Utah's 10-year strategic energy plan - Utah.gov: The ... · PDF fileUtah’s 10-Year...

Utah’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan

ENERGY INITIATIVES& IMPERATIVES

GOVERNOR GARY R. HERBERT — , 201

Distributed by the Governor’s OfficeAmanda Smith – Energy Policy Advisor

[email protected]://www.energy.utah.gov/governorsenergyplan/index.htm

801-536-4402

March 2 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

II. Current and Future Energy Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

III. Background Information on Utah’s Energy Resources . . . . . . . 11

IV. Economic Development and Energy Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

V. Energy Development and Our Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 21

VI. Energy Efficiency, Conservation, and Demand-Response . . . . 27

VII. Transmission, Infrastructure, and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . 31

VIII. Developing and Applying Technology and Science . . . . . . . . . 35

Task Force & Sub-Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Pioneer EnergySolar Project

41 Utah Geological Survey, 2009, Utah’s Energy Landscape, Public Information Series 95.http://geology.utah.gov/online/pi/pi-95.pdf

42 Department of Workforce Services Quarterly Energy & Natural Resources Job Report, December 2010.

43 Headwaters Economics, 2008, Energy Revenue in the Intermountain West, http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/HeadwatersEconomics_EnergyRevenue.pdf

44 2010 Economic Report to the Governor, http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/ERG/2010ERG.pdf

45 Headwaters Economics, 2008, Fossil Fuel Extraction as a County Economic Development Strategy,http://headwaterseconomics.org/energy/HeadwatersEconomics_EnergyFocusing.pdf

46 For data on ozone levels in the Uinta Basin, see EPA’s AirExplorer website, under “Query Concentrations” (http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/htmSQL/mxplorer/query_daily.hsql?poll=42101&msaorcountyName=1&msaorcountyValue=1), selecting “Ozone,” “UT - Uintah” for thecounty, and “2010” as the year. For data on levels of fine particulates see EPA’s AirExplorer website for PM2.5 for Uintah County in 2010;see also the Division of Air Quality’s Particulate PM2.5 Data Archive(http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm), selecting the monthly reports for December 2006 and January throughDecember of 2007.

47 Utah Division of Air Quality 2008 Emission Inventory. The report is located at: http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Planning/Emission-Inventory/2008_State/2008_Statewide_SummaryBySources.pdf

48 U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2008 data, http://www.eia.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use.pdf

49 http://www.travelwise.utah.gov

50 http://www.visiondixie.org/

51 http://www.envisionutah.org/historyenvisonutahv5p1.pdf

52 Wasatch Choices 2040 - A Four County Land-Use and Transportation Vision, http://www.wfrc.org/cms/publications/wasatchchoices2040report.pdf

53 Utah Geological Survey Energy Statistics http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/index.htm

54 Utah Division of Water Resources

55 Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Council, http://www.westgov.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123&Itemid=68

56 Energy Initiatives and Imperatives - Utah’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan http://www.utah.gov/governor/docs/Energy-Initiatives-Imperatives.pdf and House Joint Resolution HJR09 S01 (2009)

57 http://www.aceee.org/press/2010/10/state-energy-efficiency-scorecard

58 Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy, McKinsey and Company, July 2009, http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/US_energy_efficiency/

59 Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States, The National Academy of Sciences, 2009, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12621.html

60 The Maximum Achievable Cost Effective Potential Gas DSM for Questar Gas, Final Report Prepared for the Utah Natural Gas DSMAdvisory Group, March 2004, GDS Associates, Marietta, GA.

61 Rocky Mountain Power’s 2007 “Assessment of Long-Term, System Wide Potential for Demand-side and other Supplemental Resources”

62 Utah DSM Story, 2010 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Building, August 16, 2010, Utah Story: Rapid Growth of UtilityDemand-Side Management Programs in the Intermountain West, by Howard Geller, Jeff Bumgerner, and Dan Dent.

63 Rocky Mountain Power State Revenue Report 308, 2009.

64 2009 Questar Gas Financial Report

65 The Bureau of Economic and Business Research

66 Increasing Energy Efficiency in New Buildings in the Southwest, Energy Codes and Best Practices August 2003, SWEEP, http://www.swenergy.org/ieenb/codes_report.pdf

67 Rocky Mountain Power

68 Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC), August 11, 2010, SPG Coordination Group (SCG) Foundational Transmission Project List.

69 2008 Electric Power Research Institute.

70 See the Developing and Applying Technology and Science Subcommittee full report at www.energy.utah.gov/governorsenergyplan/subcommittees.html

FOOTNOTES

44 Energy Initiatives and Imperatives

2 Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYGovernor Herbert’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan

In his 2010 State of the State address, Governor Gary R.Herbert announced his intent to create the Utah Energy Initia-tive—a 10-year strategic energy plan that combines Utah’s richabundance of diverse natural resources with our innovative andentrepreneurial spirit—to ensure that Utah is at the forefront ofsolving the world’s energy challenges.1 Utah will seek to excelin job creation, innovation, entrepreneurship, global business,and quality workforce and have a stable and sustainable busi-ness-friendly environment. Under the Governor’s leadership,the state has received several awards and accolades. Most re-cently, Forbes Magazine named Utah the best state for businessand careers. One key factor in their decision was our low costof doing business, especially our competitive energy costs.

While rich in energy resources, Utah is also known for itsNational Parks, State Parks and unrivaled natural beauty. It iscritical that while we strive for energy development that it bedone in conjunction with preserving the quality of life that drawspeople to live and play in Utah.

This Energy Plan has been developed by a Task Force ap-pointed by Governor Gary Herbert. In turn the Task Force reliedupon Subcommittees2 and input from numerous private andpublic individuals, officials and organizations. Four public hear-ings were held throughout the state and input was solicited fromall residents interested in energy development, economic de-velopment, human health and environmental issues. Based onthis input, the plan will be implemented in accordance with thefollowing five guiding principles: Governor Gary R. Herbert

FOOTNOTES

1 Utah Geological Survey , 2009, Utah’s Energy Landscape, Public Information Series 95. http://geology.utah.gov/online/pi/pi-95.pdf

2 Questar 2010 IRP


4 Annual Energy Outlook - 2010, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. (April 2010)

5 International Symposium on Oil Shale, Golden, CO., Oct. 2010.

6 Ibid

7 Utah Geological Survey, 2009, Utah’s Energy Landscape, Public Information Series 95. http://geology.utah.gov/online/pi/pi-95.pdf

8 Utah Geological Survey, http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/statistics/overview1.0/T1.14%20&%20F1.7.xls


10 Utah Geological Survey, Annual Review and Forecast of Utah Coal Production and Distribution - 2009,http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-112.pdf



13 Ibid

14 Ibid

15 Utah Geological Survey, http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/coaldata.htm


17 Ibid



20 Ibid

21 This forecast consumption figures do not reflect natural gas usage of the UAMPS Nebo Power Station or other natural gas fired plantslocated in Utah.

22 Rocky Mountain Power 10-year forecast


24 Ibid

25 Rand Corporation Report. Oil shale development in the United States: prospects and policy issues / James T. Bartis, 2005.

26 Rand Corporation Report. Unconventional fossil-based fuels: economic and environmental trade-offs / Michael Toman ... [et al.]., 2008.





31 Ibid

32 National Manufacturing Institute, National Association of Manufacturers/Man. Extension Partnership data for Utah.

33 Utah Geological Survey, http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/renewenergydata.htm


35 D. Gruenemeyer, Sawvel and Associates, UMPA Conference March 2010

36 Utah Geological Survey, http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/index.htm


38 Utah Geological Survey, Table 5.10a. http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/electricitydata.htm#generation

39 Ibid


Utah’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan 43


Guiding Principles1. Utah’s economy is dependent upon responsible en-

ergy development. Governor Herbert, his Cabinetand his energy policy task force will consider andthoroughly examine the potential for developmentof all energy resources—allowing the free market todrive while the state provides appropriate legisla-tive and regulatory oversight.

2. Energy development in Utah will carefully considerthe impacts on human health, environmental impactsand impacts on wildlife habitat. An effort to avoid,minimize, or mitigate these impacts will be maderegardless of energy resource.

3. Governor Herbert’s Energy Plan is not a static docu-ment; it ushers in an ongoing open and transparentpublic discussion about best practices. The Gover-nor and his Cabinet will work hand-in-hand withlocal government, federal agencies, Native Ameri-can Tribes, environmental organizations, energyproducers and utilities, business, and the public todetermine the best path forward.

4. Utah will work to keep utility costs low while recog-nizing that longer term price stability and relativeaffordability will require significant and ongoing in-vestment in energy infrastructure.

5. Through expanding Utah’s energy independence andproviding export opportunity, Utah can stabilize itseconomy and provide for further economic expansion.

This document describes a 10-Year Strategic EnergyPlan that seeks to strengthen Utah’s economy by set-ting the following goals:

Goals:1. Meet the projected energy growth demands over the

next decade by making balanced use of fossil fuelsand alternatives and renewable resources in a mar-ket-driven, cost effective, and environmentallyresponsible way.

2. Ensure Utah’s continued economic developmentthrough access to our own clean and low-cost en-ergy resources.

3. Develop the best new cutting-edge technologies,particularly those that enable us to utilize preciousnatural resources with an elevated environmentalconsciousness, and deploy them in Utah, the nation,and the world.

4. Create new and support existing energy relatedmanufacturing opportunities and jobs in Utah.

5. Modernize the regulatory environment to supportsustainable power generation, energy transmissionsolutions and energy conservation.

6. Promote energy efficiency, conservation and peakconsumption reductions.

7. Facilitate the expansion of responsible developmentof Utah’s energy resources, including traditional, al-ternative and renewable sources.

8. Pursue opportunities for Utah to export fuels, elec-tricity and technologies to regional and globalmarkets.

9. Enhance and further integrate partnerships betweenindustry, universities, state government and localcommunities—especially those in energy-rich ruralcommunities-to address future energy challengesand opportunities.3

10. Collaborate with other western regional states topresent a strong and unified voice to federal regu-latory agencies on energy and public land issues.


TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY (cont.)Sam Lee, Utah State FleetAlan Matheson, Envision UtahBrian Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy

EnvironmentAngelo Papastamos/Rex Harris, Utah Department of

TransportationDianne Rosenberg, CitizenKathy Van Dame, Wasatch Clean Air CoalitionSusan White, Governor’s Energy Advisor’s Office, StaffMary Ann Wright, Governor’s Energy Advisor’s Office,

StaffCheralyn Anderson, Governor’s Energy Advisor’s

Office, Staff

ENERGY CAREERS, MANUFACTURING,AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENTRobert T. Behunin, Utah State University, ChairRob Adams, Beaver County/Governor’s Office of

Economic Development BoardJohn Baza, Utah Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Oil Gas & MiningTodd Bingham, Utah Mining AssociationThomas E. Bingham, Utah Manufacturing Assoc./Utah

College of Applied TechnologyGina Crezee, Rio Tinto/Kennecott LandJeff Edwards, Economic Development Corporation of

UtahKaren Gunn, Salt Lake Community CollegeJeff Hartley, Hartley & Associates/ Responsible Energy

DevelopersDaniel R. Liljenquist, Utah State SenateAlan Matheson, Envision UtahLaura Nelson, Red Leaf ResourcesRobin Riggs/Wesley Smith, Salt Lake Chamber of

CommerceRobert Simmons, USTARTodd Stevens, Renewable Tech Ventures/Utah

Technology CouncilSpencer P. Eccles, Governor’s Office of Economic

Development, StaffSamantha Mary Julian, Governor’s Office of Economic

Development, StaffGreg Hartley, Governor’s Office of Economic

Development, Staff

TRANSMISSION, INFRASTRUCTURE,AND TRANSPORTATIONRichard Walje, Rocky Mountain Power, ChairLarry Conti, Questar PipelineRyan Davies, REDCO

Susan Davis, Questar GasBill Fenimore, Utah Audubon CouncilDarrell Gerrard, PacifiCorpTom Hardy, Bountiful City/Utah Leagues of Cities and

TownsGary Hoogeveen/Bob Checketts, Kern River Pipeline

CompanyDoug Hunter/Marshall Empey, Utah Association of

Municipal Power SystemsJerry Hurst, Tooele County CommissionDan Johnson, Chevron PipelineSamantha Mary Julian, Governor’s Office of Economic

DevelopmentNancy Kelly/Joro Walker, Western Resource AdvocatesRob MacWhorter, U.S. Forest Service Dixie National

ForestDianne R. Nielson, Governor’s Energy AdvisorJohn Njord/Carol M. Braceras, Utah Department of

TransportationJuan Palma, U.S. Bureau of Land Management Utah

OfficeMike Peterson, Utah Rural Electric AssociationPhilip J. Powlick, Utah Division of Public UtilitiesKimball Rasmussen/Jim Tucker, Deseret PowerShelly Cordon Teuscher, First WindYashoda Khandkar, Governor’s Office of Economic

Development, StaffDoug Bennion, Rocky Mountain Power, Staff

DEVELOPING AND APPLYINGTECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCEAlan J. Walker, Utah Science Technology & Research

Initiative (USTAR) and University of Utah, ChairRobert T. Behunin, Utah State UniversityL. Douglas Smoot, Brigham Young UniversityRobert Brems, Utah College of Applied TechnologyMichael Hagood, Idaho National LaboratoryRobert Simmons, USTAR, StaffVatsala Kaul, USTAR, StaffYogesh Mishra, USTAR, Staff

Public Awareness and ReportingBob Henrie, R&R Partners, ChairAngie Welling, Governor’s OfficeTed Wilson, Governor’s OfficeAshlee Buchholz, Governor’s Office, Staff

TASK FORCE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS

Modeling:Given the vigorous nature of energy development

resources, technology and potential impacts on humanhealth and the environment, a key element of the Planwill be creating a methodology for evaluating resources,costs, and economic impact on a continuous basis. ThePI+ model from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (theREMI model) is one tool identified that will be used toforecast economic impacts of resource development ina timely manner.

REMI is a dynamic model which generates annualpredictions to 2050 and includes a detailed economicstructure. While REMI has thousands of input variables,the change in energy prices resulting from various poli-cies will be central. REMI includes the price of naturalgas, electricity, and other energy for residential, com-mercial and industrial users as inputs. Other inputs thatmay be affected by different policies include home pricesand industry production costs. In particular, REMI mod-els the labor market as a process in which labor supplyand labor demand are matched through wage adjust-ment. Employment by industry is determined in thelabor market. Gross domestic product (GDP), personalincome, and labor income are also estimated. REMI isan effective tool for energy scenario analysis preciselybecause it generates estimates of employment, GDP, andincome resulting from different policy decisions.

This Executive Summary and Plan contain recom-mendations, next steps and additional investigationsneeded to achieve the ten goals above. This report doesnot contain answers to all of the challenges identified,but it provides a roadmap to accomplishing that objec-tive. Over the next ten years, as Utah continues todevelop a robust, diverse portfolio of energy resourcesand related economic development, there will surely bechanges and additions to the 10-year Strategic Energy

Plan and opportunities for stakeholders to collaboratein building a stronger, more secure energy future.

Energy Resources and DemandUtah’s current energy resource consumption includes

traditional fossil fuels and renewable resources, as sum-marized in Figure 1. In 2009, residents, businesses, andindustries consumed approximately 27,411 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity and 131 billion cubic feet ofnatural gas.

Figure 1. Energy production in Utah by source in2009. Source: Utah Geological Survey.

