.jpg)
THE FRONTIER LINE
Hosts Wayne Aston and David Murray explore the critical global pillars of infrastructure development and energy production, from traditional methods to future-forward advancements. The Frontier Line covers the latest industry news, energy innovations, and sustainability trends that are shaping the future. Through expert interviews with industry leaders in renewable energy, utility-scale battery storage, and waste-to-energy technologies, the podcast provides insights into the evolving landscape of energy efficiency and sustainable infrastructure. By focusing on the intersection of innovation and the politics of energy, The Frontier Line highlights transformative ideas and technologies poised to deliver cost-efficient, resilient, and sustainable solutions for global industries.
THE FRONTIER LINE
Joe Ross-Founder, Beehive Energy Alliance, ROW Energy
Welcome back to the show, guys. We're very excited to be back in studio, dave, good morning.
Speaker 2:Good morning Wayne. It's an exciting day and for sure we're excited about this episode.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, guys, we've got a great guest in the studio today with us. We're excited to introduce you to. So, joe Ross, welcome to the show.
Speaker 3:Thanks brothers. How are you guys doing, Wayne? Hello Joe.
Speaker 1:How are you guys doing, wayne? Hello joe, how you guys doing. We're so good, we're so happy to have you here today with us. We we've gotten to know joe over the last year or so and and joe's doing some very exciting work here in utah and nationally and has some international implications behind it. We'll maybe get into some of that, joe. We typically won't try and you know butcher a bio on you or give our listeners an intro, so we're going to kind of dig into that as kind of our first line of questioning. We'd love for our listeners to hear from your perspective you know what you've been up to. You know in your professional background you know you're a lobbyist here in Utah what led you into the energy sector.
Speaker 3:Well, I'll just do the 30,000 foot flyover. I originally was an engineer programmer at a young age got into engineering, started out as an engineer, went to school, got my database administration degree. I started out as an engineer, went to school, got my database administration degree and then, somewhere along the line, over at Quest Software, which became Dell Software, they felt this guy talks too good and so they moved me over to the dark side and had transitioned me into sales and worked my way up to global teams and you know all those type of things, into leadership. And along that journey all of my silly friends about 20 something years ago decided to go into politics. Um, I don't know why, poor guys, you know it's like so that kind of occurs, right, you know, as a libertarian, it's weird. Like I have friends in both parties and I'm like I don't trust either one of you guys, sir, but that kind of shaped things it was weird. You know your, your friends and the people you spend time with kind of shape your, your, your, you know your life a little bit and, um, you know, eventually, you know, I built a company, sold to the government real quick and then started consulting, went to Oracle and Oracle had a great stint.
Speaker 3:Mostly ran the government sector for Oracle here for North America, for the enterprise field people. So we were doing those 10, 50, a hundred million dollar deals and really kind of diving in and building out architectures and dealing with politicians and policy. And so with my friends in the Oracle experience I realized you know what I'm tired of working in corporate America. I'm, you know, going to go into government and figure out what I want to do. So I had this bright idea of going into lobby, which I honestly don't really lobby that much. I mean, it's really very focused in results oriented, it's not like yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, your policy driver yeah.
Speaker 3:Policy driver. Yeah, as a libertarian, I'm not a big fan of trying to use taxpayer money for anything. Sure, I'm not a big fan of trying to use taxpayer money for anything. Sure, you know, unless you're building infrastructure that's going to create jobs and bring energy to a community, I'm OK with, like, those type of credits, because you're actually putting together those building blocks for communities and people, right, right. So, you know, ended up doing that and found myself getting more and more into energy and um, you know long story over the last two years. Here I am, you know, in the thick of it. Um have a lobbying firm that's focused on energy, with a sprinkle of technology, because they're it's kind of a symbiotic relationship, and um also have an energy company that's actually broken into two different companies. So we're knee-deep in all of it.
Speaker 2:What's your company? Tell us about your company.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's Rowe Energy. And basically what we did is we split it into two different companies. And it's kind of funny because, like Wayne mentioned the lobbying thing, since we went live with our lobbying, we were literally the only lobbying company, and I think we are now. I think there might be one that's worn minerals, but we're the only lobbyist firm that are strictly engineers. And so MTEL Energy they're out of Dubai, their parent company is Enercap. They've been building this new technology for about eight or nine, ten years now, and they were allowed finally to sell it to the private market because the government had been dealing with them for so long, because they love their technology. So we decided, hey, this technology is so cool for energy storage, don't pay us. Give us exclusive distribution for utah and let us sell into anywhere else in north america.
Speaker 3:And they said, yes, smart good work, yes so that shaped us to set up that company for energy storage and I think now, since trump, thank goodness uh signed his big beautiful bill, we have over a gig and a half in our pipeline right now for that Great work.
Speaker 1:That's huge.
