What Utah can teach D.C. about energy
A conversation on building local trust, state sovereignty, and America’s next energy frontier with Emy Lesofski.
Emy Lesofski was appointed director of the Utah Office of Energy Development in October 2024 and serves as energy advisor to Governor Spencer Cox. She brings extensive experience in federal appropriations and natural resources policy, having worked as a policy and staff director in both houses of Congress. Lesofski recently spoke with American Habits editor Ray Nothstine.
Tell me a little bit about the Utah Office of Energy Development and why it is so important for Utahns.
Lesofksi: The Office of Energy Development—what we call OED—is the state’s primary policy office for energy and critical mineral development. We guide both policy and stakeholder engagement across Utah’s broad energy and mineral ecosystem.
A central part of our work is conducting research and providing sound, data-driven policy recommendations. This allows us to bridge the gap between public and private sectors and help drive meaningful, future-ready development. What we produce here in Utah matters, not just for our state and economy, but for the nation and, frankly, the world.
What and where are a few of the best innovators and forward-thinking sectors in energy today? What space is particularly exciting when it comes to future possibilities that is clean and capturing efficiency that is affordable for consumers?
Lesofski: Geothermal is one of the most exciting and promising sectors in energy right now. Both the federal government and Utah have made major investments in this area, and we’re seeing remarkable innovation that’s bringing this resource closer to widespread commercialization.
Fervo Energy, right here in Utah, is preparing to launch the largest advanced geothermal project to date. Geothermal energy is clean, reliable, and—critically—baseload. In an energy landscape that includes a growing number of intermittent resources, baseload power is essential. We welcome intermittent sources, but we also recognize the value of dispatchable, around-the-clock energy that resources like geothermal provide.
Another exciting energy resource the state is looking at is nuclear energy. As we plan for Utah’s future, technologies like geothermal and nuclear offer the kind of clean, sustainable and dependable energy we need to protect our quality of life and keep our economies robust. That includes everything from economic growth and industrial development to the demands of AI and widespread electrification.
Utahns enjoy a high quality of life. Access to clean, affordable and reliable energy is one of the keys to making our state a great place to live. That’s why we’re investing in cutting-edge technologies and leading out on energy development across the board, including resource development.
Utah is known for a robust emphasis on federalism. How does that influence shape energy policy at the state and local levels?
Lesofski: We have such a strong appreciation for state sovereignty, and we exercise it whenever possible. At the same time, more than 60 percent of our land is federally owned, so we’re constantly working to strike the right balance between federal oversight and strong state leadership.
We’ve built constructive partnerships with federal agencies to ensure Utahns and the nation as a whole benefit from the responsible use of our public lands. But the reality is, as a state, we understand our opportunities and challenges better than Washington does. A big part of our role is educating federal officials and working through the friction that comes with such a large federal footprint in our state.
Recently, we formed a tri-state energy compact with Idaho and Wyoming. We recognize that we’re stronger together, and by coordinating our voices, we can advocate for our people more effectively. We’re telling Washington: “There’s a lot you can learn from us.” The compact leverages our collective expertise and insights so that federal agencies can make informed decisions rooted in the realities that govern the lives of Western states. Our tri-state collaboration ensures that our priorities are heard more clearly and forcefully—both for the benefit of our states and the nation.
We’re also focused on identifying and calling out federal barriers, especially those that slow or block development in a way that negatively impacts quality of life and economic growth. We are very fortunate to have a congressional delegation that’s deeply engaged in advocating for reform, especially when it comes to energy development. Take, for example, permitting: It shouldn’t take 15 years to permit a transmission line; that’s unacceptable.
The Fervo representative brought up the problems with the permitting process, too. Of course, he was very diplomatic in his comments, but I could tell it was a frustration because it was mentioned multiple times.
Lesofski: It’s incredibly frustrating. We’re not out to harm the environment—we live here. The people who are the biggest advocates for clean air and clean water are the people who live in Utah; we use these resources every day.
The idea that we’re trying to rush things through irresponsibly is just not true. What’s absurd is when folks outside of our state try to block our efforts without understanding the context. The simple truth is that we are the best stewards of our state because we love it, we know it and we depend on it more than anyone else.
Is there anything you want to add about some of the obvious ways states can best lead and inspire on energy policy and innovation, particularly given what we see in the gridlock and partisanship in DC these days?
Lesofski: Absolutely. Quality of life isn’t a partisan issue—it’s something everyone cares about. That’s the lens we use when we talk about energy: how can we ensure our residents have access to the affordable, reliable and clean energy they need?
