Energy policy and the future economy

Energy policy is not just about keeping the lights on today. It is about whether we have the vision to build the power infrastructure Utah will need for its 22nd-century future.

We need to start planning now for a state that will be more populated, more technologically demanding, and more interconnected than the Utah we inherited. That means thinking beyond the next rate case, the next election cycle, or the next ribbon cutting. It means building an energy system that is reliable, affordable, resilient, and designed to serve the public over the long haul.

My approach is grounded in realism, public accountability, and long-term planning—not slogans. Utah should accelerate renewable energy such as solar, wind, and geothermal, invest in storage, improve efficiency, and modernize the grid so power can move reliably between the places where it is generated and the communities that need it.

On nuclear energy specifically, the conversation has already moved beyond the hypothetical. In 2025, the Legislature created a broad framework for nuclear development, including a Nuclear Energy Consortium, a Utah Energy Council, and a process for establishing energy development zones. In 2026, it created a new Nuclear Energy Regulatory Office. The state has also proposed establishing a federal nuclear lifecycle campus in Tooele County involving research, fuel-cycle activities, and advanced nuclear development.

Those are consequential decisions. They should not be treated like routine economic-development announcements or rushed through before Utahns understand what is being proposed.

I am not opposed to nuclear energy on principle. I am opposed to moving this quickly on something this serious without meaningful transparency, independent analysis, and public consent. Nuclear energy may become part of Utah’s future, but the public should help drive that decision rather than being asked to catch up after the framework is already built.

The cost questions are not theoretical, either. Utah has already lived through one version of this debate. The NuScale small modular reactor project developed with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems was ultimately terminated after it failed to attract enough participating utilities to remain viable. During its development, the estimated construction cost rose from approximately $5.3 billion to $9.3 billion, while the projected price of its electricity rose substantially.

That does not prove that every future nuclear project will fail. It does prove that promises of cheap, simple, next-generation nuclear power should be examined carefully rather than accepted as inevitabilities. Any proposal must withstand honest scrutiny over cost, safety, waste, water consumption, construction time, public liability, and who ultimately carries the financial risk.

The key word is resilience. A healthy energy system does not put all its eggs in one basket. It embraces diversity in sources, technologies, storage, and delivery systems because that is how we reduce fragility. A grid with multiple ways to generate, store, and distribute power is stronger, smarter, and better prepared for disruption than one built around a single dominant model.

But energy policy is also about governance. Utilities exist to serve the public, not primarily to extract profit for distant shareholders. Rocky Mountain Power operates in Utah as part of PacifiCorp, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy. Although Utah’s Public Service Commission formally approves utility rates, the underlying system remains an investor-owned corporate structure in which public necessity and shareholder return are constantly competing priorities.

Some systems are simply too essential to be treated like ordinary revenue streams. Our power infrastructure should be planned and operated around the public good— reliability, affordability, sustainability, and long-term stewardship—not merely the financial expectations of investors who may never live with the consequences of those decisions.

That matters even more as electricity demand rises. Utah already has a Large-Scale Electric Service Requirements law governing how massive new electricity users, including data centers and other high-demand facilities, connect to the grid and contract for power. But the underlying principle needs to be stronger and unmistakable: existing households and small businesses should not be forced to subsidize the infrastructure demands of some of the largest corporations in the world.

If corporations want to build enormous data centers or other high-demand facilities here, they should pay the real cost of the electricity and water they consume. They should help finance the generation, transmission, substations, water systems, and other infrastructure their operations require rather than passing those costs through to every family’s monthly bill.

This is also the principle behind the resource-extraction framework I have proposed for funding Utah’s schools. Data centers should be assessed according to what they actually consume and impose on the state— power, water, land, emissions, thermal output, and supporting infrastructure— just as Utah assesses other industries that extract value from finite public resources.

These facilities do not operate in the digital clouds. They exist in physical buildings, on physical land, drawing enormous quantities of physical resources from real communities. Utah should stop treating that extraction as though it carries no public cost.

Economic development should benefit the communities that make it possible. Utah families should not be forced to subsidize corporate growth through higher utility bills, depleted water resources, or strained infrastructure. Companies that benefit from our communities should be expected to invest in them as well.

Energy policy is economic policy. The choices we make now will determine whether Utah becomes a leader in innovation, resilience, and future-ready infrastructure or falls behind while pretending the old model can last forever. Building the grid of tomorrow means creating skilled jobs, supporting research and development, improving reliability, expanding technical education, and positioning Utah to compete in a rapidly changing economy.

This is where imagination matters.

I think often about the idea of imagineering— the discipline of pairing imagination with engineering, vision with execution, and dreaming with doing. Utah does not need small thinking when it comes to energy. We need to think like builders. We need to ask what kind of state we want to hand to the next generation and then begin designing the systems capable of sustaining it.

That is what I mean when I talk about building a great big beautiful tomorrow.

Not empty futurism. Not shiny slogans. Real infrastructure. Real accountability. Real resilience. Real planning.

An energy system worthy of the future ahead of us.