Speaker 3:Yeah. And then at the same time I realized, as I was following the campaign last year with Trump and Biden and in this legislative session, I saw so much taxpayer money being wasted on these NEVI and REVI programs. And then UDOT and Rocky Mount Power are grabbing government funding and you know they were buying these EV chargers at retail, you know, from a European company, mind you and then white labeling them and dropping them in across the state of Utah and infuriated me and I was like you know we can do better, we can do better. But thank goodness, you know, with those and with Trump coming in and changing everything, they took away all that taxpayer funding. The taxpayers are no longer paying for the EV infrastructure. So I kind of saw that coming and so we set up an EV company as well in a row. And so we set up an EV company as well in a row and we basically come in and we will upgrade and pay for all of the EV infrastructure and do a rev share of landowners and we use venture capital and private equity to fund everything. So there's no taxpayer money.
Speaker 3:You know the VCs and PE love it because it's equipment based. There's not employees. You know they're easy loans for them. Yeah, the landowner doesn't have to do anything. It's a turnkey operation where it's like they're providing an entity to their clients and they don't even have to think about it. They focus on their business and we make a good living off of two, so it's a win-win. So we have two different pieces to that company and it's I mom up till two or three at night some nights just working on projects. So it's great that we love it.
Speaker 1:One of the things I love so much about your story, joe, and getting to know you personally, is you have a real entrepreneurial spirit, like you've got a strong ambition to be on the cutting edge and it really aligns with you know, the things that we do at Invictus Sovereign Dave and I and the partners and very entrepreneurial, very capitalistic. You know, looking at the lay of the land and you see all the legislative enhancements as they're compounding. It seems like every session we've got like three, four, five new bills that are kind of compounding to support this whole ecosystem or landscape that we're dealing in. Right, what do you think is the most exciting things you've seen in the past 12 months? Just to condense this into, like you know, end of 24,. You know halfway through 25 now.
Speaker 3:I would say last year's session in the roll up to it, right, or this year's, I guess January through March, our legislative session here really was the positioning from all kinds of different parties, right, you had your agencies, and different factions within the House and Senate were positioning themselves to be involved in energy and everybody had a different way to approach it. Yeah, so Rocky has been lobbying hard to provide. You know Brookshire Hathaway being their parent, and underneath them is Pacific Corp, and then underneath that is Rocky, right, so you have this trifecta of people who love taxpayer money and not delivering anything. So I mean, just to be perfectly honest, right, I mean because the Pacific Corp lost a ton of money on the fires in the West so they're starting to freeze.
Speaker 1:He threw a Rocky $30 billion lawsuit they're embroiled in right now in Oregon. That's a serious impediment to growth.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and they're trying to pass that on over to Utah to help us pay for that bill. It's like no, and Berkshire, I mean they're more of a short-term investment type VC or PE. They don't like these long-term utility notes and things, so they're not going to cost much. So the positioning and legislative stuff it was really interesting to see with 249 and 132. And there was a few others. But in the end, just summarizing it, what what they ended up doing and I didn't like it. I mean, colomore came in and it was forced behind the scenes. The work was sound of all but, um, they put that bottleneck in there. Rock and mount. Power came out. The winner.
Speaker 3:I mean referring to 132 yeah they did I mean yeah, it's frustrating because everything that's under 100 megawatts has to go into their queue. Yeah, and they have an unlimited amount of time to like get get to building infrastructure. And it's really because this whole theory of these smaller cities, rural shared cities, second class cities, whatever you call it there's a group of different ways you can name that, even out in your guys' area in Milford, right, I mean, you cannot set up an IPP or microgrid and distribute straight into a municipality. You can't do that right now.
Speaker 3:You have to send it to the grid and they have to send it back. It's absolutely asinine Because they're not providing infrastructure for three to four years. It's a joke. Yeah, why not let the engineers and the smart people and entrepreneurs who are willing to get private capital not taxpayer capital generate the energy and push it out to these municipalities, or the growth I mean the governor loves to talk about? Oh, we're going to grow all these houses and how important it is to him, and that's on one hand. On the other hand, he's getting money from Rocky and they're blocking any kind of power production. It's completely insane, because the only way to grow our state is to allow the entrepreneurs and the independent companies to actually start providing that power to the rural areas. That's the only way.
Speaker 1:Do you think that you know? We heard a statistic the other day and we're pretty, we acknowledge Rocky Mountain Power being in a tough spot, like we recognize that there's a legislative push to divorce from Pacific Corps and I think our listeners by now we're in season two and we're, you know, almost two years into this conversation I think people are kind of starting to understand why that divorce is so valuable for Utah right to kind of disavow ourselves away from kind of the Pacific Coast sustainable initiatives that Pacific Corps embraces where Rocky Mountain Power is not fully aligned with that. We still like our coal, you know, and we recognize there's clean coal technologies coming and we really like natural gas and there's very, very efficient technologies in that.
Speaker 3:But you know, when we have a relationship with Rocky Mountain Power in fact we sat with Tom Carter just last week and Senator Owens, I like Tom and Dick, but they mean they walk the company line even though they know you're trying to do good and provide. They just don't budge. And it's from top down, I get it, but it's, it's difficult.
