonization goals “to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and advance a robust and efficient low-carbon economy for the state of Colorado and the nation.”[3] I support that ambition. However, I’m concerned about the risk of relying on a renewables-only strategy to carry the full weight of decarbonization.
I have solar PV and battery storage on my home in the mountains outside Durango. 95% of the time, those energy resources provide all the power we need. Last month, we had a lot of snow and our solar panels were buried for several days. Our batteries can keep the heat on for quite a while, but not forever. We were grateful for our connection to Tri-State’s grid. It kept our pipes from freezing.
The energy transition will be a heavy lift. I don’t think we should make laws ruling out any zero-carbon source from consideration. Congress agrees that nuclear power can be a tool to fight climate change, and so does President Biden. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the Inflation Reduction Act both included big investments in advanced nuclear. Every Democrat in the U.S. Congress plus 32 Republicans voted to pursue and fund those innovative technologies.
Now we have 11 of the 12 Colorado state Republican senators championing a zero-carbon energy source in SB23-079. It seems to me that this is an opportunity to declare bipartisan progress with a small wording change that declares nuclear energy as an electricity source that does not generate CO2 emissions.
Last week I attended Club 20’s Legislative Day. Elected members of this body from both parties were generous with their time and attention. Many, including House Speaker McCluskie, talked about the importance of bridging the partisan divide and the rural divide. Here’s an opportunity to do that. It’s important to consider the psychic and civic impact of forcing Colorado’s coal industry to shut down in the name of reducing carbon emissions and, at the same time, prohibiting communities like Craig from exploring a zero-carbon electricity generation technology for their transmission-ready site.
Nuclear power, like all forms of energy, has risks and benefits. A cautious approach is clearly called for, starting with the feasibility study proposed in HB23-1080.
We need a diverse energy portfolio if we’re going to achieve the ambitious goals we’ve set out and leave a healthy world for our children and grandchildren.
Thank you for serving Colorado, and for considering my comments. I urge a YES vote on SB23-079.
[1] Colorado Revised Statutes 2019 – Title 40 Utilities – 40-2-125.5(2)(b)
[2] Colorado Revised Statutes 2019 – Title 40 Utilities – 40-2-124(1)(a)
[3] Colorado Revised Statutes 2019 – Title 40 Utilities – 40-2-125.5(1)(b)
NOTE: SB23-079 failed to advance out of committee.
Powering Forward 
Leave a comment