The demand for energy in Utah is increasing. RockyMountain Power’s total Utah load is expected to increasefrom approximately 4,700 megawatts (MW) in 2011 toapproximately 5,600 MW in 2020. Questar projects thatnatural gas consumption in Utah in the residential, com-mercial, and industrial sectors will increase from 170million Dth in 2011 to 200 million Dth in 2020. Based on

4 Executive Summary

Table 1

Utah’s Projected Fossil Fuel Energy Growth—Next 10 Years.Source: Rocky Mountain Power, Questar, Utah Geological Survey

2011 2020 Percent Change Annual Rate

Electricity Load (RMP) (MW) 4700 5600 19.1% 1.9%

Natural Gas (Questar) (million Dth) 170 200 17.6% 1.8%

Petroleum/Transportation (mbbl/yr) 45 52 15.56% 1.15%


TASK FORCETed Wilson, Governor’s Office, ChairPaul F. Barber, ParandcoRobert T. Behunin, Utah State UniversitySpencer P. Eccles, Governor’s Office of Economic

DevelopmentBob Henrie, R&R PartnersRonald W. Jibson, Questar GasStan Parrish, ParandcoJason Perry, Governor’s OfficeRobin Riggs, Salt Lake Chamber of CommerceAmanda Smith, Utah Department of Environmental

QualityL. Douglas Smoot, Brigham Young UniversityRichard Walje, Rocky Mountain PowerAlan J. Walker, Utah Science Technology & Research

Initiative (USTAR) and University of UtahAngie Welling, Governor’s OfficeAshley Buchholz, Governor’s Office, StaffDianne R. Nielson, Governor’s Energy Advisor, Staff

SUBCOMMITTEESENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTPaul F. Barber, Parandco, ChairRick Allis, Utah Geological SurveySara Baldwin, Utah Clean EnergyStephen Bloch, Southern Utah Wilderness AllianceLowell Braxton, Western Energy AllianceScott Child, Utah Mining AssociationRobin Erickson, Utah Clean CitiesTroy Gagliano, EnXcoMike Graham, Sage Energy PartnersJohn Harja, Governor’s Public Land Policy

Coordination OfficeRobert Hasenyager, Utah Wildlife In NeedJames Jackson, Nuclear Power ExpertJeff Larsen, PacifiCorpTracey Livingston, Wasatch WindJulie Mack, The Wilderness SocietyMichael McKee, Uintah County CommissionLaura Nelson, Red Leaf ResourcesDave Olive, LotusworksLee Peacock, Utah Petroleum AssociationTed Rampton, Utah Association of Municipal Power

SystemsMark Richards, Intermountain Wind and SolarClarence Rockwell, Navajo Utah CommissionBrendan Ryan, Rio TintoSelma Sierra, Utah State University Energy Dynamics Lab


Amanda Smith, Utah Department of EnvironmentalQuality

Christopher Thomas, HEAL UtahDianne R. Nielson, Governor’s Energy Advisor, StaffRonald W. Daniels, Governor’s Energy Advisor’s

Office, StaffCheralyn Anderson, Governor’s Energy Advisor’s

Office, Staff

ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CONSERVATION, ANDDEMAND-RESPONSERonald W. Jibson, Questar Gas, ChairRon Allen, Utah Public Service CommissionMichele Beck/Cheryl Murray, Office of Consumer

ServicesChris Tallackson, State Energy ProgramCurtis Dowdle, Salt Lake Builders AssociationKelly Francone, Utah Association of Energy UsersCarrie Giles, Utah Clean CitiesCarol Hunter/Jason Berry, Rocky Mountain PowerBarrie McKay, Questar GasPhilip J. Powlick, Utah Division of Public UtilitiesTed Rampton/Roger Tew, Utah Association of

Municipal Power SystemsGary Robinson, CPABetsy Wolf, Salt Lake Community Action ProgramSarah Wright/Kevin Emerson, Utah Clean EnergySusan White, Governor’s Energy Advisor’s Office, StaffMary Ann Wright, Governor’s Energy Advisor’s Office,


Office, Staff

TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITYRonald W. Jibson, Questar Gas, ChairVicki Bennett, Salt Lake CityMarian Bonar, Energy StrategiesRoger Borgenicht, Utahns for Better TransportationRiley Cutler, Governor’s Office of Economic

DevelopmentCarl Galbraith, Questar GasCarrie Giles, Utah Clean CitiesAndrew Gruber/Kip Billings, Wasatch Front Regional

CouncilCheryl Heying/Bryce Bird, Utah Division of Air

QualityMichelle Hofmann/Cameron Cova/Deborah Burney-

Sigman, Breathe UtahTim Hunt, Go Natural CNGBruce Jones/Ed Buchanan, Utah Transit Authority

increases in consumption over the last ten years, petro-leum-based transportation fuel use is projected toincrease from 45 million barrels/year to 52 million bar-rels/year during the same period.4 These figures aresummarized in Table 1.

Table 2 summarizes Utah’s proven reserves and cur-rent consumption rates for petroleum, natural gas andcoal. It also shows remaining years of proven reservesat current consumption rates. Several factors affect thesevalues, including national policy, exportation of coal,unproven reserves, change in production rates (e.g.,natural gas projected to increase, coal possibly to de-cline), new reserve discoveries, etc. Utah already importsa significant part of its consumed petroleum.

To meet future demand, Utah should continue to useexisting fossil fuel resources while augmenting themwith new, cost-effective energy efficiency measures and

alternative and renewable energy resources as they be-come more economically feasible.

How Utah Will AccomplishIts Energy Goals

The State of Utah should work to meet the energydemand of 2020 with a balanced use of Utah’s abun-dant energy resources. Development of resources shouldbe done thoughtfully through evaluation of resource po-tential, impact on economic development, the naturalenvironment and human health and physical and regu-latory constraints. Utah would be best served bypursuing development of all energy sources and focus-ing on strategies that do not favor one over the other.Success will come if the focus is on the following eightcross-cutting strategies that provide a solid basis to sup-port development of all Utah’s energy resources.


Table 2

Utah’s Current Annual Production Rates and Proven Reserves of Conventional Fossil Fuels(All values referenced elsewhere in this report.)

Petroleum Natural Gas Coal*

Proven Reserves 286 mbbl 6.7 bcf 202 mt

Yearly Production Rates 45 mbbl 0.131 bcf 21 mt

Remaining Years of Reserve at 6 years 51 years 10 yearsCurrent Production Rates

mbbl = million of barrels, bcf = billions of cubic feet, mt = millions of tons*including Kaiparowits (federal lands), 505 mt proven reserves, 25 years proven reserves at current production rates


Universities towards commercialization and imple-mentation of technology to meet Utah’s energychallenges.

• Directed by the Governor’s senior energy official andsenior energy research official from each university,the team will collaborate with industry to form plau-sible solutions to energy challenges. The effortsinclude collaboration with Idaho National Labora-tory and the Utah Cluster Acceleration Partnershipto encourage energy career trainings and skilledworkforce. To implement this recommendation, onan annual basis, the research universities will alter-nately host a Utah Energy Symposium to presenttopics related to Utah energy resources, reserves, newdevelopments, new installations and facilities, andother emerging topics.

• Funding that encourages collaborative efforts in theresearch and development community is currentlyinsufficient to promote and enable significant collabo-rative research. The Governor’s senior energy officialand the senior research official associated with energyat each of the universities will propose appropriatebudget items at the state and federal level specificallyfocused on promoting cooperation between the Re-search Triangle in energy research and technology.

• The Department of Energy’s national laboratoriespresent significant opportunities to collaborate oncritical research and development needs for the State,region, and Nation. The Research Triangle shouldexpand its interaction with Department of Energynational laboratories ,and specific funding should beidentified to promote opportunities for appropriatecollaboration in the State and Nation’s interest.

• Utah is positioned with natural resources, researchinstitutions, capable industry, and regional support toconduct meaningful demonstration scale projects thatcan lead to cost effective commercial and environmen-tally sound energy development. Demonstration-scaleresearch projects supported by the State of Utah shouldbe conducted by unprecedented partnerships betweenthe Research Triangle, national laboratories, industry,and the public sector to capitalize on the region’s richresources to meet the region’s energy needs in an en-vironmentally sensitive manner.

Implementation of these recommendations will sig-nificantly improve Utah’s energy research, developmentand deployment performance and foster unprecedentedcollaboration between academia, government, labora-tories, and industry.

It is recommended that Utah establish an en-ergy office, administered by the Governor’sEnergy Advisor, with an Advisory Commit-tee to oversee the implementation of the

Governor’s Energy Plan. This structure will addressthe evolution of the state’s energy policy and act asan advisory body to the Governor. The Committeewill respond to emerging issues in the energy arenaand make recommendations on any necessarychanges in state policy in response to emerging is-sues. This committee will develop the next stepsrelated to the energy policy recommendations, iden-tify and evaluate scenarios to be evaluated usingeconomic models, and oversee the action items iden-tified by the Governor.

Recommendation:Streamline government processes and policies forexecuting the Plan. A clear and predictable policyvoice creates a business friendly environment andintergovernmental alignment yielding investmentin energy development and job creation

• Create a an energy office by consolidating ex-isting energy functions currently fragmentedthroughout state government

• Form a State Energy Advisory Committee com-prised of a diverse group of representatives ofenergy in Utah

• Shape policy discussions to make informed de-cisions

• Provide continuous policy analysis on re-sources, economic development, transmissionand constraints on development

• Implement this Energy Plan and assure stategovernment agencies are working seamlesslyto accomplish goals as outlined

Utah should create an effective strategy forthe legitimate use of Utah’s public lands forenergy development purposes by workingwith federal agencies to navigate the balance

between economic and environmental sustainability.The federal government owns and manages approxi-mately 60% of Utah’s surface lands and a largerportion of the mineral estate. Many of these publiclands include pristine air sheds, national parks andwilderness areas, important water resources that areessential to local communities, wildlife habitat andriparian zones, world-renowned archeological andculturally significant sites, nationally recognized sce-nic areas and prized recreational locations.Accordingly, Federal Land Management Agencieswill play a central role in the state’s ability to developits traditional, alternative, and renewable energy re-sources.

2

6 Executive Summary

1


D. Research PartnersUtah’s research universities seek closer research col-

laboration with all of the Nation’s laboratories. Inparticular, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is col-laborating with the State’s universities on numerousprojects and has established a formal relationship withUSU. The Research Triangle can benefit greatly by ex-panding this relationship with INL, as well as pursuingcollaboration with additional Department of Energynational assets in the region and energy space such asLos Alamos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,Oakridge National Laboratory, National Energy Tech-nology Laboratory, and others.

INL, with its headquarters in southeastern Idaho, isone of ten multi-program national laboratories. It is aunique resource serving as one of America’s premierenergy research laboratories with a mission to developand advance clean, smart and secure energy systemsessential to national security, economic prosperity andenvironmental sustainability. INL has lead responsibili-ties for the Nation in nuclear energy research but alsoengages in research regarding development of fossil,renewable, and integrated energy systems. In particu-lar, INL is conducting applied research anddemonstration, helping to reduce the risks associatedwith deployment of innovative energy technology.

INL is dedicated to collaborating with regional re-search institutions, government, and industry inaddressing current and anticipated energy challenges.As part of this effort, INL has been building key rela-tionships in the Western Energy Corridor, a transnationalregion containing world-class energy resources strate-gic to North American energy security and regionaleconomic development. Utah is key to the Corridor andhosts many of these resources.

Utah’s energy industry research and development leadsin such fields as geo-mechanics, new material technologyand clean coal technologies. Examples of the leaders de-veloping technology in the State include TerraTek,Ceramatec and Combustion Resources. TerraTek is a glo-bal leader in geo-mechanics laboratory testing and analysisprovides multidisciplinary expertise in geosciences andengineering. Its expertise lies in unconventional gas recov-ery, drilling and completions performance, core-logintegration and rock mechanics. Ceramatec is a nationalleader in developing new materials technology for theenergy industry. Its focus is energy and environmental(clean-tech) areas, including industrial applications of ionicconducting ceramics and electrochemistry and fuel refor-mation and synthesis. Regionally, Combustion Resources’

clean coke demonstration plant converts regional carbon-aceous materials such as coal, coke fines, and chars intohigh-grade metallurgical coke.

Utah is blessed with regional universities and col-leges that grant bachelor degrees in science, technology,engineering, math, and commercial subjects that sup-port energy producers, users, and research with a skilledwork force. These institutions provide for a full spec-trum of training from high school through post-doctoraleducation.

The eight Utah College of Applied Technology(UCAT) campuses, Salt Lake Community College, andother institutions of higher education offering energy-related technical training fill an essential role indeveloping and maintaining a technically-trained Utahworkforce. These institutions focus on the safety, regu-latory, implementation, production and other technicalcertifications that energy employees must possess. Typi-cally, several technically-trained employees function assupport to each researcher and engineer in the energyindustry occupations.

E. Research Initiatives• The U of U, USU, and BYU should collaborate and

optimize research capabilities and efforts. Recogniz-ing the accomplishments and addressing thechallenges of this collaboration will be the focus ofsemi-annual meetings convened by the Governor’ssenior energy official and attended by eachuniversity’s senior energy research official at the StateCapitol.

• INL should be invited to provide a senior staff mem-ber to participate in the Utah Research Trianglesemi-annual meetings. Other national laboratoriesmay be invited in the future.

• The Research Triangle will review the report and con-clusions of the Utah Cluster Acceleration Partnershipand implement findings appropriate to optimizingthe welfare of the State of Utah and regional part-ners. The Utah Cluster Acceleration Partnership hasworked extensively with industry, academia, andgovernment to accelerate and support the expansionof Utah’s energy industry and to fashion a well-trained workforce possessing the critical skillsneeded by this industry.

• The Research Triangle will expand its interaction withregional technology leaders through collaborativeefforts lead by the Governor’s senior energy officialand senior energy research official from each of the

Recommendation:Act to keep Utah’s Public Lands open for respon-sible energy development

• Continue to work directly with federal officials,Western Governors’ Association, NationalGovernor’s Association and other groups toadvocate for energy development on publiclands

• Designate access to public lands for energy de-velopment as a priority for the Governor’sPublic Lands Policy Coordination Office

• Utilize the Governor’s Balanced ResourceCouncil to facilitate agreement on energy andenvironmental concerns

• Assure that state agencies are taking lead rolesin developing plans and strategies on how toaddress impacted resources under state juris-diction and regulation (e.g. air quality, wildlife,archeology)

• Coordinate efforts with local government, Stateand Institutional Trust Lands, state agenciesand interest groups to identify potential issuesand work towards solutions

• Partner in joint efforts to leverage regional sup-port with other western states for land rights

Utah’s research universities and regional col-leges, the energy industry, and nearbynational energy laboratories all contribute todevelopment and deployment of energy tech-

nologies and work force capabilities. These effortswill be enhanced through greater coordination.

Recommendation:Strengthen Utah’s role in research and developmentof energy technology by making this a primary fo-cus for the Governor’s Energy Advisor with highereducation, industry and other research partners

• Develop a “Research Triangle” of Utah’s threeresearch universities to expand interactionwith regional technology leaders through col-laborative efforts lead by the Governor’s seniorenergy official and senior energy research of-ficials from each of the universities

• Place emphasis on clean technology for fossilfuels (i.e. gasification, carbon capture and se-questration, unconventional fuel, etc.) and theinterface with other energy forms

• Increase collaboration between the ResearchTriangle and nearby national laboratories, par-ticularly the Idaho National Laboratory

• Continue to attract world class researchers to con-nect higher education to deployable technologies

• Collaborate with DOE Energy Commercializa-tion Center and associated technology transferor commercialization agencies within the Re-search Triangle and regional colleges

Government tax incentives are a powerfuleconomic tool that can influence behavior andbusiness decisions. Incentives should be usedstrategically in coordination with Utah’s en-

ergy plan, and where they have the most beneficialimpact on Utah’s economy.