Speaker 1:Well, they're in a tough spot. Let's just put it that way, like, like. Here's one thing I think everyone can agree on, and when we look at traditional utility companies like Rocky mountain power, pacific core, historically they've expanded transmission and generation to meet the path, like to meet population growth, and they've done a really good job of that right. It's only until, like the second or third quarter, 2024, when AI flipped the whole script on its ear and no utility company in the world has been able to meet the demand, and so Rocky Mountain Power find themselves in between this rock and a hard spot. How do you feel about the fact that you know we're hearing reports of like 13 gigawatts of requests to Rocky Mountain Power that they've denied, and I think that's since Senate Bill 132 came out. Do you think that will have any impact on that first right of refusal clause in 132?
Speaker 3:Yes, so one of the things we're working on at Beehive Energy and you know this from being on the board um, we have, uh, some legislators. Senator owens has been kind of working on this behind the scenes for about two years. It wasn't already because ai, like you said, hadn't matured to the point where the demand was so large, um, but now we're ready. Um, I know he's been speaking with others in the legislature and I know rob axon, who's also on the board with us behind he, um, he's been working, speaking with colomore because, you know, getting something done here in the utah legislature, you need to work with leadership, right, absolutely, you absolutely are not allowed to take anything to stewart unless you go through colomore. That's just how it works, right, right, um, so they're working with Colomore and Senator Owens and what we are doing is we actually are taking that approach, like we, like Rocky, and they've done a good job so far. We don't like the legislation that was pushed last year, but we're going to show them that the move we're trying to make is actually good because kind of it'll benefit them and benefit Utah. So what they're working on is taking away, you know, that kind of framework that 132 put in place where they're going to open it up to allow.
Speaker 3:You know people like Invictus, sovereign and other. You know people who have microgrids and IPPs to develop that energy and then feed it directly, distribute it into municipalities or areas of growth. We need homes. Our kids can't afford their homes. I mean, we need to provide that for our fellow Yukons and that's the thing that's really blocking everything. And, like you said, we are seeing megawatts of requests since early this year. There's no way they can do that, but you know who can. It's the private market.
Speaker 2:They can do it. Joe, what do you feel on that, the opportunities that Utah has before it, that some of this legislation, if done properly and done the way you want to see it go what kind of opportunities are we talking about? I mean, quantify some of that. We know where we are and what we think could happen on our side, but I think you have a really good vision. You see a lot of things that we don't. What is Utah not getting or what is Utah possibly losing by not supporting and pushing these kinds of changes?
Speaker 3:Just in Weber County alone, we have like a white paper document. I don't know if I shared it with you, gentlemen, what they're looking at there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, well, and Stephanie was at the CoLabX energy event here. I met Stephanie just a few weeks and she was representing Weber County, so we're familiar of the Weber County plan.
Speaker 3:It's ambitious, she was representing Weber County, so we're familiar of the Weber County plan. It's ambitious. Yeah, we have the white papers on it because we are.
Speaker 3:they want to use Intel for the energy storage for all our stuff, okay, and a lot of their stuff. I know it's a holistic approach, right, and we're actually they've been trying to get the legislature to listen to them, to open up distribution for about a year and a half, and so they called me and Rob and you know, literally we were meeting with them. So I just texted Senator Owens, booming off on the call and, all right, cool, let's do this. So it's like, so me and Rob are really kind of driving this from the non-legislative side. But you have up there and I don't remember the numbers off hand, but I think it's probably three to four gigawatts of power that they're planning they can produce, and that's just one county.
Speaker 3:I know you guys are probably, you know, a couple gigawatts with what you're doing down there. I mean, and that's just you guys. I mean there's other entities for those, but I've got 100 megawatts. It's not much, but the natural gas market is absolutely blowing up. There are so many opportunities in that for gas. It is absolutely stunning. So I think and then you know there were question data centers that they're not even talking about, but I think there's at least 10 plus gigawatts of independent power production out there that would be freed up with this legislation. If we can get it through this coming session, if we can take down that framework and let those IPPs distribute directly, that'll put Utah literally in the front of what we're doing in the West. And let us have that freedom from so Pacific Corp, not so much Rocky Mountain Power. We like Rocky Mountain Power, we want to work with them, but we don't want to be paying the bills for Oregon and we don't want to be dragged into their green energy policies in the West Coast.
Speaker 1:Because that's not who we are as Utahns. You know the real finger on the pulse of what's happening in utah and this whole rocky mountain power scenario. You know, we know rocky mountain power approach the public utilities and energy technology interim committee three separate times in the last I don't know, I think it's six or nine months.
Speaker 3:You probably know better, but ask yeah, it's been three times since last fall.
Speaker 1:yeah, so new rate hikes, starting at like a 30 rate cut rate hike. I think the last one was a 5% rate hike. All three were denied. But you know the position of that committee is what are you building? Is there a new generation or new transmission to warrant these rate hikes? You're asking for, asking for so and you've touched on it, joe like when we're talking about a company dealing with a $30 billion legal situation trying to subsidize this over the rate payers.
