By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
As Colorado pursues its climate goals, communities in the northwestern energy corridor are beginning to take a different approach. Instead of relying only on wind, solar, or state mandates, local leaders are turning their attention to nuclear energy as a viable solution.
A new report from the Northwest Colorado Energy Initiative (NCEI), released in June 2025, documents months of public engagement across Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, Mesa, and Montrose counties. The report explores whether these communities would be willing to consider participation in the federal government’s consent-based siting (CBS) program for spent nuclear fuel storage or reprocessing.
The report does not make any commitments. Instead, it poses foundational questions to determine public interest, clarify concerns, and lay the groundwork for a locally driven decision-making process. That approach appears to be gaining traction across the region.
According to Matt Solomon, project manager for the Northwest Colorado Energy Initiative, “The response has been largely constructive. The report made clear that no commitments are being made: the goal was to ask the right questions, gauge interest, and surface concerns before any federal proposals come into view.”
He said that framing helped clarify intent and lower the temperature. “Conversations since the release have become sharper, more informed, and increasingly community-led. Even among those who remain skeptical, there has been recognition that exploring these questions early is better than being caught off guard later.”
Local Readiness and Federal Timing
The next major development is expected this fall when the Department of Energy’s Office of Collaboration-Based Siting plans to issue a formal Expression of Interest. Solomon noted, “That decision rests with local governments. DOE’s Office of Collaboration-Based Siting is expected to release an Expression of Interest (EOI) this fall. If Northwest Colorado chooses to respond, the report outlines possible paths, including a regional model with locally tailored engagement. Any EOI would represent interest in continuing public engagement, not in hosting a facility or making a commitment.”
He emphasized that the entire effort remains community-driven and exploratory, with next steps determined by local interest, not outside pressure.
The CBS model places local control at the center of the process. It calls for enforceable benefit agreements, transparent decision-making, and staged phases of participation. This structure differs significantly from earlier federal siting efforts that often imposed solutions without regional consent.
Public Support, Grounded in Conditions
Community sentiment gathered during the initiative points to strong but cautious support for nuclear energy. According to the NCEI Survey 1 Report, 88.58% of regional respondents said they supported including nuclear in Colorado’s long-term energy strategy. More than 83% supported the recycling or reprocessing of spent fuel, and nearly 87% backed further investment in nuclear research and innovation.
That support was not unconditional. Seventy-five percent of respondents indicated that clear and enforceable safety requirements would be necessary for them to support any future facility.
The survey revealed that only 19.44% of participants trusted the federal government to determine energy choices for their community. The results also showed that people would support nuclear energy when paired with local veto power, environmental safeguards, economic benefits, and open communication. One person expressed their backing for the plan because they believed their community members were more familiar to them than Washington officials.
Solomon said the support was driven by grounded, local concerns. “A 2024 survey across Northwest Colorado found that 88.58% of respondents supported including nuclear in the state’s energy future. That support was driven by practical concerns such as workforce retention, grid reliability, and long-term affordability.”
Nuclear’s Role in Colorado Law and Policy
Colorado legislators have begun treating nuclear energy as a topic of active interest.
House Bill 25-1040, signed into law in March, adds nuclear energy to Colorado’s official definitions of “clean energy” and “clean energy resource.” The bill doesn’t set up any new programs or funding. Instead, it gives nuclear energy a seat at the table with solar, wind and geothermal as Colorado maps out its long-term energy plans. Supporters pointed to nuclear’s steady output and high capacity factor, especially as a way to help avoid future blackouts.However, nuclear remains excluded from clean energy property tax breaks under the final statute.
Senate Bill 25-120 moved through the Senate with no formal opposition and cleared two House committees before stalling in House Appropriations on the final day for committee action. The bill proposed nuclear job training programs but relied entirely on outside donations, which raised flags in a tight budget year. Even though it didn’t pass, lawmakers’ early support pointed to growing interest in nuclear energy at the Capitol.
Support at the regional level is, also, evolving. Club 20, the Western Slope’s leading policy advocacy coalition, recently updated its energy platform to explicitly support the full nuclear life cycle, including spent fuel management and reprocessing.
Solomon noted, “Whether nuclear becomes a major part of Colorado’s energy portfolio will depend on how it is introduced. For rural communities facing the loss of coal-related jobs and tax revenue, nuclear may represent a path to long-term resilience. If pursued, it must be accompanied by honest communication, enforceable safety standards, and tangible local benefit. Energy planning and economic recovery must be aligned, rather than at odds.”
State Goals and Local Solutions
While Colorado’s energy goals remain in place, the path forward has become less certain. The Colorado Sun published a recent report showing that Colorado failed to meet its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030.
The state’s transportation sector, together with agriculture and building emissions, have not met their projected targets. The state’s climate action plan has also faced setbacks from court decisions and federal policy changes that eliminated some of the regulatory tools that supported previous climate initiatives
Colorado’s utilities and regulators are now warning that legal emissions targets may be out of reach under current caps and timelines, according to recent reporting. For example, clean heat plans mandated by law remain financially constrained and may not be sufficient to plug the emissions gap.
As the policy landscape shifts, the model being explored in Northwest Colorado may offer a more grounded alternative. CBS is not about fast-tracking development. The process begins with early dialogue to detect public worries while ensuring all future choices stem from community-established guidelines.
Solomon stated that the work is just beginning, but it is moving forward in the right way–with community as its core.