UT gov. Spencer Cox believes his condition needs more power — a lot more. According to some estimates, Utah may need as much power in the next five times as it has generated in the last decade to meet the needs of a growing community and fight data centers and AI developers to boost its economy.
To that end, Cox announced Operation Gigawatt last year, declaring the condition may increase energy production in the next generation. Cox, a Republican, promised that his administration would implement an “any of the above” strategy that would increase all sources of energy production, despite the brief details of the news.
Despite that aim, the Utah Legislature’s Republican supermajority, with Cox’s acquiescence, has taken a tough move against solar energy — which has been coming online faster than any other resource in Utah and accounts for two-thirds of the new initiatives waiting to connect to the state’s power grid.
By ending solar development tax credits and imposing a hefty new tax on solar generation, Cox signed a pair of bills that were passed this year that will make it more expensive and difficult to develop and produce solar energy in Utah. A third bill aimed at limiting solar development on farmland narrowly missed the deadline for passage but is expected to return next year.
While Operation Gigawatt places a premium on nuclear and geothermal as Cox’s preferred sources, the legislative broadside and Cox’s willingness to support it caught many in the solar industry off guard. The three bills, in their original form, could have brought solar development to a halt if not for solar industry lobbyists negotiating a lower tax rate and protecting existing projects as well as those under construction from the brunt of the impact.
According to one industry insider, “it took every dollar of political capital from all the major solar developers just to get to something tolerable,” implying that solar developers will likely pursue projects in more politically neutral states. ProPublica spoke with three industry insiders— energy developers and lobbyists — all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing lawmakers who, next month, will again consider legislation affecting the industry.
The Utah Legislature’s decision to cut out solar energy contrasts with previous president Donald Trump’s harsher stance on the industry. Trump has ordered the phaseout of lucrative federal tax incentives for solar and other renewable energy, which expanded under the Biden administration. Industry insiders remarked that the elimination of federal incentives is a bigger hit for solar companies than the reductions in Utah’s tax incentives. The administration has also canceled large wind and solar projects, which Trump has lamented as” the scam of the century”. He called solar “farmer killing”
Yet Cox criticized the Trump administration’s decision to kill a massive solar project in neighboring Nevada. Cox, who is a governor who supports a return to a more civil political discourse, doesn’t frequently pick fights. But he didn’t pull punches with the decision to halt the Esmeralda 7 project planned on 62, 300 acres of federal land. The central Nevada project was supposed to generate 6.2 gigawatts of power, enough to supply nearly eight times as many Las Vegas households. ( Although the Trump administration canceled the environmental review of the joint project proposed by multiple developers, it has the potential to move forward as individual projects. )
When news of the project’s cancellation came out, Cox wrote on X,” This is how we lose the AI/energy arms race with China.” ” Our country needs an all-of-the-above approach to energy ( like Utah )”.
But he didn’t, at least in front of the camera, confront his own Legislature.
Many of Utah’s Republican legislators have been skeptical of solar for years, criticizing its footprint on the landscape and viewing it as an unreliable energy source, while lamenting the retirement of coal-generated power plants. Numerous rural communities rely on mining coal for their economies. But lawmakers ‘ skepticism hadn’t coalesced into successful anti-solar legislation — until this year. When Utah’s lawmakers convened to begin 2025, they benefited from the political moment to pursue solar energy.
” This is a sentiment sweeping through red states, and it’s very disconcerting and very disturbing”, said Steve Handy, Utah director of The Western Way, which describes itself as a conservative organization advocating for an all-of-the-above approach to energy development.
A difficult environment has been created by the shift in the perception of solar energy. Solar projects can be built quickly on Utah’s vast, sun-drenched land, while nuclear is a long game with projects expected to take a decade or more to come online under optimistic scenarios.
Cox generally supports solar “in the right places,” especially when the energy that is captured can be stored in large batteries for use on cloudy days and after the sun sets.
Cox said that instead of vetoing the anti-solar bills, he spent his political capital to moderate the legislation’s impact. He told ProPublica,” I think you’ll see where our fingerprints were.” He didn’t detail specific changes for which he advocated but said the bills ‘ earlier iterations would have “been a lot worse”.
” Utah continues to see solar activity.”
Cox’s any-of-the-above approach to energy generation draws from a decades-old Republican push similarly titled” all of the above”. The GOP’s policy’s goal was both to maintain and increase its reliance on fossil fuels ( although the phrase may have been coined by petroleum lobbyists ) and to switch to cleaner energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal.