Recommendation:Review the role of tax incentives for businesses torelocate to and expand in Utah and their poten-tial impact on job creation, energy availability andthe growth of energy production

• Assess how tax incentives may further fosterenergy production and the manufacturing sec-tor connected to the energy industry

• Use economic modeling (REMI) to best deter-mine the economic impacts of futuredevelopment


3

4

management and mitigation, agricultural develop-ment, animal and veterinary science and water resourcemanagement. Further, the University plays host toEnergy Dynamics Laboratory, Colleges of Engineeringand Science which are national leaders in bio-fuels,environmental monitoring and sensing, waste-watertreatment, hybrid energy systems, electrical engineer-ing, nuclear, geothermal, and wind profiling. USU alsohas the ability to address environmental issues andsocio-economic issues. Finally, USU is a world leaderin the area of space sensing and imaging, with a 50-year history of designing, engineering, constructing,calibrating and deploying satellites and sensing equip-ment for NASA, JPL, and US Department of Defense.Much of this work is now being brought to bear onterrestrial efforts related to weather, environment andenergy both in the academic and commercial areas. TheUSU Technology Commercialization Office is taskedwith commercializing USU energy technologies. USUis uniquely equipped to test and deploy energy tech-nologies in rural Utah through its rural partnershipsand extension program. USU has just opened the

Bingham Energy Research Center in the Uintah Basin;the center serves as a research center and to educatethe workforce in energy-related careers.

C. Brigham Young UniversityBrigham Young University (BYU) is a private uni-

versity engaged in substantial research andcommercialization activities regarding environmentallysound energy resources. Research is both applied andacademic with considerable strength in combustion, bio-mass, gasification, clean coal, and carbon management.Central to BYU’s capability is the Advanced Combus-tion Engineering Research Center (ACERC) and theTechnology Transfer Office (TTO). The ACERC has aglobal reputation for modeling and experimental workon clean coal combustion and has expanded to focus onsustainable energy. The TTO is a national leader in com-mercializing technology and products efficiently. BYUalso has numerous initiatives in hybrid energy technolo-gies and carbon management with expertise andintellectual property in both carbon capture and stor-age.


8 Executive Summary

Increase energy development through coor-dination and transparency in the regulatoryand licensing process. Utah’s regulatoryframework and process should be reviewed

and revised to accommodate future demand. Withinvarious state agencies there are competing requirementsand a lack of standard policies and regulations relatedto application processes, timelines and paperwork re-quirements.

Recommendation:Align Utah’s agencies to better meet and facili-tate responsible energy development.

• Establish a single point of contact for energydevelopers for information on all state and lo-cal permit and ordinance requirements andregulations

• Empower a new coordinating council of stateagencies to work on energy development is-sues and activities

• Instigate process improvement in state agen-cies that regulate the energy industry to assuregreatest efficiency and protection to publichealth and environment

• Develop a Utah long-range transmission plan

• Strengthen the State’s role in authorizing andfacilitating transmission/infrastructureprojects

• Adjust Utah’s regulatory framework and pro-cess to address Utah’s future energy demandand the role of emerging technology

Utah should have a state-wide programaimed at reducing energy consumption. En-ergy not consumed as a result of efficiency isa cost effective resource. Demand-side man-

agement (DSM) strategies reduce consumption duringpeak demand, resulting in lower costs because ofavoided or delayed investment in new electrical gen-eration and new natural gas supplies.

Recommendation:Maximize Utah’s commitment to energy efficiencyand demand side management.

• Support education and communication pro-grams that enhance public awareness of energyefficiency and promote energy code trainingfor new and existing energy professionals

• Encourage utilities and regulators to expandenergy efficiency and demand response pro-grams through state policy

• Analyze financial incentives to enable invest-ment in energy efficient construction andretrofitting

Utah should diversify transportation fuelsand build a transportation infrastructure anda fleet to meet the needs and demands of fu-ture generations. Utah’s dependence on out

of state sources for crude oil—72% used for transporta-tion from out of state sources—may create a future fuelcrisis. It is critical to our economy, air quality and ourquality of life that Utah diversifies our transportationmodel.

Recommendation:Utah should pursue energy independence fortransportation fuels by developing a frameworkfor reducing its dependence on outside sourcesfor transportation fuels and the inherent impactsthis dependence has on economic development.

• Support augmentation of Utah’s fuel supplywith nontraditional fuels

• Promote research and commercialization ofclean technology for nontraditional fuels andalternative fuel vehicles (USTAR and ResearchTriangle)

• Analyze current and future pipeline capacityfor oil and gas

5

6

7

A. The University of UtahThe University of Utah (U of U) is Utah’s largest

research institution and is ranked among the top 30public research universities in the nation. Best knownfor its health sciences research, the U of U has also es-tablished itself as a leader in energy research. The U ofU is home to two of the nation’s leading energy re-search institutions, the Energy & Geoscience Institute(EGI) and the Institute for Clean and Secure Energy(ICSE). EGI is a leader in fossil fuel, geothermal andcarbon sequestration research. EGI research projectscover the globe and 70 of the world’s leading energycompanies support its research. EGI is continuing toexpand both its applied research in hydrocarbons, aswell as geothermal and carbon management applica-tions for both government and industry. ICSE is aleader in fossil fuel combustion, gasification and com-puter modeling research. ICSE utilizes its impressiveoff-campus pilot-scale research facilities, and partnerswith industry to commercialize new technologies for

responsibly utilizing conventional and unconventionalfossil fuel and biomass resources. ICSE’s carbon miti-gation program includes oxyfuel combustion, chemicallooping and gasification. The University of Utah alsohas emerging energy research programs in such areasas solar power, renewable energy storage, biofuels andsmart-grid technologies. The Technology Commercial-ization Office at The University of Utah manages thecommercialization of energy technologies produced atthe university. The University of Utah will work closelywith the Energy Commercialization Center to promoteits successful model for bringing university-based re-newable energy and energy efficiency technologies tomarket.

B. Utah State UniversityUtah State University (USU) is Utah’s land-grant

institution and home to several world-class research,development, demonstration and deployment plat-forms. USU is proficient in the areas of natural resource



• Assure that the State of Utah is engaged intransportation planning that promotes non-motorized and public mass transitinfrastructure

Utah should review the need for additionalbase load sources of energy to supply electri-cal needs for our future. Given future demandprojections, current and projected environ-

mental regulations and constraints, and Utah’s uniquemix of energy resources, the foundation for future baseload growth should be laid now.

Recommendation:Coordinate with major local and municipal utili-ties to develop a long term strategy to broadenUtah’s supply of base load electricity

• Examine future coal supplies, the impacts of ad-ditional regulation on coal fired power plantsand the potential of clean coal technology

• Assess Utah’s natural gas resources and pipe-line capacity in terms of delivering base loadenergy

• Facilitate dialogue regarding Utah’s potentialopportunity for nuclear power development

• Evaluate Utah’s role in energy storage strate-gies and capabilities for renewable energysources including compressed air storage

SUMMARY:Energy is one of Governor Herbert’s top priorities.

The Utah Energy Task Force was appointed by the gov-ernor to develop a 10-year strategic energy plan. Eightrecommendations have emerged from the comprehen-sive stakeholder driven process to help shape Utah’senergy future. The plan takes into consideration ourabundant natural resources, economic developmentobjectives and the importance of environmentalsustainability. It is intended to be a working documentto which modifications will be made as new informa-tion is realized. Energy development is an essentialcomponent to the vitality and success of the state andUtah will strive to lead our nation in the developmentof traditional, alternative and renewable energy re-sources.

1 Governor Herbert, 2010, State of Utah, State of the State, reference Energy Initiatives andImperatives—Utah’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan, 6/10/10, http://www.utah.gov/gov-ernor/docs/Energy-Initiatives-Imperatives.pdf

2 http://www.energy.utah.gov/governorsenergyplan/subcommittees.html

3 Ibid


8


development and deployment of energy technologiesand work force capabilities.

Access to low-cost energy is a key incentive for busi-nesses to expand in Utah and to locate in the State.However, Utah is facing a potential risk from carbonand green-house gas emission legislation on the cost ofelectricity in the state. Rapid growth in the demand forenergy, coupled with new environmental regulations,will lead to higher costs for energy, which in turn couldnegatively impact the State’s competitive position forjob creation, as well as business attraction and reten-tion.69 While the electricity in Utah is primarily generatedfrom fossil fuels, accounting for 96 percent of Utah’s totalenergy production in 2009, a significant portion of thisgeneration is exported to other states. Electric powerproviders serve the State with a portfolio of resources(coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, pur-chased power, etc.) that are included in customers’electricity prices and mitigate the exposure to economiceffects of federal regulation of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gas emissions. Development of new energyresources is becoming increasingly costly and challeng-ing while Utah’s energy demand growth, competitionfor water resources and air quality issues place addi-tional upward pressure on energy prices. While thestate’s energy costs will continue to increase, other stateswill likely also experience similar pressures.

To address these challenges and take advantage ofits vast energy resources and talented workforce, Utahwill have to take several key steps:

• Enhance the State’s energy research facilities andcontinue to attract world-class researchers to thestate

• Align the State’s main research universities -University of Utah (U of U), Utah State (USU)and Brigham Young University (BYU) - into apowerful energy research and development tri-angle

• Connect this “Research Triangle” with global in-dustry, national laboratories and regionaluniversities to effectively commercialize new en-ergy technologies and develop Utah’sconventional, alternative and renewable energyresources

• Empower Utah’s education system to expand itsability to train, attract and retain the skilled tal-ent necessary to grow Utah’s energy economy

Utah’s Research Triangle will optimize the role of theU of U, USU, and BYU as innovation leaders in energyeconomy. The faculty, staff, students, and facilities areengaged and respected on a global basis, and Utah’sresearch universities are among the nation’s leaders inmany areas of energy research and development. Theirseparate capabilities are impressive, yet their effortscould be more effective, through increased collabora-tion. The research universities investment in developingand deploying energy technologies includes researchfaculty and programs; research labs and related infra-structure; commercialization offices; and coordinationwith industry, national labs, regional universities, andState commercialization and economic developmentagencies. The research universities will also work closelywith Utah’s other universities, such as Weber State Uni-versity, Utah Valley University and Southern UtahUniversity, where notable energy research initiativeshave already been established.

Utah’s Research Triangle is well connected nation-ally and internationally and has access to regional energyindustry technology leaders with a global reputation forimplementing and commercializing technologies devel-oped within the Research Triangle. Closer collaborationbetween Utah’s research universities, industry, nationallabs and state agencies will help achieve even greaterreturns on Utah’s investment in energy research anddevelopment. Improved collaboration will also improvedeployment of technology to develop Utah’s naturalenergy resources affordably with minimal environmen-tal impact. Additional information regarding specificresearch at the universities is also available in theSubcommittee’s full report.70

UTAH ENERGY INITIATIVEGovernor Herbert’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan


I. INTRODUCTIONThe energy industry in Utah is the second largest

component of state gross domestic product. Utah has avast supply of diverse energy resources. These resourcesfoster job creation and economic development throughexploration, development, production, research andmanufacturing. Additionally, Utah’s low cost energy hasbeen a driver in attracting businesses to locate in Utah.The revenue from energy development is the backboneof Utah’s strong economy, providing funds for educa-tion to develop the scientists, engineers, technicians,entrepreneurs, and workforce that match the opportu-nities of a strong economy and a vibrant quality of life

II. CURRENT AND FUTURE ENERGYDEMAND IN UTAH

Utah’s current energy resource production base in-cludes traditional fossil fuels and renewable resources,as summarized in Figure 1.

In 2009, residents, businesses, and industries con-sumed approximately 27,411 gigawatt hours (GWh) ofelectricity and 131 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Withthe exception of crude oil, Utah currently produces moreenergy (including electricity, transportation fuels, andfuel for residential, commercial, and industrial sectors)than it uses. In 2008, Utah produced 29% more energythan it consumed.1 Rocky Mountain Power’s (RMP)Utah load is expected to increase from approximately4,700 megawatts (MW) in 2011 to approximately 5,600MW in 2020. Questar projects that natural gas consump-tion in Utah in the residential, commercial, and industrial

Table 1






Figure 1. Energy production in Utahby source in 2009. Source: Utah

Geological Survey.

sectors will increase from 170 million Dth in 2011 to 200million Dth in 2020.2 Based on increases in consump-tion over the last ten years, petroleum-basedtransportation fuel use is projected to increase from 45million barrels/year to 52 million barrels/year duringthe same period.3

Table 1 shows Utah’s projected energy demandgrowth for three of the four fossil fuels (all but coal).Coal reserves are at least sufficient to last this comingdecade; and in general, existing coal plants will likelycontinue to produce electricity through the decade. Thecoal use may remain about the same, but this energy isaccounted for in the electricity.


legislation could be developed that creates a state au-thority and funding vehicle that would be granted totransmission companies or developers to build lines thatare found to be not economic by state utility regulators.

The State needs a clear process for siting and permit-ting transmission infrastructure projects. Localopposition can impede the development of infrastruc-ture projects, which are critical and vital for the economichealth of the State and its communities. Review the au-thority for the Utility Facility Siting Board that wouldspecifically address local zoning and conditional userequirements and determine modified language thatwould allow the Board to review proposed permittingrequirements.

Inadequate coordination among state agencies in-volved in siting and permitting activities can impedethe development of infrastructure projects. There arecompeting requirements and lack of standard policiesrelating to linear facilities within various State agencies.Strengthen the State infrastructure departments missionand support, review all state agencies’ roles in success-fully completing facilities development, and consideroptions for better coordination among state and federalagencies.

Public interest multiple infrastructure corridors can-not be secured without funding and right-of-wayacquisition. Infrastructure providers do not generallyhave mechanisms to acquire future rights-of-way thatmeet state law and provide a return on that long terminvestment. Develop funding methods to acquire long-term multiple infrastructure corridors. Review thestatutory framework to identify options to provide fund-ing to acquire Utah interest in joint corridors.

Infrastructure should be built in a way to minimizeenvironmental and social impacts. Federal, state andprivate land owners often prefer impacts to be locatedelsewhere. Work with the Governor’s office to create aforum to balance infrastructure and the environment inthe management of public and private lands. Create ateam to develop specific language and recommendationsthat the State can take to federal land managers.

Encourage strong energy efficiency, demand-sidemanagement measures and distributed generation tominimize the need to build additional transmission.Fixed cost recovery is a problem and stakeholders dis-agree on the appropriate level of spending on demandside management measures. Create a multi-dimensionalstakeholder group to further discuss the issues. Utili-ties work with stakeholders to develop policies thatencourage demand reduction and energy efficiency par-

ticipation at optimal levels. Consider policy changesrecommended by the stakeholder group.

VII. DEVELOPING AND APPLYINGTECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE

Utah’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels, coupled withrapid growth in the demand for energy and new envi-ronmental regulations, calls for a strategic energy planto secure Utah’s energy future. To stimulate economicgrowth, protect the environment, and develop the State’svast energy resources, Utah must invest in its energyresearch and development infrastructure and improvecoordination of the State’s research universities, nationalenergy laboratories, energy research and developmentindustry, energy-related university spin-off companiesand other key partners to collectively contribute to the

AUXILIARY POWER UNIT GRANTSFederal Department of Transportation regulationsfor semi truck drives require 10 hours of rest forevery 11 hours of driving. When stopped, driversoften idle their engines to provide heat, light, andpower. Idling burns fuel and puts wear on engines.The Utah Division of Air Quality obtained grants tofund the installation of Auxiliary Power Units (APU)sthat reduce fuel consumption and diesel emissions byproviding climate control and electrical power for thetruck’s sleeper cab and engine block heater duringdowntime on the road without running the truck’sengine. It is estimated that each truck will save 6,450gallons diesel fuel per year. As of February 1, 2011, 32APUs have been installed and 49 more are planned tobe installed in the next year. Below is a picture of aninstalled APU.

