Colorado generates about a third of its electricity from 10 coal-fired power plants around the state, with a total combined capacity of 4,127 MW. All these plants are scheduled to close by 2031, to fulfil Colorado’s goal of eliminating carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Nearly 3,000 Coloradans currently work in the coal industries, including contractors, rail workers, suppliers, and those who support the mines and power plants. Closure of these plants creates crises for these workers, and economically impacts their families, communities and local businesses. Anticipating a future beyond coal is currently an acute source of stress for Coloradans, who are expecting a steep decline in economic activity and opportunities for the community. Significant economic hardship is anticipated in rural areas following the plant closures, along with loss of well-paid, secure union jobs and health benefits. As Coloradan residents consider whether to move, or what other industries could possibly replace coal, the lack of certainty affects their mental well-being. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment are developing aid packages to help workers through the transition, but this is surely not sufficient for the long-term employment security of these people in future decades.

‍

These closures are also expected to leave a sizeable hole in the region’s taxbase and jobs. As an example, in 2023, the Craig and Moffat County coal industry provided 43% of property tax revenues and accounted for 437 high-paying jobs. The local school district and fire district depend on tax revenues from the power plant for 50% of their funds. Colorado's estimated electricity peak demand is projected to double in the next 5 years, and currently the only path the state is taking to eliminate greenhouse emissions is through the roll-out of wind, solar power and battery storage. Repower Initiative has spoken to engineers that are working to convert a coal plant in Colorado and have learned that they are experiencing significant challenges to reproduce all the services the coal plant currently provides solely with these technologies.

‍

Senator Dylan Roberts has said that: “As the senator for regions like Craig and Hayden and northwest Colorado, which is going through an energy transition away from coal, exploring other types of energy development in the region is really important.”  

‍

Senator Dylan Roberts, along with Senator Larry Liston, and Representatives Alex Valdez and Ty Winter are the prime sponsors of House Bill 1040, which was introduced to the Colorado General Assembly earlier this month. It has been assigned to the House Energy & Environment Committee, where it is currently under consideration.  

‍

The bill proposes adding nuclear energy to the statutory definitions of ‘clean energy’ for the state’s renewable energy standard and the Rural Clean Energy Project Finance Program. The statutory definition of ‘clean energy’ determines which energy projects are eligible for clean energy project private and federal financing, and which energy resources can be used by a qualifying retail utility to meet the 2050 clean energy target. Clean energy in this context means any electricity-generating technology that generates or stores electricity without emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The change to this statutory definition would promote public and private research into innovations into nuclear technology and could increase the incentive for entrepreneurial US companies to develop further designs for advanced nuclear reactors.  

‍

Senator Larry Liston has said: “I’m doing this because I want Colorado to succeed and have safe, reliable clean energy — and it’s not a partisan issue”.

‍

There are currently 94 nuclear reactors in the US, which generate around 50% of the country’s carbon-dioxide-free electricity. None of these are in Colorado. Nuclear energy has a 92.7% capacity factor, which refers to the percentage of time that an electricity-generating source can generate electricity. Compared to other clean energy sources (such as solar and wind), nuclear produces higher quantities of clean energy, with a smaller land footprint, and a higher capacity factor, which helps prevents future blackouts and brownouts. House Bill 1040 posits that the development of a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) can create up to 900 jobs lasting up to 4 years for the construction of the site, as well as 300 permanent jobs for the ongoing operation. SMRs could be an ideal energy solution for Colorado (in addition to an increase in other renewable technologies), as these could be used in rural areas to keep the energy source serving the local area and decarbonise hard-to-reach industries.

‍

Repowering the existing coal sites which are due for closure over the next 6 years with clean technology such as nuclear, could be a fantastic opportunity for Colorado. If a site has closed, but has not yet been demolished, then it could still be a prime candidate for a Repowering project. Rural areas such as Craig and Hayden already have high-capacity transmission lines capable of delivering nuclear energy’s power, and there is already a significant workforce and infrastructure in place which could be re-utilised. Colorado’s local communities are dependent on the jobs and tax revenue from coal powered sites. Changing the method of power generation of these sites to nuclear would ensure job continuity, draw upon rich local expertise, and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and other toxic air pollution from coal burning. In conjunction with existing clean energy sources, nuclear could lower energy costs for Coloradans, and maintain a reliable source of electricity for the state. The Just Transition, that considers the social impact on people employed in coal industries as these shut down, is a vital aspect of reaching a globally decarbonised economy, and a peaceful future.  

‍

The Colorado General Assembly has declared in the bill that: “It is in the best interest of Colorado to add nuclear energy to the statutory definitions of ‘clean energy’ and ‘clean energy resource’.”  

‍

Repower Initiative are supportive of the Colorado General Assembly’s proposal.  

‍

Sources

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1040

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025A/bills/2025a_1040_01.pdf

https://coloradosun.com/2020/11/01/craig-coal-plant-closing-economy-improving/

https://coloradosun.com/2025/01/18/nuclear-waste-storage-colorado-rio-blanco-county-rangely/

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/bipartisan-push-for-nuclear-energy/

https://coloradosun.com/2024/08/27/colorado-coal-fired-power-plants-closing/