Speaker 1:That corrodes the legislative attitudes about the service provider itself and like, okay, we got to really consider how to protect our residents and how to serve our communities.
Speaker 1:And so, again, our legislators are in kind of a rock and a hard place spot too, and we feel really strongly that it's almost like an alignment of the stars where the shakeup is so significant that everyone has to kind of like redistribute thought and energy into the new solution and the new structure and how we can actually coexist and work together. Our conversation with Tom was really positive. It was going down that vein of how could we be contributors to you as a grid resilience partner, you know, if we put enough generation on and we put enough money into transmission, would that not be helpful, and I think it, I think it was well-received. We're we're excited to see where it goes with Rocky Mountain Power, but you're totally right, joe, that it has to. These legislative enhancements have to continue to truly, like, finish the landscape so that that that, all of these gigawatts and, by the way, I think, our perspective on how many gigawatts you're saying, tan, we think that's probably accurate.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean, there's stuff out there that we, that people, aren't really disclosing yet. So there's probably more. But no, I agree, and don't get me wrong, you know, tham and Dick, they're trying and I wish I could give be a fly on the wall with their meaties. Yeah, they're gonna be like, hey, can we please get some capital? We want to extend the grid out here here, and they're gonna just, they're just being told no all the time, so it's not their fault. So right, you know, some of my, one of this isn't really towards rocking out power, it's really more towards pacific corp and first half of Hathaway.
Speaker 1:Yeah, precisely, precisely.
Speaker 3:You could say, hey, we're going to deliver you a gig of power and you know what. That still wouldn't make them move. They're not going to move. So the only path is really to open up the floodgates and take away that kind of framework they put in in 132 and open it up so people like yourselves and other, you know, microgrid or IPPs can then start producing that power and distributing it and doing direct deals with the local municipalities and the counties. And that's the only way that's going to get Pacific Corp or Berkshire to actually listen. They won't listen.
Speaker 1:Well, dave, you and I are probably channeling. Dave and I are so connected telepically, telepathically. There we go. I want to lead you to a question, dave, and it may be the question you have on the tip of your tongue. I'm sure it is, because that's how we roll. But the question is around the Utah First policies and contrasting with Berkshire Hathaway. Do you want to lead?
Speaker 2:It was sort of it was exactly. I mean, we're talking about all the swirling conversation around energy and infrastructure. Joe, we know you know you're leading out with this Beehive Energy Alliance. I mean it's all connected right and given everything that's going on, obviously you're wanting to see things done in Utah and accomplish things. What, what has been kind of your mission personally and with this and everything else based upon all of these things you're involved in, obviously you see an opportunity to try and bring everybody together and solve some bigger issues. You know you want to kind of go into like why why you're doing what you're doing and how you're tackling that and what you're saying Was that kind of on your what am I chatting to you, wayne?
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, we you're tackling that and what you're seeing was that kind of on your what am I chatting you, wayne? Yes, yes, we're going down that route let's talk about. Let's talk about utah first mentality, joe, yeah.
Speaker 3:And how we're gonna, how we're gonna make utah the the beacon for energy generation sure, yeah, I mean, you know, seeing you know initially, when I kind of made the switch and came into lobbying and started doing my energy stuff and taught up in intel, you know I was kind of just watching and seeing you know where everything was in the chessboard. And you know, because you have to like get data to kind of form a strategy right and and I see a lot of people, and you probably see this too there's a lot of people and a lot of legislators and agencies who like to talk about things, yes, and how they're going to do this and they're going to do that, but they don't actually ever do anything. Sure.
Speaker 1:Yeah, a lot of that going on.
Speaker 3:It's not because of intentions aren't there? Of course they are. Like here's a perfect example Project GigaWatt Great, a great idea, $10 million in taxpayer money and they have one engineer on their board and he lives in idaho. Like how is that going to get things done? Yeah, it's not, it's not so. So I really, you know, and they're all great, don't get me wrong, I'm not, but it's I said let's just, you know, focus on getting work done. I don't care about political capital. I, you know, I'm a libertarian, it doesn't matter to me either way. Um, I don't need to be taking pictures of shovels. And so at this point we've just put our heads down and said let's put together the best team that's going to be best for Utah. Put Utah first to actually get projects moving, versus this continuous circle. We found ourselves in talking about things and not really getting anything done.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and we are pretty tapped into other developers and other projects and just with a situational awareness of Utah. We've had some fun conversations with, you know, the governor's office of energy development, for example, and you know we've tried to qualify like who's out there that's real, like what makes it real. And you know, because you talk about everyone talking like everyone's a developer, everyone's going to do a data center right, everyone all of a sudden, because everyone's reading the news and so putting your money where your mouth is makes a big difference. I think that's definitely a distinct differentiator for us. But I think the reason why we have so much tailwind and political enthusiasm around what it is we're doing in central Utah is because of this really strong stance on Utah. First, you know when you read the headlines and you understand what these hyperscalers demands are and the amount of money being thrown around. I mean, we're talking about trillions now and so it's really easy to get sucked into the hype. And but you know when, when you talk about building power generation in Utah and then shipping it to California because you can get three times the rate, that doesn't help Utah. And you know the IPP is for better or worse.