UTAH INGENUITY AT WORK


This report notes that RMP provides about 80% ofthe State’s electrical power, the balance coming princi-pally from public municipals. Thus, the values in Table1 will be low. Further, Utah is not self-sufficient in pe-troleum and imports about 72% of its petroleumconsumed.

Figure 1 shows that currently, nearly 99% of Utah’senergy production is from these three conventional fos-sil fuels. Renewable resources provide only 1.3% of thetotal.

While it is anticipated that renewable and alterna-tive energy sources will likely grow at more rapid ratesthan the conventional fossil fuels, by 2020, Utah’s en-ergy will still be dominated by fossil fuels. To illustratethis, these 10-year projections for Utah can be comparedto the federal government’s energy plan which goes to2035.4 The U.S. Energy Information Administrationprojects a 14% increase in consumption from 2008 to2035, an annual growth rate of only 0.5%, significantlyless than projected for Utah’s growth rate (Table 1). TheU.S. also projects a significant growth rate in renewablesand biofuels. It also projects small increases in coal andnatural gas with declining reliance on imported petro-leum. Currently, the conventional fossil fuels provide84% of the U.S. energy demand. By 2035, the U.S. projectsthe fossil fuel percentage will drop from 84% to 78%.This is an important observation for Utah’s 10-year en-ergy plan. The U.S. has an aggressive program to expandrenewable and alternative energy sources. Yet, even by2035, the U.S. will still be principally dependent on thesethree fossil fuels. It is very likely that, even with aggres-sive efforts toward renewable energy sources, Utah mustcontinue to rely principally on fossil fuels over the next10 years.

To meet future demand, Utah should continue to useexisting fossil fuel resources and augment with new, cost-effective energy efficiency, renewable, and alternativeenergy resources to the extent it is technically and eco-nomically feasible, and continue the research anddevelopment of clean and secure energy through researchcenters around the State, e.g., the Bingham Entrepreneur-ship and Energy Research Center in Vernal.

Utah’s dependence on imported transportation fu-els is a concern over the next ten years. Utah currentlyimports about 72% of its petroleum to meet transporta-tion needs. This is similar to U.S. imports of its petroleumwhich is considered to be a national crisis. As discussedelsewhere in this report, Utah has vast reserves of oilshale and oil sands in the Green River formation in east-ern Utah.

DESERET POWERDeseret Power operates a coal fired power plant innortheastern Utah generating 458 MW of power forUtah. To address air quality concerns they are workingtowards two innovative ideas to both decreaseemissions and reduce waste product. A new 110 MWcoal fired unit will utilize waste byproduct eliminatingthe need to landfill and the best technology would beused to minimize emissions. Additionally Deseret isconsidering a 100 MW coal fired project that wouldcapture 90% of CO2 emissions and sequester CO2

potentially for oil recovery.

Newer, cleaner technologies have been developed toproduce liquid transportation fuels from these uncon-ventional resources.5 Shale oil has been and is beingcommercially produced in Brazil, China and Estonia.6

A single small oil shale plant would have the capacityto produce 6,000 bbl/day of oil, which is about 11% ofUtah’s daily consumption of about 53,000 bbl/day.7

III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ONUTAH’S ENERGY RESOURCESA. Status of Utah’s Energy Resources

Utah’s energy portfolio should include fossil fuels,alternative fuels, renewable resources, and energy effi-ciency. Diversifying Utah’s energy base not onlyprovides jobs and revenues, but also critical resourcesand energy to fuel Utah’s broader business and indus-trial sectors.

Coal: In 2008, Utah produced its one-billionth ton ofcoal. In 2009, Utah ranked 13th in the nation in the pro-duction of coal at 21.9 million tons and coal made upabout 47% of Utah’s total produced energy resources.



To develop renewable energy projects within theState’s borders, additional transmission capacity wouldneed to be built. To build a clean energy economy, gainmore energy independence and promote developmentand jobs, Utah will need to develop its own large-scalerenewable energy projects. A major obstacle to gettingthese sources on the grid is the availability of transmis-sion to collect the output of these renewable resourcesfrom remote locations. Utah’s regulatory framework isnot currently set up to make this possible.

Potential barriers to transmission infrastructure de-velopment include financing, integrated planningacross all levels of government and permitting proce-dures. Funding methods, sources, and options need tobe explored and implemented, while building on pre-vious state-based efforts. A long-range transmissionfeasibility study of a large-scale renewable energyprojects in the state should be considered. Such a planwould include significant stakeholder input upfront.Substantial public and private sector participation,combined with the utilization of natural and culturalresource data early in planning and budgeting can helpsecure as much public support as possible. This, in turn,would reduce the probabilities of suits against any fu-ture projects that may be built as a result of the plan,facilitate permitting, and produce more efficient sitingand mitigation practices, thereby saving time and re-sources.

With the projected increase in travel and population,there is a need to expand the State transportation sys-

tem, as defined in the Utah Long Range Plan. The UtahDepartment of Transportation (UDOT) maintains over6,000 miles of highway infrastructure and 35,000 milesof road within the State of Utah. Currently there are 1.6million drivers. This number is expected to grow 65%to 2.6 million by 2030. Population is expected to growfrom 2.5 million residents to 4.1 million residents by2030. See Figure 5. The amount of travel has increasedfaster than the rate of growth of the population. UDOTestimates that it will require $10.2 billion between nowand 2030 to maintain the physical condition of the high-way system at its current level.

There may be opportunities to both improve the en-ergy transmission network and the transportationsystem that offers both overall efficiencies and reducedimpacts through better coordination and planning.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORTTRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT:

Consider alternatives to current regulation and fund-ing sources to encourage transmission line and pipelineconstruction in areas that promote economic develop-ment or renewable and alternative energy resourcedevelopment. State economic regulation requires thatinvestments be prudently made, competitive cost (riskadjusted) and used and useful for existing and futurecustomers. Federal and state regulation requires non-discriminatory application of all tariffs to transmissionusers. If stakeholders decide it is in Utah’s best interest,

Figure 5. Comparison of population growth, increase in vehicle miles traveled,highway mileage change in Utah. Utah Department of Transportation.

250

200

150

100

50

0

Cum

ulat

ive

Perc

ent

Cha

nge

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Observed VMT Change from 1990

Observed Population Change from 1990

Highway Mileage Change from 1990


Coal also accounts for 41% of the energy consumed byUtahns.8 There are estimated to be over 3,722 jobs inUtah’s coal production industry, including direct andrelated support jobs (this figure does not include indi-rect jobs).9 Utah’s most economic coal reserves arelocated in the three coal fields forming an inverted “U”primarily across Sevier, Emery, and Carbon Counties.Utah currently has about 202 million tons of coal reservesunder lease at active mines, while state-wide recover-able coal resources total about 15 billion tons (thisnumber does not take into account economic or landuse constraints).10 Another estimate from the Bureau ofLand Management Price Field Office resource manage-ment plan indicates statewide coal reserves at 14.3 billiontons or greater than 50 years at current production rates.The majority of Utah coal, 68% in 2009, was used in state,while 32% was shipped out of state. Foreign exports,mostly to Asia, peaked in 1996 when 5.5 million tons, or19.7%, of Utah coal was shipped to foreign markets. Thisexport market ceased to be economic as Australia andChina increased production.11 Utah’s research universi-ties are evaluating carbon capture and relatedtechnologies with direct application to Utah’s coal-firedgeneration.12

From 1973 to 1988, electricity generation increasedfrom approximately 3,000 GWh to over 30,000 GWh.Utah became a net exporter of electricity. Coal-firedpower plants comprised about 95% of total net genera-tion as the amount of hydroelectric generation declined.Today, approximately 82% of Utah’s total net genera-tion of electricity comes from coal-fired power plants,

Figure 2. Net Generation of Electricity in Utah by EnergySource (2009) Source: Utah Geological Survey

with 16% from natural gas, and 2% from hydroelectric,geothermal, landfill gas and biomass, wind, and solar.13

Utah consumes about 60% of the electricity that is gen-erated in the State. The resource mix consumed in Utah,as the Utah Geological Survey notes, is more accuratelyreflected in the fuel mix of Rocky Mountain Power,which serves 80% of the electricity (MWh) and 75% ofthe electric customers in Utah. That fuel mix includesapproximately 58% coal, 17% natural gas, and 13%renewables (including hydroelectric).14 The remainingelectricity customers are served by two municipalgroups, UAMPS and UMPA, and by an association ofrural electric cooperatives. They have a similar fuel mixas Rocky Mountain Power, but with a larger percentagefrom hydroelectric power.

Utah’s proven coal reserves, adjacent to operatingmines, have been steadily decreasing, from a high of429 million tons in 2000 to 202.5 million tons in 2009.There are three existing ways of estimating coal reserves.Reserves adjacent to active coal mines are the most con-servative estimate, but also the most accurate estimateof readily available coal. During this same period, 2000to 2009, the number of mines decreased from 13 to 8.15

Business-sector investments in coal-fired generation, in-cluding carbon capture and sequestration, appearunlikely until there is certainty regarding federal car-bon regulation. The cost of compliance with additionalair-pollution controls at existing plants is also underreview. More restrictions are anticipated in the next fewyears, which will also decrease the probability of invest-ment in new coal mines, or new coal-fired electric

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Gig

awat

thou

rs

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Hydroelectric Other*

*Other includes geothermal, wind, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, and other gases.


Figure 4 is a map of planned electrical transmissionprojects (Foundational Projects) currently in the Regionalplanning review process within the Western ElectricityCoordinating Council (WECC)68 and projected to bedeveloped over the next 10 years. These projects arebeing proposed by a number of sponsors, including elec-tric utilities and independent power producers andprivate investors. Utah’s transmission plan should bedeveloped in coordination with sub-regional and WECCtransmission plans, and Utah should work with otherstates/provinces in the Western Interconnection to capi-talize on synergies among transmission developmentin other states/provinces.

Natural gas transmission is accomplished by un-derground pipes, which have seen dramatic growthin the last 30 years. Natural gas export capacity fromthe Rockies has increased from 1.8 MMcf/day in 1980

to 8.1 MMcf/day in 2010. With the addition of theRuby Pipeline and the Kern River expansion, whichare scheduled to be completed in 2011, pipeline ex-port capacity in the Rockies will be 10.4 MMcf/day.Pipeline transmission capacity inside Utah has dra-matically increased as well, with new transmissioncapacity from Questar Pipeline and Kern River Pipe-line. Questar Gas is also spending significant capitalto replace and expand intrastate high-pressure feederlines. Tables 5 and 6 provide more detailed informa-tion. Whether Utah is a net importer or exporter ofnatural gas in the future is dependent on develop-ment of resources in-state and regional and nationalmarket forces.

Transmission of coal and gasoline are typically bytrain or truck. Leaks in oil pipelines in the Salt LakeValley have been of particular concern.

Table 5

Existing natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines in Utah. Source: Questar Gas.

Miles of Gas Miles of Gas Total Miles UtahTransmission Distribution of Gas Interstate Pipeline

Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Interconnections

Kern River 712 0 712 1Northwest Pipeline —Questar Pipeline 2,500 2,500 2Questar Gas* 1,029 15,909 16,938 11

Total Customer Interconnections 4,241 15,909 20,150 14State Tax Commission Est.** 1,957

Table 6

Proposed transmission pipelines in Utah. Source: Questar Gas.

Miles of GasProject Transmission Pipe In-Service

Pipeline Name Pipeline Diameter Date Description

Kern River Apex Expansion Project 2.8 36 inch 11/1/2011 This project will close the currentlyunlooped of Kern River’s pipeline inthe Wasatch mount

Questar Pipeline ML 104 Extension 23.5 24-inch 11/1/2011 This project extends QPC’s mainlineto the east receive gas from theprocessing hubs in the Uintah Basinof Utah.

El Paso Natural Gas Ruby Pipeline 181.5 42-inch Spring 2011 This project transports RockyMountain natural to end users inCalifornia, Nevada and the Pacificnorthwest

generation. Furthermore, as some Western states evalu-ate the generation and importation of electricity fromcleaner sources (including renewables and natural gas),electricity portfolios may change. The technology andcost of integrating intermittent, non-dispatchable renew-able resources, as well as the need to ensure reservegeneration to back-up intermittent generation, are fac-tors in the diversification of electricity resources in Utahand across the Western Interconnect.

Crude Oil (Petroleum Products): In 2008, Utahranked as the 13th largest producer of crude oil in theUnited States. In 2009, crude oil made up approxi-mately 12% of Utah’s total produced energy resources.Crude oil also accounts for 33% of the energy consumedby Utahns.16 Utah has five refineries with over 150,000barrels per day of refining capacity making gasoline,diesel, jet fuel and related products. While Utah is anet exporter of energy, it imports approximately 72%of the crude oil that is processed in its refineries. Im-ports come principally from Canada, along withWyoming and Colorado. The refineries monetize Utahcrude oil production. They are a significant source ofjobs both for full time employees and contractors. Re-fineries are regional businesses exporting products toadjoining states. Though they are also significant con-sumers of natural gas and electricity, they providetransportation fuel reliability and accessibility in Utah.The environment in which they work is competitivebecause of the number of individuals and firms in-volved in the industry. This industry needs stability inregulation and taxation to invite the investment of nec-essary capital to continually modernize and make theiroperations more efficient.

Natural Gas: In 2007, Utah ranked as the 8th largestonshore producer of natural gas in the country. In 2008,Utah’s natural gas was mostly used for home heating(nearly 29%) and by the electric utility sector (nearly25%). Natural gas makes up approximately 40% ofUtah’s total produced energy resources. Natural gas alsoaccounts for 24% of the energy consumed by Utahns.17

There are estimated to be over 13,222 jobs in Utah’s oiland gas industries, including direct and related supportjobs of extraction, wells operations, distribution, trans-portation, refining, construction and manufacturing (thisfigure does not include indirect jobs).18

Future energy projections place significant demandson natural gas production in Utah. Natural gas demandhas historically come from the residential home heat-ing, commercial, and industrial sectors. In 2008, thosesectors consumed approximately 137 billion cubic feet

(bcf) of natural gas.19 Natural Gas vehicles consumedonly approximately 240 million cubic feet. Even a dou-bling of transportation fuel use would have little impacton consumption. However, natural gas consumption forelectricity generation has increased steadily since the late1990s, totaling more than 55 bcf from all utilities in 2008,generating approximately 16% of Utah electricity pro-duction.20 Rocky Mountain Power currently estimatesthat its Utah natural gas plants will consume approxi-mately 62 bcf in 2020 for electricity generation, anincrease of over 45 % from the approximately 42 bcf con-sumed by RMP plants in 2009.21 In 2020, Rocky MountainPower’s production of electricity from natural gas inUtah is projected to reach 9,000 GWh, compared withproduction in Utah in 2009 of 5,300 GWh.22 DoublingUtah’s natural gas-fired generation will require newnatural gas production, which will require more effi-cient lease sales and permitting of natural gasexploration. Delays related to Resource ManagementPlan approvals must be resolved, and the approximate18-month backlog on federal drilling permits must bereduced. State and federal agencies are already work-ing together with industry to identify and reduce ozoneand fine-particulate pollution that has been identified

WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAUBill Barrett Corporation, working with the BLM, state, anagreement with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance on an acceptable plan to extract vital natural gas resources from one of Utah’s most spectacular landscapes. This win-win was brought about by a shared desire to keep lands appropriate for development open, while allowing that some areas should be maintained for their scenic and wild attributes.


