The PUC's advice is "two avenues exist for me. First the Office of the Consumer Advocate." Seems to me the position that OCA ought to be advocating is to include analysis that would provide electricity with optimum reliability and lowest prices. They won't be advocating for a particular source and technology -- just that possible avenues are NOT excluded. Talking to them isn't a bad idea -- if they say yes, you can help prepare their submission. If it is no, I'd expect you could get a clearer analysis of why they don't want to include the available nukes.
Second, you might find common cause with some of the intervenors representing firms who are expected to pay for electricity. Convince one or more of them with your positions on availability and expense and request they at least advocate for the OPTION of nuclear power from AP-1000 or APR-1400.
As best as I understand the process, unless you can persuade a corporation to propose building capacity based on AP-1000 or APR-1400, it isn't going to happen. The PUC cannot mandate a path the corporations don't want to take, right? So ultimately, a choice to go nuclear with the AP-1000 or AP-1400 will likely be up to existing Nuclear Energy Companies [https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/reactors/ownership.php] and their ability to convince existing electric utility firms in Colorado to commit to a specific future.
The PUC has a lot of influence here. If Xcel suggests building a coal plant (they won't), the PUC would likely say that the cost of construction cannot be borne by the rate payers. That kills that plant.
The PUC's advice is "two avenues exist for me. First the Office of the Consumer Advocate." Seems to me the position that OCA ought to be advocating is to include analysis that would provide electricity with optimum reliability and lowest prices. They won't be advocating for a particular source and technology -- just that possible avenues are NOT excluded. Talking to them isn't a bad idea -- if they say yes, you can help prepare their submission. If it is no, I'd expect you could get a clearer analysis of why they don't want to include the available nukes.
Second, you might find common cause with some of the intervenors representing firms who are expected to pay for electricity. Convince one or more of them with your positions on availability and expense and request they at least advocate for the OPTION of nuclear power from AP-1000 or APR-1400.
As best as I understand the process, unless you can persuade a corporation to propose building capacity based on AP-1000 or APR-1400, it isn't going to happen. The PUC cannot mandate a path the corporations don't want to take, right? So ultimately, a choice to go nuclear with the AP-1000 or AP-1400 will likely be up to existing Nuclear Energy Companies [https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/reactors/ownership.php] and their ability to convince existing electric utility firms in Colorado to commit to a specific future.
The PUC has a lot of influence here. If Xcel suggests building a coal plant (they won't), the PUC would likely say that the cost of construction cannot be borne by the rate payers. That kills that plant.
Does reaching out to state representatives hold any hope?
There are a lot of legislators that do listen to constituents and think for themselves. So yes, this is a good avenue.