Speaker 1:It's been an evolving conversation. I'm not going to label it positive or negative. However, 26,000 acre feet of water a year annually, consumed with the coal-fired operation, that's grotesque in today's standards. To send all the power to California, we get all the emissions and off the coal plant, that's also grotesque in today's standards. Now, back when the IPV was built in the 70s, that was totally fine. Those emissions and that water consumption. That's the way you do it.
Speaker 1:Nowadays we've got ways to generate way more power with a fraction of the water consumption, a fraction of the emissions. And so we're looking at it and we're saying we really shouldn't need to be sending power out of the state of Utah. If Utah wants to grow, let's commit to building power in Utah for Utah growth first, before we contemplate selling to other markets. And so that's been a big stance that we've taken with our project and it's. It's really great to learn more, you know, and then joining, you know, the Beehive Energy Alliance with you and finding that we share that Utah first initiative. It's someone's got to take a stand for that, because it's too easy to just, you know, connect to the STS and send it to California because they'll pay.
Speaker 3:Today, oh yeah, well, you nailed it right there. I mean, I know Senator Owens out in your area there, that that Delta coal plant really was kind of the initial spark or you know the kindling of the fire. You know he's very passionate, you know, with the second largest state in the nation and taking on those emissions and sending everything back to California, it's just not a good thing, right. So that was really kind of what sparked it and I know you work closely with him out there in Central Utah and that's really kind of the thought behind this initial legislation. It was like, hey, we can do this better if we can work with people like yourselves and others down there in Central Utah with that coal plant and then actually turn around and send some of that power back into Utah and benefit Utah. If we're going to take the emissions and we can do it a little bit cleaner, we can fit in better turbines.
Speaker 3:Whatever we do, we can up, enhance the coal plant, right, you know now they're storing hydrogen down on the salt flats and things and there's different technologies we can integrate. But if we could flip that around and do U-turn and start sending that back into our state, that's a win, win. So what if we don't make as much money? You know, greed is not necessarily a good thing, it's about abundance. And as long as you make enough money to pay for the private funding that's coming in to pay off a note, which is fine, it's business and I'm okay with that you should always be thinking how am I going to take care of my own house, my own yard first? And that's why Utah First is really our passion.
Speaker 1:And yeah, I think you nailed it that one example is really what sparked the thoughts behind this distribution change, and I'm not going to name the names just yet, but when we talk about pricing California currently paying a rate around 28 cents and up per kilowatt. In Utah we pay roughly 11.8, 12 cents a kilowatt, so it's much more affordable and Utah has always prided itself on being amongst the lowest in the nation.
Speaker 3:You can even buy it down. You could. You know some of the commercial. You know rate six and schedule six, six days. You can even buy it down and just pay for the demand fees. Right, and depending on your TCO, it can even work out being cheaper.
Speaker 1:That's right.
Speaker 1:One thing that we're developing with the project and you know, with the scale of the project in central Utah is this plan we're building out where and staying true to the Utah First initiative cutting edge technology, better for utah, better emissions by like almost 100, better water consumption by like 95 on all the things that really are good for utah.
Speaker 1:Utah also ought to get to experience some relief in that pricing and and that's one thing that senate bill 132 kind of started us on is allowing for that pricing spectrum, the hyperload over 50 or 100 megawatts. You know, if they end up having to go to an IPP, they're going to pay more. Our mentality is look, how about we get the Utah prices up for the hyperload to match the national, like California, standards, because we're providing a better service than what they get in California and by doing so it allows us to subsidize our residential rate payers way lower than they are today. Like we're talking about a plan behind the scenes that our attorneys might yell at me for like letting some of the details out too early. But I mean we're talking about, like you know, county pricing that could be like 50% of the current rate or less.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I've seen numbers around three to five cents a kilowatt. If you open up, if you take some of these larger IPPs or microgrids that will feed into the hyperscalers. That kind of load balances it down for those smaller, under 100 megawatt, smaller SMRs, smaller IPPs, you know I mean your 100 megawatt solar farms feeding in. That'll lower that down. I've seen numbers three to five cents.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, that tracks. That tracks with our plans too. And wouldn't that be great, I mean, if we could make a legacy impact on Utahns.
Speaker 3:Yeah, Cut the power bill in Hamburg.