Utah’s 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan 1332 Energy Initiatives and Imperatives

the most complex and highest risk enterprise an electricutility can undertake. Regardless of the energy policyselected, the mix of generating resources utilized-fossilfuels, nuclear, wind, solar or geothermal-all require ro-bust transmission capacity to move electricity andnatural gas to where customers need it.

Electrical transmission is accomplished by above-ground high voltage lines. The last major additions tothe electric transmission network in the Western U.S.were made some 20-30 years ago. While some compa-nies have begun major transmission additions orproposed major projects, the huge capital cost of trans-mission is a barrier to new investment. Because Statepolicies still require that most transmission constructioncosts be borne by the retail customers of the load serv-ing entity that construct them, few investor- orconsumer-owned utilities have committed the largecapital investment required for such projects, despite apressing need. Likewise, private investors have beenreluctant to propose projects of their own or commitfunding to projects proposed by others.

During the summer of 2009 Rocky Mountain Power

served approximately 85% of the total electrical peakdemand in the State of Utah.67 The peak demand in theWasatch Front of Utah (Ogden area to Spanish Fork area)is 80% of the peak electrical demand for the entire State.This area is Rocky Mountain Power’s largest and high-est density urban load center. It also represents some ofthe Company’s greatest challenges in providing safe,adequate and reliable transmission service due to largepopulation and established communities, land use (bothexisting and future planned), and the limited geogra-phy available to site and construct transportationfacilities.

There are approximately 150 electrical interconnec-tion points to Rocky Mountain Power’s transmissionsystem alone. The Company provides transmission ser-vices to more than eight other transmission owners andload serving entities. There are eight major electricaltransmission paths that interconnect the State of Utahto bordering states. All of these existing paths are cur-rently fully subscribed for transmission usage and haveconstraints and limits regarding their ability to serve theState long term.

Figure 4. Proposed western foundational transmission projects by 2020.Western Electricity Coordinating Council.

Legend500 kV Single Circuit Line345 kV Single Circuit Line500 kV Double Circuit Line345 kV Double Circuit LineDC Circuit (various voltage)Termination SubstationsIntermediate Substations

Final - Ver. 7.0, July 22, 2010

FOUNDATIONAL PROJECTS BY 2020

CAISO• CAISO02 Sunrise• CAISO03 Blythe-Devers• CAISO04 Tehachapi Upgrade

SSPG• SSPG02 SWIP South• SSPG05 TCP Harry Allen - Northwest• SSPG06 TCP Northwest - Amargosa

SWAT• SWAT01 PV-NG#2• SWAT06 Pinal Central - Tortolita• SWAT07 Southeast Valley (SEV)• SWAT08 PV - Morgan

CCPG• CCPG02 Pawnee - Smoky Hill• CCPG03 Waterton - Midway• CCPG04 San Luis Valley

NTTG• NTTG01 Gateway South Phase 1• NTTG02 Gateway Central Phase 1• NTTG03 Gateway West Phase 1• NTTG05 Hemingway - Boardman• NTTG05 Cascade Crossing

CG• CG01 I-5 Corridor• CG02 West McNary• CG03 Big Eddy - Knight• CG04 Little Goose Area Reinforcement

BCH• BCH01 Nicola - Meridian• BCH03 BC-US Intertie

Alberta AESO• AESO03 1202L Conversion• AESO04 Heartland• AESO05 West HVDC• AESO06 East HVDC• AESO07 Fort McMurray - East Line• AESO08 Fort McMurray - West Line

d local partners was able to reach an


in some regions of oil and natural gas development.Future considerations should include recognition thatrenewables, particularly wind and solar generation, donot completely replace fossil fuels in the fuel mix, butusually rely on natural gas as a backup and peak-daycontingency. Additional natural gas will also be neededshould significant wind generation be developed inUtah. Wind’s unpredictable nature means grid opera-tors and planners must construct a shadow grid,particularly gas-peaking units, to stand as a reserve gen-erator for those times when wind resources are notdelivering their potential capacity. An increased relianceon natural gas for electricity generation also means thatthere is a need for additional pipeline capacity.

Unconventional Fuels: Utah possesses unprec-edented oil shale and oil sands resources. There havebeen wide-ranging estimates of the volume of resourcesin the Uinta Basin. The Utah Geological Survey’s 2009evaluation estimates that a continuous oil-shale inter-val that averages 35 gallons per ton contains an in-placeresource of 76 billion barrels of shale oil.23 Tar sandspotential includes 14-15 billion barrels of measured in-place oil, with an additional estimated resource of 23-28billion barrels.24 The 2005 Rand Corporation Report in-dicates that, “the largest known oil shale deposits in theworld are in the Green River Formation, which coversportions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Potentiallyrecoverable oil shale resources include 500 billion bar-

rels to 1.1 trillion barrels of oil. For policy planning pur-poses, it is enough to know that any amount in this rangeis very high. Present U.S. demand for petroleum prod-ucts is about 20 million barrels per day.25 The largestvolume of deposits of bitumen is in Utah, which hasmeasured reserves of 8 billion to 12 billion bbl and totalresources in place, including speculative ones, of 23 bil-lion to 32 billion bbl.”26 The 2008 Rand CorporationReport on oil sands notes that “U.S. resources of bitu-men have not been heavily exploited and are notcharacterized as thoroughly as resources in Canada(USGS, 2006). Major deposits of bitumen (i.e., largerthan100 million barrels) in the United States can be foundin Alabama, Alaska, California, Kentucky, New Mexico,Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.”

Uranium: Utah’s San Juan County has a history ofuranium mining dating back to the 1950s. Currently theNation’s only licensed and operating uranium mill, theWhite Mesa Mill, is located south of the community ofBlanding, Utah. Uranium mined in Utah, in addition toUranium mined in the Arizona Strip, is being trans-ported to White Mesa for processing. There is thepotential nuclear power plant project in Utah that woulddepend on this ore, additionally a market exists currentlyand may grow as additional plants are brought on linearound the country.

There are more than 150 jobs in Utah’s uranium in-dustry, including direct and related support jobs inuranium mining and milling (this figure does not in-clude indirect jobs).27 Future job growth in Utah isdependent on the growth of the nuclear power indus-try, nationally and in Utah. Additionally, job growth inUtah is dependant on the area known as the ArizonaStrip remaining open for uranium mining. Currently theBureau of Land Management is proposing to withdrawover 1 million acres from development.

Hydroelectric: In 2008, hydroelectric made up 0.5%of Utah’s total produced energy resources. Hydroelec-tric also accounts for 0.7% of the energy consumed byUtahns.28 Hydroelectric power comprises about 1.5% ofelectricity produced. There are estimated to be 1,142 jobsin Utah’s hydroelectric industry, including direct andrelated support jobs (this figure does not include indi-rect jobs).29

Geothermal, Solar, Wind and Biomass: In 2008, geo-thermal made up 0.5% of Utah’s total produced energyresources. Geothermal also accounts for 0.8% of the en-ergy consumed by Utahns. Utah is one of only six stateswhere electricity is generated from geothermal re-sources.30 In 2010, Utah’s wind generation capacity was

MILFORD WIND FARMFirst Wind is an independent wind energy companythat operates a 204 MW wind project in Beaver andMillard Counties. The company recently startedconstruction of a second phase of the project that willadd another 102 MW of generation capacity.



• Continue encouraging all customers and suppli-ers to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiencythrough its current regulatory culture

• Make greater efforts to ensure all system and en-vironmental benefits provided by energyefficiency are fully and appropriately valued inthe planning, acquisition and regulatory deci-sions. Likewise, the costs and challengesassociated with energy efficiency should be fullyand appropriately considered as well

• Consider establishing energy-efficiency targetsand/or utility incentive programs for successfulmanagement of energy-efficiency and demand-side response programs

• Pursue additional analysis and evaluation of util-ity and ratepayer impacts of high- efficiencyscenarios

• Consider rate recovery mechanisms that balance thefirst-year costs of energy-efficiency programs whilebenefits are accrued across many years. Alternativerate recovery mechanisms may be necessary to giveenergy-efficiency resources comparable treatment tosupply-side generation resources that are amortizedover multiple years. Impacts this approach may haveon a utility’s financial condition should be consid-ered as part of this effort.

VII. TRANSMISSION,INFRASTRUCTURE ANDTRANSPORTATION

Historically, energy producers have focused on pro-viding competitive costs while balancing other factorsand risks. Increasingly other requirements and publicpolicy objectives have become more predominant inthinking about the new energy economy and climatechange. Infrastructure providers find themselves caughtbetween customers who have become accustomed tolow energy costs and continue to demand low costs, andthose policies that promote renewable energy, conser-vation and the green economy with the potential forincrementally higher energy costs.

In Utah, peak demand for electricity rose steadilythrough the 1990s, with significant increases in the yearsprior to 2008. While growth has slowed significantly,consumer demand for electricity is still growing. Thedemand for natural gas has followed a similar path sincenatural gas is now increasingly being used for electric-ity and faces the same challenges.

Electric and natural gas transmission is a key part ofany state’s overall energy policy, but it is the most diffi-cult component of the energy delivery system toconstruct. Long planning timelines, large geographicfootprint, complex permitting from multiple jurisdic-tions and huge capital costs make energy transmission

INSTITUTE FOR CLEAN ANDSECURE ENERGYThe Institute for Clean and Secure Energy (ICSE)grew from a long tradition of combustion researchat the University of Utah beginning in the 1950s andcontinuing to today’s level of over 120 faculty, staff,and students. ICSE formed from the combination ofseveral strong research programs that focused oncombustion simulation, analysis, and experiments. In2004, the University of Utah officially recognizedICSE as a permanent institute. The mission of ICSE iseducation through interdisciplinary researchonhigh-temperature fuel utilization processes forenergy generation, and associated environmental,health, policy, and performance issues.

ICSE employs an integrated, multi-disciplinaryapproach to the study of energy, combustion andhigh-temperature fuel-utilization processes bycombining hands-on experimental work withanalytical tools and simulation. This approachenables ICSE to develop predictive tools for thesehighly complex processes, which span multiple scalesof time and space. ICSE has the resources andexpertise to address and improve the understandingof these processes, which are often associated withapplied systems and industrial applications.



224 megawatts (MW), most of which is exported to Cali-fornia. In 2009, only 0.1% of Utah’s electricity need wasmet by wind power. Solar energy generation makes up0.1% of total produced energy in Utah and 0.01% of theenergy consumed by Utahns. In 2009, biomass made up0.5% of Utah’s total produced energy resources. Biom-ass also accounts for 0.8 % of the energy consumed byUtahns. In 2008, Utah ranked 45th in the nation in per-cent of total net electricity generation from renewableresources.31 Currently, there is only a minimalrenewables manufacturing component taking place inUtah. About 35% of the estimated jobs are directly re-lated to manufacturing and production of equipment/supplies related to the industry. By comparison, forUtah-specific manufacturing jobs, average employmentis 4,155 jobs in plastics and rubber, 12,318 in fabricatedmetal, and 3,574 in composites.32

While Utah may possess considerable renewableenergy potential, many legitimate challenges currentlyimpact the development of these resources. Among thesechallenges are the substantial investments in transmis-sion infrastructure to connect these widespreadresources to the grid, as well as policy, economic, tech-nological and regulatory considerations. Combined,these challenges render many renewable energy projectsin Utah not cost effective when compared to other re-source options. Nevertheless, renewable energyrepresents a small, but growing, portion of Utah’s en-ergy generation portfolio, with a statewide installedrenewable energy capacity, including hydroelectric gen-eration, of 570 MW, with an additional 142 MW currentlyunder contract.33 Some of these resources are consumedin-state, while others are exported to surrounding states.Utah’s renewable energy resource potential varies bytechnology and location.

The numbers found in the Utah Renewable EnergyZone Task Force Report (UREZ) represent the upperboundary of what is theoretically possible, but does notidentify what is reasonably probable and economic.Ongoing efforts by members of the Committee supportthe premise that commercially viable renewable energyprojects exist and should be developed in Utah as theyare demonstrated to be cost effective. Utah’s policy-making authorities, public demand, cost, the utilityregulatory and planning arenas, and continued coordi-nation among stakeholders should collaborate toidentify pathways to address existing challenges to re-newable energy development. Given growing energydemand and constraints on current energy supply, re-newable energy could play an important role in Utah’s

energy future if these challenges are sufficiently ad-dressed, though not likely having a major impact in thenext 10 years.

It should be noted regarding Utah’s renewable en-ergy resources that to date, Rocky Mountain Power(RMP) has found potential renewable energy projectsin Utah to be less cost-effective than projects in surround-ing states. Current regulatory policy in the State appliesa least-cost risk adjusted standard to RMP in providingelectric service to its Utah customers. Under this stan-dard, RMP has directed the majority of its investmentin renewable energy generation facilities to areas locatedout of state, with the bulk of investment being directedto wind facilities in Wyoming. Under the current least-cost standard, RMP will invest in renewable energyfacilities located in Utah (such as the Blundell geother-mal facility located in Beaver County) to the extent theyare found competitive from a cost effectiveness stand-point.

Also worthy of note regarding renewable energy fa-cilities in general are the operational challenges ofimplementing renewable energy resources into an elec-trical system. By their very nature, energy productionfrom renewable facilities is intermittent and can be ran-dom and unpredictable. Solar facility production isimpacted by cloud cover and shading from nearby struc-tures, while production from wind facilities can drop

RASER TECHNOLOGY GEOTHERMALRaser is a Provo-based environmental energytechnology company focused on geothermal powerdevelopment and technology licensing. Raseroperates a 10 MW geothermal plant in Beaver Countyand plans to develop plants at two other Utah sites.



state-building construction. In 2010, DFCM also installed$4 million in renewable energy projects (mostly solar)with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act eco-nomic stimulus funding; established private/publicpartnerships with energy service companies (ESCOs)and utilities to fund energy efficiency improvements inexisting buildings; benchmarked or tracked energy usein over 90% of large buildings under their managementthrough EnergyStar’s Portfolio Manager; used a re-com-missioning platform for tuning up buildings; establisheda $2.5 million energy-efficiency revolving loan fund thatis currently fully subscribed; established a statewideemployee energy behavioral program “Think Energy”and employee E-teams; and continued to track the“Working 4 Utah” initiative that has shown a 10% en-ergy use reduction.

Constructing buildings to current or above energycode standards reduces the occupant’s energy costs andputs downward pressure on utility rates by deferringinvestment in new energy generation that would other-wise be needed to meet rising demand. Utah’scommercial and residential buildings use 42% of its to-tal energy, more than either the industrial ortransportation sectors. Increasing energy efficiency inUtah’s new buildings will potentially save $1.17 billionbetween 2001 and 2020.66 The economic cost to buildersto achieve such savings has not been determined andshould be analyzed.

Building energy codes dictate minimum standardsfor the design and construction of all new and renovatedbuildings. The codes impact energy use for the life ofthe building. Utah’s statewide building codes areadopted by the Legislature and enforced by local juris-dictions. Many Utah builders are effectively ensuringenergy efficiency is a component of all new and retrofit-ted homes and buildings.

Energy codes are not effective if those codes aren’tproperly implemented by the design and constructionindustry or enforced by local building departments. Toeffectively do their jobs, everyone involved in buildingdesign, construction, plan-review and on-site enforce-ment must be aware of the latest building-sciencetechnologies and codes. Compliance tools and trainingmaterials that support energy codes are availablethrough the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building En-ergy Codes Program. The Utah State Energy Program,supported by Rocky Mountain Power and Questar Gas,provides energy code training. However, qualitativeobservations in 2010 reveal Utah’s compliance rate couldbe improved.

