The recent recommendation by the Utility Policy Advisory Committee (UPAC) for Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) to explore small modular reactors (SMRs) for additional power generation has sparked a significant conversation about the future of energy in Colorado. This isn’t just about adding another power source; it’s about redefining what clean energy means and how we can achieve it. The committee’s suggestion comes at a pivotal moment, as the state grapples with the impending closure of coal-fired plants and the urgent need to diversify its energy portfolio.
The potential for SMRs to provide scalable, low-emission power is undeniable. Kate Danner, chairperson for UPAC, highlighted the modular nature of SMRs, which allows for incremental capacity increases. This scalability could be a game-changer for CSU, which has been rapidly transitioning away from coal. The utility has already made significant strides in this direction, with the closure of the Martin Drake power plant and plans to shut down the Ray Nixon facility by the end of the decade. Adding SMRs to the mix could provide a stable, baseload power source that complements the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
The conversation around nuclear power in Colorado is gaining traction, with state lawmakers actively discussing whether nuclear energy should be classified as “clean energy.” House Bill 25-1040, which passed its second reading in the statehouse, aims to do just that. This legislative push, coupled with the UPAC’s recommendation, signals a shift in how Colorado views nuclear power. If approved, the bill could open the door for more investment and development in the sector, potentially attracting partnerships with other utilities in the region.
However, the path to integrating SMRs into Colorado’s energy landscape is fraught with challenges. The cost estimates for SMR projects are staggering, ranging from $7.4 billion to $12.9 billion, with timelines stretching up to a decade. The recent cancellation of a $9 billion SMR project by Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the financial risks and uncertainties involved. CSU will need to navigate these complexities carefully, potentially through power purchase agreements or partnerships with other utilities.
The potential for collaboration is significant. Xcel Energy, which operates nuclear power plants in Minnesota, could be a key player. Tri-State Generation and Transmission, which supports the clean energy bill, could also be involved. These partnerships could help distribute the financial burden and technical challenges, making the project more feasible.
The development of SMRs in Colorado could also influence the broader energy sector. If successful, it could set a precedent for other states looking to diversify their energy portfolios while reducing emissions. It could also spur innovation in the nuclear industry, driving down costs and improving technology. However, it could also face significant opposition from environmental groups and communities concerned about safety and waste management.
The debate around SMRs in Colorado is far from settled. But one thing is clear: the state is at a crossroads. It can continue down the path of renewable energy, or it can embrace a more diverse energy mix that includes nuclear power. The decision will shape not only Colorado’s energy future but also the broader conversation around clean energy and climate change. The stakes are high, and the choices made today will echo for decades to come.