Speaker 2:Well, well, where, instead of and this is the issue with Rocky instead of subsidizing issues all over the West, which is their biggest concern, and rate payers here in Utah having to subsidize also infrastructure growth, so hyperscaler growth and all these things maybe they're paying for it, maybe they're not. There are ways to do this to where they can. Actually you flip that script and they can benefit from this, and we feel like we've figured out how to do that. To where we can flip that, make the money we need to make. Everybody is happy, but if the communities get the benefit in that, then that's where this really starts to work. Instead of an extraction extracting value out of Utah, it's putting value back into Utah and keeping it here. And you know, we think it's possible, Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 3:No, I mean, in a way it's like you nailed it, Like of course you know if you're funding with private capital, of course you have to make money on it, but what really what's meant you rich is that you know that you're actually doing what's good for Utah, absolutely, and you're and you're laying the framework for future generations. That that's what. That's. That's what I think is being rich. I mean, yeah, we can all make money and make a living, but that's what what you can do for your own state and what you can pass on to the next generations that that's really the blessing.
Speaker 2:Well, it is it. You're right, I think. I think you're exactly right, joe. I mean it's a legacy and I mean we've talked about that on a couple episodes ago when we talked about some of the legislative action that's happened in, say, the last five, seven years. I mean I look at what they've been doing and I think it's with with people like you behind the scenes, pushing lots of initiatives and helping things move forward, is laying the right kinds of foundation for these kinds of things to kind of take hold. And let let the private sector come in and really take advantage of the right kinds of of foundational uh policy to where these things can start to grow and start to mature and start to take off on their own.
Speaker 2:But then, 20 years or 30 years from now, you can go. You can go look back and say, yeah, it started there because we made the right decisions to give this and to create, if you will, the right kinds of sandboxes that would allow these kinds of things to take place. So it's one thing to have initiative. It's another thing to understand and to make the plan and to put the legislative foundation down ahead of time. And you know as well as anybody, better than us and I would love to know about that and kind of the inner workings of how, how do you get that stuff, how do you move the ball forward? You know, you know. I honestly, yeah, you know how how much of your job is persuasion, how much of it's knowing, knowing who not to annoy. I mean, you know what is this, you know how do you do what you do?
Speaker 3:It is bonkers, you know I've actually thought of, and I've been approached actually by, you know, media wanting to really kind of follow me around with cameras. You know, during letter-type sessions to make like a show or something like that. I'm still considering it, you know.
Speaker 1:It might not be a bad idea if you got the right media guys right, yeah, and I'm actually, I'm actually.
Speaker 3:Well, that's what, uh, my buddy, jared osmond, told me. He's like, dude, just if you're gonna do it, he's like just do it yourself, because if you, if you let somebody else take control, he's like look what happened to me and the real housewives I was like yeah, I think you did that to yourself, dude.
Speaker 1:Well, this might be, dave. Let me dovetail this into the Beehive Energy Alliance, because this is a perfect segue, like let's take the next 10 minutes or so before we wrap up with you, joe, and let's focus in, because Dave and I have been thinking there needs to be a coalition. There needs to be like we've got to band together, we've got to make something happen. We be a coalition. There needs to be like we got a band together, we're going to make something happen. We even actually own a domain that has, you know, an energy coalition language in it, but you beat everyone to the punch. You've got this Beehive Energy Alliance. It's incredible. It's got legs. We've watched it percolate under a few iterations and you've built a board that I I feel honored to be a part of. But can you just give our listeners a flavor of who you've been able to enroll on this incredible board and in this alliance and why this has got so much steam behind it right now?
Speaker 3:Yeah, so kind of the mission is kind of what shaped how I selected the board and how we recruited people on is the mission was to get things done and you needed to have a public and private collaboration with you know, a lot of private funding as well. Right, we saw the seeds of change. We see, we saw where the government is going and we saw what Trump was doing and and what we need to do about that as a nation. Right, we need, we need everybody all in. It needs to be a heterogeneous ecosystem where everybody has skin in the game. So so that was our goal. And so, starting out, I realized, ok, so I needed to have people who are involved in, you know, venture capital. I needed to have legislators like and that would be like Angel he's the senior vice president of BlackRock and then my good friend Brandon Fugel, even though he's more of a commercial developer but he's heavily involved in venture capital, things like that. Then, obviously, you know, I went out to Senator Owens and Representative Colin Jack. They chair the Energy Committee. They had to be involved immediately. We also brought in Kay Christopherson from the House he's chair of infrastructure at brought in Senator Kurt Colomore, who's in leadership He'll probably be the next Senate president and he's involved in everything, one that went and then went in and edited 132 of Sandoval. Yeah and gosh, I mean I'm drawing a blank, but we just brought in Heidi Baldry. Senator Baldry, she has a huge background in nuclear right Her family, she's not an engineer herself but she knows it quite well and she's over that Eagle Mountain area where a lot of SMRs go, yeah, yeah, and a ton of other people. I mean people like yourself, I mean, and we actually have a few others coming on who are there that are either involved in infrastructure or energy production. You know microgrids, ipp, stuff like you're doing, and it was really kind of getting those people together.