The Task Force makes the following recommenda-tions to improve energy efficiency in new construction:• Encourage builders’ participation in programs that

encourage continued improvement. Voluntary pro-grams that encourage more energy-efficientconstruction and renovation, such as EnergyStar forHomes, provide the opportunity for better-than-codeproducts

• Use the most current Utah state energy code for bothresidential and commercial construction

• Improve and clarify the administrative feedback loopfor code enforcement professionals between localjurisdictions and the Uniform Building Code Coun-cil, and develop a resolution process forconsensus-based code enforcement disputes

• Approve development fees or allocating a portion ofthe DOPL’s fund created from surcharges associatedwith construction as a funding source for energy-ef-ficiency code enforcement at the local level

• Encourage and fund programs that provide whole-house and building systems energy analysis andsignificant whole-house or whole-building retrofits

• Encourage government and non-government orga-nizations to utilize energy service companies as afinancing mechanism for energy-efficient retrofits, re-commissioning, and ongoing commissioning

F. Regulatory ChangesUtah’s regulatory framework is most effective in fo-

cusing its efforts on reducing overall energyconsumption, managing peak loads through best prac-tices, and supporting energy-efficiency anddemand-response programs, consumer education, andutility rate design to promote energy efficiency and con-servation. It is also important to ensure that utilities arenot disadvantaged or economically harmed as a resultof state energy and economic policy decisions. Utah’sregulatory environment, consistent with Utah statutesgoverning its operations, has provided support and re-covery of costs directly incurred by public utilitiesassociated with cost-effective energy-efficiency and de-mand-response programs. Both Questar Gas and RockyMountain Power have robust and active advisorygroups, established within Public Service Commissionprocesses, to provide recommendations on programdesign, scope, and implementation. This collaborativeeffort is an important ingredient to the ongoing successand achievement of these programs. Ongoing workshould:


off in a matter of minutes as the wind ceases to blow.Also, production from renewable energy facilities mayor may not occur at the time it is most needed - whendemand on the electrical system peaks. Because electricutilities are expected to provide service on a continuousbasis, renewable energy facilities need to be backed upby production resources which can be dispatched 1) ina short period of time; and 2) at the time the energy isneeded. Presently, RMP backs up its wind resourcesprimarily with natural gas-fired generation and powerpurchases from the market, both of which add cost tothe provision of electric service. The development ofbattery storage technologies, which is not a mature tech-nology on a utility scale at this time, will improve theability of renewable energy facilities to deliver energyat the time it is needed.

Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) as a Re-newable Energy Resource. The 2010 Legislature,through SB 104, designated air that is compressed andstored using renewable energy to be classified as a re-newable energy resource under certain conditions.While there are no operating CAES facilities in Utah,the legislation was based on the potential for compressedair storage in proximity to potential renewable energy

resources. A compressed natural gas storage facility,using storage in salt domes, is being permitted in MillardCounty. The CAES process uses stored compressed air,with the addition of natural gas combustion, to run tur-bines to generate electricity. This approach will not likelyhave a significant impact on Utah’s energy productionin the next 10 years.

Biofuels: There are currently approximately 75 di-rect jobs in Utah’s biofuels industry at 9 project sites.The projects include both start-up and operational sta-tus, and the jobs types are R&D, manufacturing,engineering and operations.

Biomass Utilization. Utah’s biomass energy poten-tial is only partly realized at this time. Currently, landfillgas, municipal solid waste combustion, and some ex-perimental algae and anaerobic digestion processesconstitute biomass energy utilization. The numerousnational forests and wide expanse of public domain pro-duce an excess of wood, beetle kill waste, and forestundergrowth waste. The web-based Coordinated Re-source Offering Protocol (CROP) provides potentialwood users with information on wood fiber availablewithin economical haul distances from federal and non-federal lands. Additionally, crop residue and animalwaste associated with agricultural operations provide apotential resource that can be used for direct combus-tion or gasification, though significant contribution toUtah’s energy needs by 2020 is not likely.

The Algae Biofuels Program at Utah State Universityis designing new ways to grow algae without needingfertile soil or rain. The approach uses sunlight to its full-est potential, conserves water, produces oil 50 times fasterthan regular crops, and can co-produce electricity.34

Nuclear Power Generation. This resource deservesadditional evaluation, but will likely not be availablefor electricity generation in this 10-year strategic plan.The feasibility of future nuclear energy developmentin Utah will be impacted by the emerging role ofnuclear energy nationally, as well as water, waste dis-posal, size of the plant, rail access, transportation ofspent fuel, transmission costs, and available certifieddesigns. Important impacts on the economic basis fordeveloping new nuclear-energy projects include thepossibility of forthcoming taxes or cap-and-trade pro-grams to restrict carbon emissions, cost of compliancewith regulations to control other air pollutants, the in-stability of natural gas prices, and the possiblereduction in the use of coal as a base-load electric gen-eration fuel. Converting the current interest in buildingnew nuclear energy plants in the United States into a

BIOFUELS CENTER AT USUUtah State University’s Biofuels Center has evolvedinto a dynamic research facility, designed tomaximize the production of biofuels to meet thegrowing demand of energy in America’s dynamiceconomy for the next generation. It’s mission is tolead the R&D of Biofuels, with an emphasis on algae,giving America a reliable cost effective source ofenergy for the next generation.



• Supporting increased participation in cost effec-tive distributed generation

C. Industrial SectorUtah industries currently benefit from energy prices

among the lowest in the nation. While these prices havehelped make the industries cost competitive, they alsocreate a barrier for investment in energy efficiency, i.e.,multi-state industries receive a higher return for invest-ments made where energy prices are higher.

Possible strategies to advance energy efficiency inUtah’s industrial sector include:

• Provide a well-designed and integrated technicalassistance program, addressing both electrical andnatural gas energy efficiency. It should leverageexisting resources and new energy-efficiency/green-workforce training programs to include in-dustrial energy management.

• Increase efforts to pursue energy-efficiency oppor-tunities that involve recovering wasted energy togenerate power. These opportunities could beevaluated for capturing energy otherwise unusedin industrial processes.

• Encourage utilities and their regulators to con-tinue or begin offering cost-effective programs tosupport industries’ energy efficiency investments.

D. Financial IncentivesIn many situations, incentives are sufficient to en-

courage industries, businesses, and residentialconsumers to pursue individual energy-efficiency mea-sures, but barriers remain for obtaining significantenergy savings on a whole-plant, whole-building orwhole-house basis. Utah businesses and residential con-sumers used 13,944 GWh of electricity63 and 103.8 millionDth of natural gas in 2009.64 The utilities, as well as theState, could offer incentives to customers who retrofitor purchase high-efficiency appliances, motors, lighting,increased insulation, more energy-efficient windows,and other equipment. Home energy retrofit programsoffered by the State and Salt Lake County also providehomeowner financing. Financing programs try to matchthe loan payment with the energy bill savings; howeverthis is difficult with Utah’s low energy costs. The State’sUtah Home Performance program is based on the con-tractor delivering a whole package energy analysis,home improvement, and financing program to the ho-meowner. Salt Lake County’s Energy Smart program is

an interest rate subsidized loan program serviced byCommunity Development Corporation of Utah, a501(c)(3) organization.

Additional financial incentives to be considered include:• Provide tax credits, tax deductions and/or rebates

to industries, businesses and home owners, land-lords and condominium associations forinvestments made in energy efficient equipment,processes, retrofits, etc.

• Create a no/low-interest loan program for indus-trial energy-efficiency capital projects, such as thatprovided by the Colorado Governor’s EnergyOffice, or providing a volume cap allocation fortax-exempt funding from the Olene Walker fund

• Include energy-efficiency and conservation re-quirements in state/local tax incentives for newbusinesses

• Consider a job-creation tax incentive for hiring re-source efficiency/energy managers at industrialfacilities

• Encourage banks to include evaluating energycosts as part of the mortgage application and de-velop low-interest loan services forenergy-efficient retrofits, such as DOE’sPowerSaver Loan Program

• Require a home energy rating for all homes listedfor sale or rent

E. New ConstructionNew home and new commercial building design and

construction should be energy efficient. Utah is one ofthe fastest growing states in the nation. As such, morethan 198,000 residential building permits65 and an esti-mated 22,000 commercial building permits have beenissued over the last ten years, and construction contin-ues even during the economic downturn. These newhomes and buildings will be part of the Utah landscapefor decades to come. It is critical that steps be taken toensure these buildings incorporate cost-effective energy-efficiency measures at the time of construction ratherthan burdening owners and utilities with the cost of ret-rofits.

The State of Utah will continue to lead by examplein energy efficiency. The Division of Facility Construc-tion and Management (DFCM) established Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver cer-tification as a minimum standard for all new


series of new plant construction projects is dependenton public acceptance (this is particularly true in Utah),regulatory certainty, water availability, and the abilityto finance. This new environment will provide a con-text for encouraging nuclear energy development inUtah. Furthermore, if environmental concerns or poli-cies curtail the development of future coal and/orgas-fired plants, or increase their net generating costs,this would provide an additional incentive to considernuclear as a component of the State’s base-load elec-trical generation. Nuclear has the potential to becomea re-emergent industry within the United States. Utahshould assess and develop its capacity to serve andsupply the development of this industry, including thestate’s manufacturing capability and uranium ore re-serves. There are proposals to develop nuclear powerin Utah, but there is not a proposal that has movedthrough the permitting process.

B. The Cost of EnergyIt has been noted above that Utah has enjoyed low

energy costs and that these low energy costs have beenimportant in Utah’s economic development. As Utah’senergy portfolio changes over this next decade, cost of

Figure 3. Estimated Costs of Energy Generation.Source: D. Gruenemeyer, Sawvel and Associates.35

power will be a vital factor in maintaining Utah’seconomy.

Over the next decade, it is likely that Utah’s energycost will rise. Increases have/are occurring in some en-ergy sectors such as motor fuels and electricity. Causesinclude costs of feedstock fossil fuels, costs of increas-ing regulation, impacts of supply and demand, theeconomic climate in the U.S. and other costs. Govern-ment expenditures through incentives, loans, tax creditsand grants, several of which are mentioned in this re-port relating to development of renewable energy, willalso impact energy cost. As larger fractions of Utah’senergy are produced from alternative and renewableresources in the years to come, energy costs will rise.Figure 3 shows current typical generation costs for sev-eral energy resources, with pulverized coal plants beingthe least costly and solar energy the most costly.

Differences in costs among the various resources aredependent on the time period, the location, federal sub-sidy, pending regulations and other factors. But thecomparisons of Figure 3 are current, realistic estimatesfor the State of Utah. As Utah implements its 10-yearplan, implications of energy cost increase for variousalternatives can be evaluated with the REMI Model.

New Generation Cost (2012$)March 2010, UMPA Conference

(D. Gruenemeyer, Sawvel & Assoc.)350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

$/MWh

Pulveriz

ed C

oal

CFBC

IGCC

Natura

l Gas

Landfil

l Gas

/Bio

mas

s

Conta

ined

Cyc

le

Nuclear

Hydro

Win

d

Com

b. Turb

ine

Sola

r

55 55 62 65 70 7780 85 90

120

300


to train staff in the science of building energy de-mands, controls and efficiency and in codeimplementation and enforcement

• Increasing the minimum hiring standards forbuilding-plan reviewers and inspectors to includeenergy-management degrees, certificates, IECCtraining or equivalent

• Educating home buyers regarding the importanceof energy efficiency in general and providing spe-cific information about the energy efficiency ofhomes they are building or buying

• Helping low income households to maximize en-ergy efficiency and reduce energy impacts onhousehold budgets

B. Demand Side Management and Load ControlWhile the impact energy efficiency can have is sig-

nificant, it cannot entirely obviate the need for newproduction facilities, transmission lines, pipelines ortransportation facilities. Each new customer added to autility’s system increases the demand on that system.In addition, demand is increasing as existing customersinstall high energy consumptive appliances, such as cen-tral air conditioners, large screen televisions andcomputer systems, etc. to their homes and businesses.Energy efficiency programs can contribute towardsmeeting this growth in demand.

Demand-side management (DSM) strategies enableenergy users to reduce consumption during periods ofpeak demand. This reduces costs because of avoided ordelayed investment in new electric generation and newnatural gas supplies. Questar Gas’s 2009 DSM programsconfirm annual energy savings of 1,086,200 Dth, whileRocky Mountain Power’s DSM Programs achieved 247.8GWh of first year energy savings, or 1.2% of 2009 sales,in 2009.62 In 2009, Rocky Mountain Power spent $45.6million to acquire these savings. In addition, RockyMountain Power spent $12.5 million in 2009 to acquire155.9 MW of load control resources.

For close to a decade, Rocky Mountain Power hasworked with its customers to reduce electricity usethrough demand-response (load control) programs. Byactively controlling specific equipment such as residen-tial and small commercial air-conditioning and irrigationpumps, the utility is able to reduce the long-term needfor new electricity generation. In 2010 Rocky MountainPower had approximately 100,000 customers (roughly25 - 28 percent of qualifying homes and businesses), rep-resenting over 112 megawatts, under direct load control.The company also had about 43 megawatts of irriga-tion pumps under direct load control. Customersparticipating in these programs allow, under terms andconditions approved by the Public Service Commissionof Utah, Rocky Mountain Power to leverage the exist-ing infrastructure by curtailing usage of customers’equipment (irrigation pumps and air conditioners) attimes when demand for electricity is high.

The state could enhance DSM and load control pro-grams by:

• Identifying innovative demand-response pro-grams and removing barriers that limitparticipation in these programs

• Designing demand-response programs that havebeen shown to increase participation significantly

GORDON CREEK PILOT CO2

SEQUESTRATION PROJECTThe Southwest Regional Partnership on CarbonSequestration (SWP) includes the states of Arizona,Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas,Utah, and Wyoming. SWP has selected Gordon Creekin Carbon County to accomplish a majorsequestration deployment. This test will follow aninjection schedule over 4 years, leading up to 900,000tonnes (1 million U.S. tons) of CO2 per year.Formations such as the one found at the GordonCreek site are targets of potential commercialsequestration throughout the western UnitedStates. The SWP plans include a “dual completion”with injection in two different formations at thesame time. By carrying out two tests in two differentformations within the same stratigraphy, portabilityof science and engineering results can begin to beevaluated.



IV. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANDENERGY JOBS

Utah has abundant conventional energy resources,including three large oil fields with an estimated 286million barrels in oil reserves. Utah is home to two largenatural gas fields, and Utah’s proven natural gas re-serves total 6.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf).36 In 2009, the Stateranked 13th in the nation in the production of coal at21.9 million tons. Utah currently has about 202 milliontons of coal reserves under lease at active mines, whilestate-wide recoverable coal resources total about 15 bil-lion tons (this number does not take into accounteconomic or land use constraints).37 Another estimatefrom the Bureau of Land Management Price Field Of-fice resource management plan indicates statewide coalreserves at 14.3 billion tons or greater than 50 years atcurrent production rates.

Table 2 summarizes Utah’s proven reserves and cur-rent consumption rates for petroleum, natural gas, andcoal. It also shows remaining years of proven reservesat current consumption rates. Several factors affect thesevalues, including unproven reserves, change in produc-tion rates (e.g., natural gas projected to increase, coalpossibly to decline), new reserve discoveries, etc. Utahalready imports a significant part of its consumed pe-troleum.