As governor of a coal-producing state, Cox hasn’t shown interest in reducing reliance on such legacy fuels. However, as he gradually expands Operation Gigawatt, his main areas of interest have been nuclear and geothermal power. Last month, he announced plans for a manufacturing hub for small modular reactors in the northern Utah community of Brigham City, which he hopes will become a nuclear supply chain for Utah and beyond. Additionally, he signed an agreement to work with New Zealand to develop geothermal energy during a recent trade mission there.
Meanwhile, the bills Cox signed into law already appear to be slowing solar development in Utah. 51 planned solar projects have withdrew their applications to connect to the state’s grid since May, which is more than a quarter of the projects in Utah’s transmission connection queue. Although projects drop out for many reasons, some industry insiders theorize the anti-solar legislation could be at play.
Utah customers are caught in the political squeeze over power, who are paying higher electricity bills. Earlier this year, the state’s utility, Rocky Mountain Power, asked regulators to approve a 30 % hike to fund increased fuel and wholesale energy costs, as well as upgrades to the grid. The utility reduced the request to 18 % in response to the outcry from lawmakers. Regulators eventually awarded the utility a 4.7 % increase — a decision the utility promptly appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The new solar tax, according to Juliet Carlisle, a University of Utah political science professor with a focus on environmental policy, could indicate to large solar developers that Utah’s energy policy is “becoming more unpredictable,” leading to them shifting their operations. This, in turn, could undermine Cox’s efforts to quickly double Utah’s electricity supply.
She said Operation Gigwatt depends on a “rapid deployment across multiple energy sources, including renewables.” ” If renewable growth slows — especially utility-scale solar, which is currently the fastest-deploying resource — the state may face challenges meeting demand growth timelines”.
Rep. Kay Christofferson, R-Lehi, had sponsored legislation for several legislative sessions to end the solar industry’s state tax credits, but this was the first time the proposal actually succeeded.
Christofferson agrees Utah is facing unprecedented demand for power, and he supports Cox’s any-of-the-above approach. However, he doesn’t believe solar benefits from tax credits. Despite improving battery technology, he still considers it an intermittent source and thinks overreliance on it would work against Utah’s energy goals.
In his bill’s testimony, Christofferson claimed that the tax incentives had succeeded in launching a new industry because Utah now generates 16 % of its electricity from solar energy, which places it 16th in the country by capacity.
Christofferson’s bill was the least concerning to the industry, largely because it negotiated a lengthy wind-down of the subsidies. The tax credit would have ended at the beginning of 2032. But after negotiations with the solar industry, he extended the deadline to 2035.
Sen. Brady Brammer, R-Pleasant Grove, moved the end of the incentives to 2028 when the bill passed the House. He told ProPublica he believes solar is already established and no longer needs the subsidy. Despite making an effort to defend his compromise, Christopherson ultimately voted with the legislative majority.
Unlike Christofferson’s bill, which wasn’t born of an antipathy for renewable energy, Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise, made it clear in public statements and behind closed doors to industry lobbyists that the goal of his bill was to make solar pay.
The bill imposes a tax on all solar power. The proceeds will substantially increase the state’s endangered species fund, which Utah paradoxically uses to fight federal efforts to list threatened animals for protection. The money could also be used for habitat protection, according to Snoider, who defended his bill as being environmentally friendly.
As initially written, the bill would have taxed not only future projects, but also those already producing power and, more worrisome for the industry, projects under construction or in development with financing in place. One solar industry executive testified that the margins on these projects are thin and that the unanticipated tax could kill projects that are already in the works.
” Companies like ours are being effectively punished for investing in the state”, testified another.
Snider, who accused solar companies of being hypocritical toward the environment, was critical of the response.
Industry lobbyists who spoke to ProPublica said Snider wasn’t as willing to negotiate as Christofferson. They were able to negotiate a lower, flat fee for existing projects while lowering the tax rate on upcoming developments.
” Everyone sort of decided collectively to save the existing projects and let it go for future projects”, said one lobbyist.
Snider stated to ProPublica,” My goal was never to run anyone out of business.” If we wanted to make it more heavy-handed, we could have. I would have received all the support because Utah is a conservative state.