Speaker 3:You know we brought in Crow because obviously when you're dealing with private financing, you need companies who can do the books, do the taxes, you know on a global standard, who know that, who are using, used to dealing with. You know 10, 11-digit numbers and they know how to keep things straight and clean. You know we have some local leadership as well. I have Rob Axson, president of the GOP, so he's able to help move a lot of that legislation. You know, over the hump you need somebody like that. He's more of the top hat right, not the capital, I mean, because we have 85, 85 of our legislators are republicans, um, and he's kind of their ringleader, so we keep somebody like him.
Speaker 3:We have teddy hodges, who's an ee, who is on the harriman uh city council and then he's gc ee, very strong renewables guy, because you, it's not just the capital, you need people, that local level too, because, again, it's that, it's, you know, diversified and respective utah you need, you need the entire ecosystem, right, um. So so we, we decided to put that together and I tell you, I mean people were calling me wanting to join, you know, legislators, I still get other legislators and we brought in uh representative, um, john hawkins, because he is actually on the olympics committee with committee with Brad Wilson, so we're already starting to talk to some of the Olympics folks about infrastructure as well. That's coming. That's a big deal.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that'll be here before you know it. It feels like a long way away, but that's coming fast.
Speaker 3:You know it, man. So that's kind of who we're working with. I mean, we are doing some stuff behind the scenes because there has been a little bit of because we have grown so rapidly. There's been a little bit of because we have grown so rapidly. There's been a little concern, I think, from some factions of the legislature or the governor's office, like, hey, you know, we've been trying to do this as well. You know, we want to make sure that, you know, there's synergy between our groups and you know, I mean, some of them do care about political capital, or that's something that we're not even thinking about. We're just thinking about let's, let's move the ball and put Utah first and get get things moving instead of just continuing to talk about it.
Speaker 1:It takes an extraordinary amount of prescience to have the awareness so far ahead of when the need is actually there. That's definitely something as land developers, you know we're trying to think 10 years ahead. But you really have that, that prescient thought, you know that prescient mind, and it's impressive to see what you've built, because in the beginning there's always just an idea and I, you know, you, you and I and Dave, we're talking about something a while back and we thought, well, that's a cool, that'd be cool. And then fast forward to now and my gosh. So we wanted to just commend you on your effort and and your, your will and your determination to enroll the right people and have that that mentality to to see at home. Because you've done that and I'm very excited to see what the Beehive Energy Alliance is going to do for Utah.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think we're going to do a lot of really good things. It's funny, as, as every day, you know, you kind of get punched in the face and patted on the back Right.
Speaker 1:That's true.
Speaker 3:And my good friend Aaron Starks, which I think you guys are members of, 47. Which I think you guys are members of 47.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:You know, we, we, we talk all the time and he's like you know, he's actually going to kind of bring me onto their board as kind of their energy type thing, like an energy sector, because that's not really their forte. They're really more in aerospace and defense, Right.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 3:And he was like commended me on the work and the mission, and we both have had some of the same phone calls behind the scenes, like making certain people nervous because you know they want to be in front of the cameras, whatever. But yeah, he's like, you know, you're at a point now where you're kind of going downhill, you know, and the bus, some balls growing. He's like so get ready for death by a thousand cuts. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:And that's a quote from aaron well, you know one one thing, that d and I go ahead, dave, I'll give you something on that.
Speaker 2:Well, no, I mean, I thought it was actually just a question that occurred because you mentioned early on in our conversation SMR as you talked about nuclear. We talk about a thing that I think is going to be interestingly topical, meaning I think you know, if you looked at the general swath Utahns right now, I would say most people still don't know that. You know the plans that are going on or plan to go on just south of Camp Williams. What's your take like on nuclear right now? Because I mean I think it's getting talked about Wayne and I talk about a lot of it.
Speaker 3:I am deep in that. So my previous partner not really business partner, somebody I work with a lot closely, jake Anderig, former senator, he's actually been hired by Eagle Mountain to work on the NERC process and getting that cut in half, if not in thirds, with Senator Mike Lee. So my actual business partner, Rod Axson, used to be Mike Lee's chief of staff for many, many years, right or his director of the state and all that partner, rod action, used to be mike lee's chief of staff for many, many years, right or his director of the state and all that. So senator lee is working as hard as they're in dc and I think the goal is to get it to a five-year process. Now that'd be um, and, and so we're working on it and I think it will get done, um, and then obviously this is some mars they're going to start out with natural gas. So we in their modular right. So in order to cover some of that private financing and stuff, they'll start with natural gas and then we'll move over to nuclear.
Speaker 3:But the thing that they're the trouble they're running into right now and you guys see it all the time is public perception of nuclear frustrated recently, because I don't think you have the right messaging in. Hiring a media company or something like that is not really going to create public trust or awareness around nuclear awareness. The Utah, you know, department of Energy Development just ran an RFP which they didn't announce. They just kind of snuck it out there for like $1.8 million. I got wind of it a week before it was closing.