Conventional energy and mineral resources havehistorically served as the backbone of Utah’s energyproduction. For example, in 2009, over 96% of electric-ity generated in Utah was fueled by coal and naturalgas, 82% of which was coal and 14% natural gas.38 Ofthe electricity generated in Utah in 2009, approximately37% was exported out of state.39 That is not to say, how-

ever, that the State’s electricity needs are served only bythe in-state coal and gas fired plants. Rocky MountainPower, the State’s largest electric utility provider, sup-plies electricity to the State through a diverse portfoliothat includes coal, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, wind,wholesale market purchases and other generation re-sources. For example, in 2009, Rocky MountainPower-owned wind plants produced over 2,000 GWhof electricity. Generation resources located in Utah con-tribute to Rocky Mountain Power’s portfolio, includingsome Utah renewable resources, primarily from geother-mal and hydro resources. Utah possesses an array ofrenewable resources. Most renewable resources are usedto generate electricity. About 2.5% of the State’s electric-ity generation comes from renewable resources,approximately 26% of which is from geothermal, 65%from hydroelectric, 3% from biomass, and 6% fromwind, with a small fraction from solar.40 New studiesindicate meaningful renewable resource capacity in theState.41

Fostering jobs, manufacturing strengths, and inno-vative entrepreneurial enterprises emanating fromUtah’s energy sector is critical to success in future em-ployment and investment opportunities. Department ofLabor employment numbers as of June 30, 2010, pro-vide the following baseline (Table 3) for Utah’s energyand natural resource industries.42

The energy sector contributes substantially to statetax revenues, thereby enhancing and stimulating vari-ous employment sectors of the State beyond energy.Also, a significant amount of energy development takesplace on State School and Institutional Trust Lands gen-erating direct revenues that support K-12 public

Table 2








based on the Endangerment finding, which includes sixgases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfurhexafluoride) - collective known GHGs. EPA’s phased-in approach through the Tailoring Rule limits regulationinitially to facilities already permitted and emitting atleast 75,000 tons per year. The effect of this regulationwill be increased cost to energy production and ulti-mately to the consumer - though cost estimates varydepending on source. Again, any such regulationsshould be accounted for when determining cost/ben-efit of future energy sources.

VI. ENERGY EFFICIENCY,CONSERVATION ANDDEMAND-RESPONSE

The Governor and the Legislature have establishedenergy efficiency as a priority and urged state and localgovernments and utilities to promote and encourage cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation.56 Utah ismaking notable progress in energy-efficiency efforts andwas recently recognized by the American Council for anEnergy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) as one of the “mostimproved” states and the highest-ranked in the region.57

Models and studies recognize energy that is not con-sumed as a result of energy efficiency as a cost-effectiveresource. Recent national studies conducted by theMcKinsey Company and the National Academy of Sci-ences show, respectively, cost-effective energy-efficiencytechnologies and building practices could reduce energyconsumption 23% by 202058 and 30% by 2030.59 Thesestudies align with Utah-based analysis. Rocky Moun-tain Power and Questar Gas studies show that themaximum achievable cost-effective potential for energyefficiency would reduce natural gas consumption by20% (21.4 million decatherms, Dth) by 201360 and elec-tricity consumption by 1,641 GWh by 2020.61

A. Education and Public AwarenessA barrier to widespread adoption of energy efficiency

and conservation is the lack of public and building offi-cial awareness and understanding about energy,energy-efficiency technologies, practices and programs.Rocky Mountain Power and Questar Gas have excel-lent energy-efficiency and demand-side managementprograms and effective marketing campaigns. Otherenergy-education efforts underway in Utah includesome by municipal utilities and utility cooperatives, theState Energy Program, the Utah Building Energy Effi-

ciency Strategies (UBEES) partnership, Utah’s Weath-erization and HEAT programs, and nonprofits such asUtah Clean Energy.

Public and building official’s awareness could be in-creased through the following methods:

• Developing and implementing a State-sponsored,Governor-led, single-messaging communicationprogram, modeled after the Slow the Flow andPowerForward programs, that works with exist-ing utility efforts to raise public awareness andunderstanding about the importance, cost-effec-tiveness and risk management opportunities ofenergy efficiency and recognizes excellence in en-ergy efficiency

• Requiring energy-code education as part of con-tinuing-education credits for building officials,contractors, and trades; and providing fundingand other incentives to local building departments

MAGNUM GAS STORAGEThe Magnum Gas Storage Project is a high-deliverability, multi-cycle, salt cavern natural gasstorage facility located in Millard County, north ofDelta at the crossroads of existing and developingelectric, natural gas and petroleum liquidsinfrastructure in the West. Plans call fordevelopment of four caverns with capacities of upto 10 million barrels of natural gas or its equivalent.Natural gas will be stored in caverns 1,300-1,400 feettall and 300-feet in diameter, located 3,500-4,000feet below the ground surface in a naturally-occurring salt dome formation. The first cavern isexpected to be available for natural gas storagebeginning in early 2012.



education programs. A Headwaters Economic Study,Energy Revenue in the Intermountain West, identifiesthe following revenues (Table 4) from energy develop-ment for Utah.43

In 2009, the estimated value of energy and mineralproduction in Utah was $6.8 billion, about $2.6 billionless than the record high of the $9.4 billion in 2008. Witha Gross State Product (GSP) of approximately $109 bil-lion, energy production and its overall influenceaccounts for 7-10% of Utah’s GSP.44

Developing Utah’s energy resources creates a de-mand for jobs. Energy development in Utah enables theState to attract new jobs and manufacturing and improveits economic development and employment landscape.The ability to attract jobs is directly related to energycosts, availability of resources, and quality of life in Utah.According to the U.S. Energy Information Administra-tion, Utah consistently has the second lowest electricaland heating energy costs in the country, due in largepart to the low costs of coal-fired electricity generationand natural gas. This competitive advantage over otherstates is one way Utah is able to recruit new and ex-pand existing business, particularly high-tech

Table 3

Employment Baseline for Utah Energy and Natural Resource Industries.Source: U.S. Department of Labor.

Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,926Percentage of Utah’s Total Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9%Total Wages (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,381,142,470Percent of Utah’s Total Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1%Percent of State’s Average Monthly Wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157.6%Number of Companies/Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,109Total Patents (2005-2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162Venture Capital Deals (2000-2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Public Deals (2000-2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 4

Revenue from Energy Development for Utah.Source: Headwaters Economics (2008)

Production Value Production Taxes Property Taxes Royalties Total Revenue$3,751,395,980 $77,074,318 $39,786,879 $251,799,166 $368,660,363

manufacturing. A September 2008 study, Fossil Fuel Ex-traction as a County Economic Development Strategy,compared 26 energy-focused counties in the West. FourUtah counties were included in the study: Carbon,Duchesne, Emery and Uintah. The study shows quiteclearly that as energy production/development jobssurged, “the principal growth came from direct energy-related occupations and largely in occupations indirectlyassociated with energy development.”45

The study raises both a concern and an opportunity:energy-focused counties, and by extension the State,need to have strategies in place to adequately balancetheir reliance on energy as an economic and employ-ment driver. Utah can do much to attract futureenergy-related jobs and manufacturing by taking spe-cific actions to eliminate barriers and provideenhancements to companies locating or expanding inUtah. In general, development will broaden and diver-sify Utah’s energy economy. Energy development inUtah communities can become a strong stimulus to cre-ate vital and growing economic conditions.

As Utah’s energy portfolio is diversified, the demandfor new energy-sector employees will increase. Utah’s


Nuclear wastes, including uranium mining, uraniummilling, low-level, and high-level wastes, can impairsurface and groundwater resources if they leak fromimpoundments and disposal sites. As with other waste-management units, best available technology combinedwith ground-water monitoring is used to minimize thedischarge of contaminants from the waste source byapplying control and containment technologies such asliners, leak-detection systems, leak-collection systems,and pump-back systems. These issues need to be re-viewed regularly by DEQ, with remedial actionsrecommended if problems occur.

E. ArchaeologyEnergy extraction and transportation generally re-

quire construction and ground disturbance, which canbe damaging to historic and archaeological resources.Federal and state statutes require the responsible agen-cies (e.g., land owners and permitting agencies) toconsider the effects of their actions on cultural re-sources, and to allow the State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO) to comment. With advance planning, useof the state’s web-based GIS database of archaeologi-cal and historic resources, and consultation withinterested parties, along with on-the-ground survey,most of the potential conflicts can be avoided. Recentsuccesses such as the West Tavaputs ProgrammaticAgreement and the Questar Pipeline Nine Mile Can-yon Project demonstrate that energy development andtransmission can occur without compromising fragilearchaeological and historic resources. Advance plan-ning, using the best available data, and inclusion of allinterested parties, are critical components of a success-ful strategy.

F. WildlifeEnergy development has the potential to negatively

impact wildlife, critical wildlife habitats and migrationcorridors. The most acute problem occurs when an en-ergy project negatively impacts a federally-designatedendangered, threatened or candidate species. One ex-ample is the potential for wind, solar, oil, gas, and coalbed methane development to negatively impact sagegrouse and the sagebrush ecosystems they inhabit. Sagegrouse inhabit numerous Utah energy-developmentsites and were recently designated by the US Fish andWildlife Service as “candidate species” for EndangeredSpecies Act Protection. Extensive study indicates energy-development-related activities may negatively impactsage grouse and critical sage grouse habitat. These im-

pacts include tall-structure avoidance, habitat loss andfragmentation, predation, human disturbance, road net-works, increased noise, reduced nesting success,effectiveness of vocalizations, lek attendance by malesand females, shifts in nesting habitat selection away fromenergy-development infrastructure, and reduced sagegrouse breeding populations.

The State of Utah, partnering with the Western Gov-ernors Association, is developing a Decision SupportSystem (DSS) that will make crucial habitat and wild-life corridors available in the form of maps.55 The Stateof Utah is also engaged in developing Best ManagementPractices approaches to reviewing energy projects. Con-servation groups are compiling a series of BestManagement Practices to assist land managers, conser-vationists, utilities and developers in the process ofzoning, siting, building, and operating renewable en-ergy installations in a way to minimally impact wildlifeand their habitats. They are also identifying the highestpriority areas for conservation and ecosystem servicesin the region and then using a blend of land offsets andmitigation strategies to attain “no net loss” ofbiodiversity values. The analysis of the specific impactsof new energy development on wildlife and critical wild-life habitats will need to be thoroughly assessed throughscience-based processes at the project-site level. Onceimpacts are avoided and minimized, remaining impactsmust be mitigated and long-term wildlife monitoringimplemented to measure mitigation success.

G. Carbon ManagementAs the debate on climate change continues, Utah

must participate in this discussion to represent Utah’senergy mix and to assist in developing complementarypolicies to address environmental pollutants. Congressand the last four administrations have not developed apolicy on carbon emissions, and it seems less likely tooccur in the immediate coming years. Uncertainties inpossible future legislation impact decisions at the statelevel, including Utah, where decisions on energy projectstotaling several billions of dollars will be made duringthe next decade. Local western utilities are includingassumptions in their integrated resource plans on car-bon emissions to help guarantee the plans reflect factorsthat may negatively impact the cost of energy. This is arisk-management exercise for them, and not an endorse-ment of what scientific factors should, or will be used toestablish a national policy on carbon.

The EPA is moving forward with regulating Green-house Gases (GHGs) through the Clean Air Act. This is


energy employment reflects its historic strength in con-ventional energy resources. Efforts are underway to meetthe demand for contemporary skill sets in power gen-eration and transmission for the electric utility sector.Over 42% of the technician level workforce in sub-sta-tion management, metering, and line technology willretire within the next five years. The State should en-sure that industry is engaged in developing, promoting,and assisting with contemporary skill training work-shops and programs in conjunction with regionaleducation centers in order to provide qualified “work-ready” employees to fill the retirement gap.

In 2007, Utah ranked 34th in the nation for the num-ber of green jobs. The State of Utah has started to allocatefunds through the State Department of Workforce Ser-vices, Salt Lake Community College and the AppliedTechnology Colleges to establish curriculum, certifica-tion and degree programs to prepare Utah’s workforcein green jobs. The Utah Cluster Acceleration Partner-ship has established four pathways for green(sustainable energy, renewables, and energy efficiency)job training - Green Construction, Alternative Fuels,Energy Management, and Renewable Transmission. TheState of Utah opened the Intermountain WeatherizationTraining Center in Clearfield for training and certifica-tions of staff from public agencies and privatecompanies. The State is investing to help train thousandsto become certified solar installers, certified wind-tur-bine maintenance workers, certified energymanagement workers, and alternative-fuel vehicle tech-nicians.

Until renewable energy becomes cost-effective, theState should carefully consider whether or not to subsi-dize renewable energy development in an effort to growUtah’s renewable energy sector. The committee needsto evaluate the renewable energy potential in Utah basedon technological and economic feasibility. Any subsi-dies warranted to incentivize renewable energydevelopment should be approved by State policy mak-ers, i.e. the legislature and the governor. To the extentthe state wants to encourage renewable energy devel-opment without mandates or incentives, legislationshould be developed which enables utilities to offer re-newable energy tariffs to their customers who want agreater share of renewable energy as part of their usagemix than is provided by the utility. Rocky MountainPower is supportive of this concept and supports a thor-ough, holistic review of potential renewable tariffs forcustomers who want them. Currently, under its Blue Skyprogram, Rocky Mountain Power encourages custom-

ers to voluntarily purchase renewable energy certificates(“RECs”) that represent the environmental attributes ofelectric power produced from renewable energyprojects.

Because of Utah’s world-class conventional and un-conventional fossil fuel resources, the State possessesunique opportunities for attracting job growth in theareas of research, development, demonstration and de-ployment of new technology innovation throughbusiness relocation and start-up companies. While theState is making great strides through its Utah Science,Technology, and Research (USTAR) efforts in basic re-search and development, more investment and supportis needed to take technology innovation to the next levelusing demonstration/pilot projects on the resources inUtah.

RED LEAF RESOURCES, INC.Red Leaf Resources, Inc. has developed theEcoShaleTM In-Capsule Technology to economicallyand environmentally produce high quality liquidtransportation fuels from oil shale, oil sands, coal,lignite, and bio-mass. This revolutionary technologyrises above other processes in that it does not requirewater. Additionally, the EcoShaleTM In-Capsuletechnology protects groundwater and vegetation,allows for rapid site reclamation, and supports afavorable emissions profile. The EcoShaleTM In-Capsule Technology uses low temperature heatingresulting in a high quality feedstock with an average34 gravity API with no fines or bottoms. The processalso produces synthetic natural gas, which allows forenergy self-sufficiency.



should be made from these neighborhoods to mass/public transit.

Transportation costs can be further reduced byemphasizing new building construction in already-de-veloped areas. Collectively known as walkableneighborhoods, transit-oriented development, and the“Envision Utah 3 Percent Strategy,” these strategies arethoroughly examined in the summary document forWasatch Choices 2040 Project52 and are designed to re-spond to changing demographics, increasing energy useand market demand for more residential choices.

A better balance of regional travel choices betweenauto, public transit, bicycling and walking is impera-tive. Transportation’s share of growing oil-consumptionis a concern. Transportation accounts for approximately25% of total energy demand worldwide (32% for Utah)and 81% of Utah’s petroleum consumption.53 Better loadshare among the available energy sources will be partof the solution.

In the process of allocating public funds for transpor-tation, the priority should be projects that demonstratethe greatest science-based, long-term benefit. Mass tran-sit should be given meaningful consideration. Providingmore convenient, reliable and affordable travel optionsand infrastructure that supports biking and walking willreduce the amount of time people spend in their cars,saving energy and reducing air pollution.

As Utah provide a more balanced transportation sys-tem, it will need to expand pricing and land-use policies,well connected bikeways, and vehicle miles traveled(VMT) reduction strategies, throughout the region tosupport this system.

D. Water Consumption and QualityLimited quantities of water may be available for

new energy development. Most areas of the state areclosed to new surface- and ground-water appropria-tions (especially new consumptive appropriations)and those that are still open are primarily for groundwater in relatively small quantities. What little maybe currently available will undoubtedly decline overthe next decade.54 Water currently used at other fa-cilities or by other water users may be purchased foruse in energy development in the future. This is howwater resources were developed for the Huntington,Hunter, and IPP power plants. Technology and effi-ciency advances in the energy industry may provideadditional water for existing power plants or reducethe demand for water at new power plants in the fu-ture.