We’ve built strong relationships with renewable energy developers and others who are committed to that same goal. One great example is the Chevron Hydrogen ACES project—an innovative initiative that’s using our state’s natural resources to deliver value to our residents. We don’t believe in picking and choosing energy sources based on what’s politically fashionable. Instead, we focus on what makes sense using data and science.
At OED, we lead by example. We work with anyone operating in good faith to do what’s right for our people. That means being good partners, respecting communities and rejecting one-size-fits-all, top-down mandates.
One of our biggest frustrations with federal policy is when it tries to dictate what’s best for us. Utahns reject that approach. We want to partner with communities, not impose decisions on them, and we want the same in our state-federal relationships. A great example is nuclear energy: The state can be really interested in developing this resource without dictating how any locality will or must accommodate that goal. This is something that our legislature and our governor have been very clear about.
If a community is interested, we’ll engage, explore and work through it together. But we don’t believe in saying, “Here’s a site, and this is happening.” That’s not how we want to be treated, and that’s not how we treat our local communities. Our role is to gauge interest and provide support, not dictate outcomes.
With nuclear, do you feel like public perception is changing? I don’t have the pulse on Utah like you and your office. Do you still get a “Not in my backyard” freak out? What’s the public perception of nuclear in Utah now?
Lesofski: Energy development is part of Utah’s DNA, so there’s a genuine interest here—people want to learn and understand the impacts and benefits of any energy project, including nuclear. There were two surveys featured in local media recently that found broad support for nuclear, with some variance in reported percentages.
That said, we’re still approaching it carefully. The state’s position is: “Let’s give you the best possible information, and you decide what’s right for your community.” We’re excited to engage in those conversations with our communities as we explore nuclear energy as an option.
One of our biggest frustrations with federal policy is when it tries to dictate what’s best for us.
And I’m sure you’ve probably seen this too: over the last three years, we’ve entered a nuclear renaissance. For so long, it was difficult to even start the conversation, then suddenly, the discussion shifted to, “We need clean, reliable, baseload and sustainable energy.” If you’re looking long-term at what’s going to give you clean air and lights that always come on, nuclear stands out as a relevant and practical choice to meet those goals.
When people learn about nuclear and its safety record, how long it has been producing clean energy in the U.S. and the world and how much energy it can provide, they view it more favorably. Knowledge dispels myths and builds confidence.
I would think under this new administration there is at least some more proactiveness around nuclear when it comes to state-federal cooperation.
Lesofski: Yes, the conversation began over two years ago, but the pace and scale of focus on nuclear energy have accelerated significantly in the past year.
An important topic for Utah and others is the need for right-sized regulations. For example, a massive AP 1000 with gigantic gigawatt-level production shouldn’t be treated the same as a micro reactor from a regulatory standpoint.
Utah has joined a lawsuit with Texas to push for modernized regulations that make sense for the technologies of today. The Trump administration is also looking at these regulations and saying, “If nuclear is expensive on the front end, because of the time it takes to wade through the regulatory maze, how can we keep everybody safe while efficiently reforming the regulatory structure?”
That’s something that is happening broadly and is quite bipartisan, really, which gives me a ton of hope because it shows that when we focus on problem-solving, we can come together and do what’s right.
How does Utah’s diverse geography and topography play a role in its energy policy and is the amount of federal land in the state a hinderance, more neutral, or a frustrating obstacle to energy policy?
Lesofski: I would say the answer is all the above.
We have incredible natural resources in the state, ranging from renewables to critical minerals to oil and gas. We’ve got it all; we’re the whole package, and we’ve demonstrated that we can develop our resources efficiently and responsibly for the benefit of our people. But it’s frustrating when federal lands are off limits or tangled in bureaucracy. That disconnect slows progress and limits our ability to serve our communities and residents.
We’re working to strengthen federal partnerships and continue our legacy as a net exporter of diverse natural resources. Utah is excited about our leadership potential in geothermal and nuclear energy.
That said, we’re encouraged by leadership at the federal level, particularly Secretaries Doug Burgum (Interior) and Chris Wright (Energy), both of whom bring deep energy experience to the table. That gives us hope for a more collaborative, productive relationship with our federal partners, one where we can focus on accelerating innovation in a way that best serves our citizens.
At the end of the day, we live here. We’re deeply committed to ensuring Utah remains a healthy place to live, raise families and build careers. There is no stronger motivation to steward our land well. We’re eager to bring our experience and solutions to the table as we pursue the opportunities before us.
