More Utahns chose the scenario presented in Allosaurus, Bonneville Trout, and Seagull than chose any other scenario. This scenario emphasized low cost and a reliance on natural gas, though it also included using substantially more renewable energy than today. A significant number also chose the Quaking Aspen scenario, which included an energy mix of not only natural gas and renewables, but also nuclear power. Fewer were interested in the Sego Lily scenario, in which renewables increased to about half of Utah’s energy sources, requiring energy storage and therefore significantly increasing costs.

Utahns want energy that is clean, reliable, and affordable. Utahns placed most importance on minimizing air pollution, followed by minimizing CO2 emissions and limiting our vulnerability to supply disruption. Though household cost was a key factor in which scenario people voted for, limiting household costs was ranked the fourth most important outcome by the 52,845 survey participants. Respondents to the random-sample survey, however, ranked limiting household costs second, not fourth. Rural residents were more concerned about vulnerability to supply disruption than they were about any other outcome.

Utahns are willing to have a diverse energy portfolio that balances all the benefits and concerns of energy production. They are willing to use more of Utah’s land for renewable energy production and for natural gas wells as long as it’s done in an environmentally responsible manner. However, Utahns are not willing to have more air pollution and CO2 emissions, and they are very unwilling to be vulnerable to energy supply disruptions or price spikes caused by an over reliance on a single energy source. They are also hesitant to incur significant energy storage costs resulting from much higher renewable energy production. Lastly, Utahns are unwilling to accept nuclear energy because of the risks of accidents and waste storage.