Given Utah’s population growth and projected eco-nomic growth over the next decade, the possibility ofincreased drought, and with limited new water re-sources available, water consumption of energyresources should be given careful consideration. TheState of Utah may wish to calculate the water consump-tion associated with different energy portfolios that canmeet projected electricity demand over the next decade.

As an arid state, an energy portfolio that encourageslow water-use technologies should be considered. Im-portantly, power plants located in water-scarce regionsmay rely on dry cooling systems, which use air to cooland condense steam, or hybrid wet-dry cooling systems.Dry or hybrid cooling is typically a less-efficient meansof power plant cooling than water, and thus typicallyincreases the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity. Dryor hybrid cooling can be more or less cost-effective, de-pending upon the type of electrical generation (nuclear,solar, etc.), and is not the current baseline technology.

The development of primary fuel sources such as oil,oil shale, tar sands, natural gas, and biofuels also con-sume water. Specific information on the water quantityand quality and the impacts of technology for develop-ing many of these resources, particularly tar sands andoil shale, is limited. Additionally, the water used to de-velop biofuels can vary tremendously. There arecurrently a dozen or more different technologies underconsideration for these fuel resources. It is unlikely thatall technologies will be developed. Water issues, includ-ing water availability, water pollution effects of specifictechnologies, and potential pollution from spent shalewaste sites, need to be evaluated as commercially vi-able technologies emerge and are developed.

In May 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)published a report titled “State Oil and Natural GasRegulations Designed to Protect Water Resources” froma study by the Ground Water Protection Council. Thisreport identified key messages and suggested actionsfor regulating oil and gas activities, including hydrau-lic formation fracturing and coordination of Statewater-quality protection and oil and gas agencies. Utahalready has most of these water-quality protection mea-sures in place, including an MOU between the DEQDivision of Water Quality and the DNR Division of Oil,Gas and Mining, which was established in 1984 andupdated in 1986 and 2010.

Additionally, the EPA has launched a Hydraulic Frac-turing Study in order to assess potential impacts of thismethod of recovering natural gas on drinking water andhuman health. Study results should be released in 2012.


The State should continue to attract significant do-mestic and international investment funding. Suchfunding provides essential opportunities to help supple-ment the shortage of “seed” funding and second- andthird-phase funding.

Utah can be a national leader in energy resourcemanagement, environmental and technical training.Utah’s expertise in resource and environmental man-agement has great potential to attract high-skilled,high-paying jobs.

In summary, Utah’s energy jobs are in the researchand development, investment, technology, exploration,

extraction, development, production, transmission, dis-tribution and manufacturing industries, as well asprofessional support services. These jobs help to sup-port Utah’s position of being one of three states in theUnited States that is a net exporter of energy. If coal-fired generation and hydroelectric resources decline,new and expanded industry and jobs will be needed inthese rural communities. State government should pro-mote continued state and federal land access forexploration, extraction and production of crude oil andnatural gas, investment in unconventional fuels tech-nologies and development and the recruitment ofmanufacturing of renewable energy production compo-nents. Utah must show an unwavering commitment tothe future energy economy that includes balancing fos-sil fuel development with development of renewableand alternative energy.

V. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND OURNATURAL RESOURCES

Utah has the resources necessary to diversify its en-ergy portfolio to provide affordable, sustainable, andsecure energy now and in the future. Utah’s Energy Planincludes workable strategies to sustain its economy andprotect its quality of life and environment.

A. Land OwnershipFederal Lands — The federal government owns and

manages approximately 60% of Utah’s surface lands anda larger portion of the mineral estate. Accordingly, fed-eral land- management agencies will play a central rolein the State’s ability to develop its oil, gas, coal and re-newable energy resources. It is also true that the State’spublic lands include pristine air sheds; national parksand wilderness areas; important water resources thatare essential to local communities and wildlife habitatand riparian zones; world-renowned archeological andculturally significant sites; and, nationally recognizedscenic areas and prized recreational locations. Conflictsinevitably arise between industry, conservation organi-zations, and state and local leaders over how and whereenergy development should occur on Utah’s publiclands and what resources should be protected for theirenvironmental and cultural values. These conflicts havetriggered costly legal and administrative challenges thatimpact energy development in Utah. Energy develop-ment is a legitimate use of our public lands. To besuccessful in achieving the Governor’s energy-develop-ment objectives, Utah officials will need to develop

BINGHAM ENTREPRENEURSHIP ANDENERGY RESEARCH CENTERThe Bingham Entrepreneurship and Energy ResearchCenter brings real life solutions to environmentalissues by working hand in hand with industry onemerging technologies like Pure Stream.Additionally, the center works in partnership withDepartment of Environmental Quality, Bureau ofLand Management other stakeholders to monitorwinter-time ozone in the Uinta Basin to assist indetermining a path forward addressing air qualityissues.



Changing behavior is difficult, but communicationstrategies and tactics that provide awareness and edu-cation, supported by incentives, marketing andpromotions can succeed in reducing unnecessary travel,particularly the number and duration of solo-drivertrips. Existing programs like TravelWise, Rideshare andIdle-free, along with events like the Clear- the-Air-Chal-lenge, Bike Month and Free-Fare Day are beginning toshow effectiveness in promoting, encouraging, and ul-timately increasing alternative-transportation use.Programs such as Safe Routes to Schools, Student Neigh-

borhood Access Program (SNAP), and Walking SchoolBus, all of which encourage walking or pooling toschools, need more resources to increase awareness. Itis critical to educate and promote the benefits of moreenergy-efficient transportation with such tools as theTravelWise Tracker.49 The tracker allows people to mea-sure the money, emissions, and energy saved by usingTravelWise strategies.

The State could help reinforce and encourage behav-ior change by more public education about air-qualityindicators and using electronic signage as triggers topromote transportation alternatives such as using pub-lic transit, telecommuting, flexible work hours, tripchaining, biking, walking, carpooling, vanpooling andwork at home opportunities.

Many of the traffic-reducing strategies listed can beenhanced by business practices in the private and pub-lic sectors. Managers should implement policies thatencourage and even coordinate ride sharing,telecommuting and flexible work schedules. Parkingsubsidies can be eliminated and given to employees ascash or transit passes. Above all, educational and pro-motional material should feature Utah’s leaders at everylevel of state government and private business as ex-amples of smart travel.

The State should assist communities in choosingland-use options that reduce per-capita energy con-sumption, improve air quality, and make it easier forpeople to get from one place to another. Utah’s popula-tion is projected to double over the next 30 years, withvehicular travel increasing at twice that rate. As thepopulation and economy grow, Utah has an opportu-nity and responsibility to design communities in waysthat support energy-efficient transportation and com-merce, reduce congestion and long commutes, andremove physical barriers to using public transportation.Vision Dixie50 in Washington County and EnvisionUtah’s Quality Growth Strategies51 along the WasatchFront are good examples of community input in thedevelopment of alternatives for transportation, infra-structure, land use, planning, and zoning.

The State should work with local government to en-tice people to walk and cycle more often by designingaccessible, safe and interesting paths and destinations.Government services should be located in neighborhoodcenters that draw people by offering a variety of publicservices and private businesses. Neighborhood eco-nomic centers should reduce commutes by bringing jobsand housing closer together, with the added benefits ofcommunity cohesion and vitality. Seamless connections

VIRESCO GASIFICATION PLANTPROPOSED FOR KANABThe Viresco Process is an innovative gasificationtechnology based on a combination of steamhydrogasification and reforming. The carbonaceousfeedstock (biosolids, coal and/or biomass) is firstconverted to a fuel gas, containing a significantquantity of methane. This is accomplished by meansof steam hydrogasification, where the carbonaceousfeed simultaneously reacts with steam andhydrogen. The fuel gas is then subjected to gascleanup and then reformed to generate synthesis gas(carbon monoxide and hydrogen). In the third step,the synthesis gas is converted in to a synthetic fuelover a high- efficiency catalyst. Examples of suchsynthetic fuels are Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel,methanol and dimethyl ether (DME). The fuel gas canalso be converted into electric power. The productionof high energy density liquid fuels such as the FTdiesel is the primary focus of Viresco Energy.



strategies to work with the federal agencies and navi-gate the balance between economic and environmentalsustainability. Although some progress has been madein resolving conflicts on federal lands regarding energyexploration and development, many Utah officials whoare active in this area believe that conflict resolution isstill a long laborious process.

State Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA)— At statehood, Congress granted Utah millions of acresof land to be held in trust by the new state to providefinancial support for public schools. These school trustlands are managed by the School and Institutional TrustLands Administration (SITLA). SITLA manages approxi-mately 3.4 million surface acres. In addition, SITLAmanages another 1 million split estate oil and gas acres.Revenue from school trust lands is deposited into thePermanent School Fund, a perpetual endowment thatdistributes income annually to each K-12 public schoolin Utah.

Energy development is the largest component ofSITLA’s contribution to education funding. The SITLA’sgreatest source of existing revenue, accounting for overhalf the revenue to the trust, is natural gas production,followed by coal. SITLA has leased over 90,000 acres oftrust lands for oil shale exploration, with initial devel-opment of commercial projects beginning. SITLA alsohas an expanding renewable energy portfolio. Over100,000 acres of geothermal leases are in place, and thefirst new geothermal power plant built in Utah in thelast 20 years was constructed on state trust lands in Bea-ver County. Leases for utility-scale wind andphotovoltaic solar projects are also in place. Finally, theunique Western Energy Hub project near Delta will bewholly located on trust lands. This project will storemassive quantities of natural gas in engineered under-ground salt caverns, providing energy flexibility toindustrial and power generation customers throughoutthe West. The Western Energy Hub project also contem-plates developing underground compressed air energystorage, an innovative technology that can largely solveproblems of intermittency with other renewable energysources, thus supporting further development of windand solar projects in Utah.

One critical issue for SITLA is access to and throughfederal public lands. The millions of acres of proposedwilderness in Utah have trapped over 1 million acres ofstate trust lands - almost 1/3 of the entire trust portfolio- in areas that are restrictively managed by the federalgovernment, and to which access is highly limited. In

the event that Congress and current and future admin-istrations choose to continue managing federal publiclands largely for wilderness, there needs to be an effi-cient legislative process for exchanging state trust landsout of proposed wilderness for consolidated blocks offederal land that can then be managed by SITLA forenergy and economic development.

B. Air QualityMuch of Utah enjoys clean air for many days of the

year. However, due to topography, weather patterns, anda highly urbanized population, Utah also suffers someof the worst air quality days in the Nation. It will becritical for human health and the environment and eco-nomic development to implement energy developmentin a way that takes this unique situation into account.Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), in implementing the Clean Air Act, is continuingto strengthen the Nation’s air quality standards for mostpollutants. This will result in higher costs for coal andnatural gas plants.

The natural byproducts of burning coal and, to a lesserextent natural gas, include air pollutants permitted andregulated by the Clean Air Act: particulate matter, sulfurdioxide, and oxides of nitrogen. The emissions are per-mitted and regulated through the Clean Air Act.

Throughout the West, the energy-production sectorshave been viewed as major contributors to visibilityimpairment, especially in the national parks. Recentplans to address regional haze have resulted in substan-tial controls on emissions of sulfur dioxide. The fullimplementation of the regional haze plans will result inadditional improvements as emissions from electricalgeneration are reduced.

Oil and natural gas drilling and production may im-pact air pollution. The Uinta Basin has recently recordedelevated levels of wintertime ozone. If these levels con-tinue, they may impact attainment of national ambientair quality standards. It may be that energy developmentcontributes to the Uinta Basin’s elevated ozone levels,although the causes of the high ozone readings are stillbeing investigated. Monitoring from Vernal, Utah, indi-cates that fine particulate pollution may also be a problemin the winter with cold pool temperature inversions.46

C. Transportation and Air QualityTransportation accounts for more than half of the air

pollution along the Wasatch Front.47 The combined cri-teria pollutant inventory for Davis, Salt Lake, Utah andWeber Counties in 2009 indicates that 51.9% of total an-


nual emissions of criteria pollutants originated from theon-road mobile sector (cars, trucks and buses). Ozoneand PM2.5 are responsible for acute spikes in air pollu-tion and unhealthy air days in Utah as confirmed bythe Utah Division of Air Quality’s (UDAQ) monitoringnetwork along the Wasatch Front. Both ozone and PM2.5emissions are related to on-road mobile sources. Ozoneand PM2.5 are respiratory irritants that can trigger asth-matic episodes and cause acute respiratory symptomsin sensitive individuals at concentrations that approachand exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Both pollutants are statistically confirmed risk factorsfor a number of respiratory and cardiovascular condi-tions. Since acute spikes in concentrations of aircontaminants are predictable based on reasonably reli-able weather forecasts, it is particularly beneficial toeliminate all nonessential driving to protect personal andpublic health when the UDAQ announces its yellow andred action alert days.

Transportation is also the largest consumer of energyin Utah at 31%.48 Saving energy and cleaning Utah’s airwill improve public health, thereby reducing costs. Itwill also bolster economic development efforts by help-ing to attract new companies and jobs, reduce Utah’sdependence on foreign energy sources, and generallyimprove the quality of life of all Utahns. This can beaccomplished through strategies that include changingthe vehicles used or eliminating the energy used topower those vehicles; managing vehicle traffic with tech-nology, engineering and community design; and finally,individual actions and business decisions. Implemen-tation of these strategies should also include meaningfulmetrics for success, such as reducing particulate matter(PM2.5) and ozone levels in the air.

Utah should seek to improve vehicle technology/ef-ficiency and alternative fuels (refueling) infrastructure.Utah can reduce emissions and non-attainment air-qual-ity days by encouraging adoption of emission-reducingtechnologies. A barrier to increased alternative-fuel ve-hicle use is inadequate refueling infrastructure. The Stateshould consider ways to incentivize alternative-fuelvehicles and to make refueling infrastructure more ac-cessible.

Alternative-fuel vehicles proven to reduce vehicleemissions and increase fuel economy include electric, elec-tric hybrids, bio-fuels, bio-diesel, propane, hydrogen,compressed and liquefied natural gas (CNG and LNG),and hydraulic hybrids, often with increased transporta-tion costs. New technology continues to expand this list.Even gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles are produc-

ing fewer emissions due to improving technology.The State should continue its support of results-

driven economically sound solutions and not favor onetechnology over others. However, reducing emissionsand eliminating non-attainment days will depend onadoption of new technologies. If incentives are appro-priate, they should be based on full-fuel-cycle efficiencysince those technologies are the ones most likely to bedeveloped and receive market support.

Fuel consumption and air pollution can be reducedthrough more efficient traffic flow, using engineeringand technology to effectively manage all modes of traf-fic and maximizing the effectiveness of Utah’stransportation systems. This includes continued imple-mentation of proven ideas such as HOV/HOT lanes,reversible lanes, innovative intersection design, transit-vehicle signal pre-emption and signal coordination,especially during peak hours.

Strategic ideas such as dynamic speed control, peak-hour use of shoulders, and increasing Park-and-Ride lots(both private and public) should be reviewed. All traf-fic-operation plans should include a thoroughevaluation of the proven energy-saving, air-quality andsafety benefits of reduced speed limits.

ST. GEORGE CITY SOLARCity of St. George Energy Services Department andDixie Escalante Electric have built a large solarphotovoltaic facility allowing residents to get solarpower through a community solar farm. The programitself is simple, with no set-up, no maintenance andno risk to the purchaser. It is one of the manyprograms St. George offers its residents so they cantake advantage of alternative energy.
