Denver Airport Proposes SMR Study for Power Needs — Community Backlash Grows

Denver International Airport has taken a bold step toward studying whether a small modular nuclear reactor could power its fast‑growing campus, then hit pause after immediate backlash to its Request for Proposals. Airport leaders issued the feasibility study RFP on August 6, budgeted at up to USD 1.25 million with a 6–12 month timeline. Two days later, on August 8, they delayed the process to hold community outreach in District 11 and across the city before moving forward. Officials stress the effort is exploratory, not a siting decision, as the airport weighs how to meet surging demand while keeping long‑term climate goals on track.

Today, Denver International Airport (DEN) draws roughly 45 MW of electricity, most from Xcel Energy. That load is set to change. The airport handled about 82.3–82.4 million passengers in 2024 and is planning for more than 120 million by 2045. Internal estimates suggest future power needs could approach 400 MW by mid‑century as terminals expand, fleets electrify, and energy‑hungry tenants such as data centers look to locate near the runways.

Airport materials note that SMRs can reach up to 300 MW each, with potential footprints ranging from 10 to 100 acres, depending on design.

Community reaction and political context

The announcement spurred a swift reaction from residents and their district representative.

• Councilmember Stacie Gilmore (District 11, which includes the airport) criticized the lack of advance engagement and flagged concerns about:
  • water use,
  • neighborhood safety,
  • property values.

She welcomed the removal and delay of the RFP pending what she called more authentic outreach. Airport CEO Phil Washington and Mayor Mike Johnston continue to support the study, describing it as planning work needed to secure reliable, clean power at the scale an international hub will require. They emphasized DEN is still in a learning phase and that the nuclear review would not displace ongoing solar and efficiency projects.

Policy and state background

• H.B. 24‑1040, effective August 7, 2025, reclassifies nuclear energy as “clean energy”, making projects eligible for state and local clean‑energy planning and financing tools.
  • Supporters say this change could open public and private funding pathways for studies like DEN’s.
  • Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests the designation could make it easier for large infrastructure owners to consider nuclear alongside wind, solar, and storage in long‑term planning.

Colorado’s nuclear history is limited: Fort St. Vrain, a 330‑MWe plant, shut down in 1989. If one were built at DEN, it would be Colorado’s first new nuclear project.

At the federal level, the White House has signaled interest in speeding nuclear deployment, and major tech firms are exploring SMRs for data centers—an industry Denver leaders hope to attract to the Aerotropolis area.

Advocacy and opposition

• Opposition groups such as the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center and GreenLatinos argue nuclear power is costly, risky, and produces long‑lived waste that could remain on‑site for years due to the lack of a federal repository.
• Nuclear safety analyst Edwin Lyman (Union of Concerned Scientists) warned a reactor at the airport could become de facto storage for high‑level waste.
• Supporters counter that SMRs deliver 24/7, carbon‑free “firm” power that balances variable renewables, and note some advanced designs do not rely on large volumes of cooling water.
• Xcel Energy, which operates nuclear units in Minnesota and is familiar with Fort St. Vrain’s history, attended the announcement to share technical experience.

What the feasibility study would examine

If reissued, the Request for Proposals would direct consultants to evaluate:

1. Technology options and configurations
2. Economics and lifecycle costs
3. Potential funding sources, including federal grants
4. Safety and security considerations
5. Regulatory path and licensing
6. Siting and logistics across the airport’s roughly 33,500–34,000 acres
7. Interactions with aviation safety and security rules
8. Cooling and water‑use studies, including designs using coolants like molten salts or liquid metals instead of water

Airport officials have also mentioned underground siting as a way to reduce visual footprint and improve security.

How nuclear would fit with DEN’s current clean‑energy work

The airport says nuclear power, if it ever became part of the mix, would complement—not replace ongoing clean‑energy programs:

• More than 100 acres of solar arrays on site
• The state’s largest Energy Performance Contract to cut energy waste
• Expansion of the electric vehicle fleet
• Targeting LEED Gold or Platinum for new construction

The SMR concept is seen as firm, carbon‑free capacity to support terminal growth, airside electrification, and the round‑the‑clock energy needs of potential data‑center tenants.

Process, timeline, and regulatory hurdles

Near term:

• The airport will brief District 11 and other neighborhoods, gather feedback, and may adjust the study scope before reissuing the RFP.
• A revised procurement timeline had not been published as of August 12, 2025.
• Once a contract is awarded, the feasibility work would last 6–12 months, producing findings on:
  • technology fit,
  • siting,
  • water needs,
  • cost and funding,
  • regulatory feasibility.

Important: No construction authorization would follow from the study itself.

Regulatory and review pathways include:

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing (potentially using a certified SMR design, an early site permit, or a combined license)
• Environmental review under NEPA
• Security and emergency planning
• State and local land‑use rules
• Coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration for aviation safety and airspace

For background on SMR licensing and designs, the NRC provides public guidance at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr.html. The study’s role is to map these requirements, risks, and timelines so city leaders can judge whether to proceed.

Stakeholder positions and key issues

Supporters emphasize:

• Baseload reliability
• Modular buildout and stackability (install one unit and add more as load grows)

Opponents stress:

• Cost and pace of nuclear development
• Preference for scaling deployable solar, wind, batteries, and emerging clean hydrogen

Recurring concerns:

• Water use in nearby neighborhoods — though some advanced designs could reduce cooling water demand
• The airport notes that water use will depend on the design and that water considerations are near the top of the study list

Recent timeline of events (2025)

• April: Lawmakers passed H.B. 24‑1040; Governor Jared Polis signed it.
• July: CEO Phil Washington discussed SMRs at a “Future of Aerotropolis” event.
• August 6: DEN and Mayor Johnston unveiled the study plans and issued the RFP (around 8 a.m.).
• August 6 (hours later): Tough questions raised in a City Council committee meeting, including by Councilmember Gilmore.
• August 8: The airport delayed the RFP to make time for community engagement.
• August 11–12: Local coverage continued as officials and advocates debated cost, safety, and climate goals.

What could happen next

If the airport proceeds after outreach, the study (due within a year) could recommend:

• A shortlist of technologies
• Possible sites on the vast campus
• A water plan
• Early funding ideas

Even with favorable findings, licensing, financing, and construction would extend across multiple years.

Financial and stakeholder notes:

• Airport officials say they will use enterprise funds, not the city’s general fund, to pay for the feasibility work.
• Residents can expect briefings and listening sessions in District 11 and citywide before procurement restarts.
• Xcel Energy’s role remains important as current supplier and potential grid partner, especially if the airport pursues on‑site generation while expanding purchases from the regional system.

Key takeaway: The RFP pause reflects community concern and the complexity of adding nuclear to a major airport campus. The feasibility study—if resumed after outreach—will map technical options, water needs, costs, and regulatory steps but would not authorize construction.