Speaker 3:Immediately reached out to our fellow board member, wayne Professor Matt Nemet, who is by far the most nuclear engineer physicist in our entire state. He advises our governor, advises Montana's governor. I mean, he's the man right and he was very interested in like kind of taking that on and doing that awareness program. They just literally shut it down. I think that was written for some media company and stuff and for me it was frustrating, you know, and I hope it works out, don't get me wrong, especially whenever they spend taxpayer money. I want to be successful, yeah, but it kind of goes to that. You know you got to get the right people to move things forward and sometimes I feel like we take one great step forward and then we take two steps back.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:So, but nuclear is coming. I love it. I love the fact that we're we're actually we're one of the few States that's actually mining uranium Yep, Um, you know so. And if people can understand how clean it is. And these SMRs are enriching at 3% to 4.95%, pretty much. They're small, 10 megawatts, they're modular, they're super safe, I think, as the education is there, the option will be very, very fast.
Speaker 1:We agree, we appreciate your thoughts on that. We also recognize for the nuclear armaments you've got to enrich all the way up over, like 15, 20%. It's a whole nother category of enrichment.
Speaker 3:Well, for the hyperscalers you do, I'm just thinking SMRs. You're at three to four.
Speaker 1:No, no, that's what I'm saying. There's a difference, difference between power generation and, like the three to four percent enrichment versus, you know, nuclear bombs.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, Nuclear you're going up to 16 plus.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's bridging that gap of perception of the explosiveness. Like a nuclear power plant is not exploding like an atomic bomb, because it's the level of enrichment and the nature of those isotopes so it's.
Speaker 3:Well, how do you think? Canada and France, france have been powered for many, many years now, absolutely, yeah. Yeah, I mean, we used to. We used to do it all the time and, like just you know, a couple different accidents happened through my island and the press and, just you know, politicians got involved well, coincidentally, zero fatalities in all of those nuclear incidents.
Speaker 1:That's incredible Like the public forgets about that. Like compared to any other business vertical, you know fatalities like any gas plant, any manufacturing, any automotive, any aeros, you know aviation, like we have fatalities in every sector zero and nuclear. So you know it's funny to see it get such a bad rap but you feel like it's on the right track.
Speaker 3:I heard a backstory. I don't know if it's true. You guys might know A little historical fun thing. Wasn't Jimmy Carter before he was president? Didn't he work at Three Mile Island or something like that? Wasn't he involved in that plant? Like, wasn't he one of the workers out there when they had that nuclear? Hadn't heard this deal? Yeah, I heard that I'd have to go check my history. But before he was president, I think he was working there and he was. He was involved in some of the cleanup or something like that and it's like it's kind of cool, it's just a little Interesting. Yeah, well, I don't know if it's real or not.
Speaker 1:Well, Joe, go ahead, Dave.
Speaker 2:I don't know. It's something we're going to have to look up. I'm actually so, while you're doing that, I decided to throw it in the chat to see what they had, see what Chad had to say about that, and so I'm just reading Carter's the only US president with a nuclear engineering background. He was a US Naval Academy graduate, trained under Admiral Rickover in the Navy's nuclear submarine program. In 1954, before politics, carter was part of a Navy team sent to Chalk River, canada, to help clean up a serious nuclear reactor accident, literally going into the reactor to assist in a hazardous repair. This gave him credibility and calmness in talking about nuclear power rare for politicians. Wow, there you go. That for politicians Wow, there you go, that's good and three mile Right.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so well, I'm looking. It doesn't say anything as far. Carter visited the three mile on site on April 1st 1979, just days after the accident. His presence was meant to reassure the public. The situation was under control. He toured the facility with his wife Rosalyn wearing only ordinary clothes, no hazmat suits, to visually convey safety. Politically, he pushed for tighter NRC regulations, better operator training and new emergency preparedness rules and despite his background he didn't champion nuclear after different things. So anyway, there you go, there's your answer.
Speaker 3:Thank you, chad, I didn't know that we learned something. Thank you, I didn't know that. I mean, it's we learned something cool like that? I didn't know that either. So I think he's the only president that actually has a nuclear engine background.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's really cool. Yeah Well, joe, thank you for joining us on the show. We're we're at the hour. This has been so, so full of information and insight.
Speaker 3:Appreciate your contributions to this. It's been fun. Oh, I love it. Yeah, and I, I gotta get down to your guys's uh, you know your guys's project down there. I mean, we have several projects actually. I should say, you know, you know your, your facilities. I should say, see what you're, what you've been cooking, seeing what you're doing. Um, it's just every day I'm on the fire hose, you get it. But I'll get down there, I'm sure of it. We make it happen. We'd love to do that, I think. I actually think I'm going down to um for my EV thing. We're working with Springdale, the private landowners in Springdale and, uh, zion's national park and uh, so maybe I'm my way back up on the 14th. I'll stop in. Awesome, back up on the 14th, I'll stop in.
Speaker 1:Awesome. Well, that sounds great. We'll coordinate with you. Awesome guys, have a great afternoon. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate you guys. Take care, take care, take care.