Snider said, like the governor, he favors an any-of-the-above approach to energy generation and doesn’t “want to take down any particular industry or source”. However, he thinks that utility-scale solar farms must pay to reduce their environmental impact. He likened his bill to federal law that requires royalties from oil and gas companies to be used for conservation. He anticipates that federal lawmakers will adopt his bill as a model for federal legislation that would apply to solar projects throughout the country.
” This industry needs to give back to the environment that they claim very heavily they are going to protect”, he said. This entire movement has a certain amount of hypocrisy, in my opinion. You can’t say you’re good for the environment and not offset your impacts”.
After a bill that would end tax incentives for solar development on agricultural land didn’t pass in the final minutes of this year’s session, one of the more emotional debates over solar is scheduled to return next year. Sponsored by Rep. Colin Jack, R-St. George, the bill has been fast-tracked in the next session, which begins in January.
Ranchers who were concerned that solar companies were outbidding them for the land they had been leasing to graze cows allegedly motivated Jack to take action. Solar companies pay substantially higher rates than ranchers can. His bill initially contained a number of land use restrictions, including those that would have threatened the solar industry’s reputation by mandating the distance between projects and residential property, creeks, minimum lot sizes, and 4-mile “green zones” between projects. After negotiating with solar developers, Jack eliminated the land use restrictions while preserving provisions to prohibit tax incentives for solar farms on private agricultural land and to create standards for decommissioning projects.
Many rural Utah residents are alarmed by the number of rows of unobstructed solar panels and worry that the ranching and farming way of life will be displaced by solar farms. Indeed, some wondered whether Cox, who grew up on a farm in central Utah, would have been as critical of Trump scuttling a 62, 300-acre solar farm in his own state as he was of the Nevada project’s cancellation.
Peter Greathouse, a rancher in Millard County in western Utah, expressed concern about solar farms grazing on the land in his county. ” Twelve and a half percent is privately owned, and a lot of that is not farmable. Therefore, he said, “if you bring in these solar places that start eat up the farmland, it can’t be replaced.”
Utah is losing about 500, 000 acres of agricultural land every 10 years, most of it to housing. According to a report from The Western Way, solar farms only account for 0.1 % of the land mass in the United States. That number is expected to grow to 0.46 % by 2050 — a tiny fraction of what is used by agriculture. Less than 3, 000 of the 2.9 million acres devoted to grazing have been converted to solar farms on the land that the Utah Trust Lands Administration manages.
Other ranchers told ProPublica they’ve been able to stay on their land and preserve their way of life by leasing to solar. For more than a decade, Landon Kesler’s family has leased land to solar for use in team roping competitions. The revenue has allowed the family to almost double its land holdings, providing more room to ranch, Kesler said.
Kesler compared efforts to limit solar radiation on agricultural land, saying,” I’m going to be quite honest, it’s absurd.” ” Solar very directly helped us tie up other property to be used for cattle and ranching. It didn’t cause us to run out; it actually contributed to the success of our agricultural enterprise.
Solar lobbyists and executives have been working to bolster the industry’s image with lawmakers ahead of the next legislative session. They assert that solar is a good neighbor.
” We don’t use water, we don’t need sidewalks, we don’t create noise and we don’t create light”, said Amanda Smith, vice president of external affairs for AES, which has one solar project operating in Utah and a second in development. We simply sit there and produce energy, he said.
Solar pays private landowners in Utah$ 17 million a year to lease their land. And, more importantly, solar developers claim, it’s essential to powering the state’s efforts to attract.
” We are eager to be part of a diversified electricity portfolio, and we think we bring a lot of values that will benefit communities, keep rates low and stable, and help keep the lights on”, Rikki Seguin, executive director of Interwest Energy Alliance, a western trade organization that advocates for utility-scale renewable energy projects, told an interim committee of lawmakers this summer.
Some lawmakers on the committee didn’t give the message a positive reception. Rep. Carl Albrecht, R-Richfield, who represents three rural Utah counties and was among solar’s critics last session, said the biggest complaint he hears from constituents is about” that ugly solar facility” in his district.
Rep. Albrecht,” Why, Rep. Albrecht, did you permit that solar field to be constructed?” It’s black. When you drive by the Dead Sea, it looks like the Dead Sea, Albrecht said.
The post Utah Leaders Are Hindering Efforts to Develop Solar Despite a Goal to Double the State’s Energy Supply appeared first on ProPublica.
