KUER⁠0%

Utah locks arms with Mountain West neighbors to champion geothermal energy ⁠50%

By Martha Harris⁠0%

5/20/2026, 7:19:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 21.7% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,373 faulty-reasoning hits from 659 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (11,062 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.50% of the article peer group.

Utah and three neighboring states will partner to create the Mountain West Geothermal Consortium. 
The plan is to work with Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona to improve and streamline the production of underground renewable energy. 
“The Mountain West region has an opportunity to lead the world right now,” said Gov. 
Spencer Cox, who also chairs the Western Governor’s Association and was hosting a workshop on “Energy Suberabundance” in Salt Lake City. 
“We have the right workforce, we have the right leadership, and the right innovation ecosystem to launch, again, a new global energy industry.” 
Speaking via Zoom at the announcement, Colorado Democratic Gov. 
Jared Polis said the states will share resources and expertise across state lines, “that really can help tap into the vast potential of geothermal energy. 
Save people money on energy bills, provide reliable 24/7 energy, create jobs in both tech and on-site, protecting clean air.” 
While this multi-state project is new, Utah already has a foot in geothermal energy development. 
Cox said, “we've been leaning into geothermal for a long time. 
I'm a true believer.” 
The Utah FORGE — Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy — project in Beaver County is developing and testing enhanced geothermal systems technology. 
The Department of Energy chose Beaver County because of its favorable geology and climate. 
Researchers have said the public research site, which is associated with the University of Utah, has made breakthroughs in the field. 
A private commercial geothermal project near Milford, called the Cape Station, is being developed by Texas-based company Fervo Energy. 
The majority of America’s capacity for geothermal is in the West, Polis said. 
Currently, however, he said it’s underutilized. 
Geothermal energy uses heat from underground rock and water to drive turbines and generate electricity. 
The same process can also be used in conjunction with heat pumps for heating and cooling. 
The director of the consortium, Michael O’Connor, claimed that “Geothermal energy can provide over 200 gigawatts of affordable base load power in the Mountain West. 
That represents over a $250 billion economic opportunity in this region.” 
That number, O’Connor said, came from a Department of Energy assessment. 
It's a massive amount of electricity. 
The consortium is organized by two nonprofits, the Center for Public Enterprise and Constructive. 
The group’s focus will be to attract investors for projects and share best practices. 
For the governors of the four states, it’s an opportunity to advance geothermal power. 
Energy has been a big priority and talking point for Cox. 
His Operation Giggawatt state initiative aims to double Utah’s energy production by 2034. 
“We're at an interesting kind of turning point in our country's history right now,” the governor said at the announcement. 
“We know we need the energy. 
There's a lot of fight. 
It's a fight that comes from a lack of an abundant mentality and a zero-sum game. 
It's not good for us, it's good for our adversaries.” 
Energy is also a hot topic tied to the contentious debate over the Box Elder County data center. 
Cox said he understood why people were concerned and said it wasn’t a “good process.” 
“I think today is the answer to a lot of the questions that people have about not just that project, but these types of projects all across the country,” he said. 
It’s been reported that the data center will need 9 gigawatts, more than double what the entire state uses in a year. 
“Nobody out there, including me, would support 9 gigawatts of natural gas power,” Cox said. 
“It’s just not gonna happen.” 
The first phase of the data center will focus on natural gas, Cox said, and he estimated that might take maybe a gigawatt or a gigawatt-and-a-half. 
Speaking about geothermal, he said these are “the technologies that are going to take us the rest of the way for what we need, and we couldn't be more excited to have this happen.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%Martha Harris: 2.7%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Martha Harris: 3.6%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 2.0%Martha Harris: 0.7%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Martha Harris: 2.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias15.9%This article: 6.8%Martha Harris: 5.8%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.8%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.9%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Martha Harris: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect2.3%This article: 21.7%Martha Harris: 2.7%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias21.7%This article: 0.8%Martha Harris: 2.4%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.8%This article: 8.3%Martha Harris: 5.9%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias8.3%This article: 5.0%Martha Harris: 1.4%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 2.4%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error2.4%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Martha Harris: 1.5%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.5%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Martha Harris: 1.7%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Martha Harris: 1.5%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Martha Harris: 0.9%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem1.5%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.8%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.3%Martha Harris: 3.9%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority14.3%This article: 7.4%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Martha Harris: 3.5%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 2.7%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring2.7%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.2%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.8%Martha Harris: 5.6%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion15.8%This article: 8.0%Martha Harris: 1.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 1.6%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 1.5%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque1.5%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.4%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.8%Martha Harris: 1.5%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal3.8%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.4%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.3%Martha Harris: 1.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote10.3%This article: 3.8%Martha Harris: 0.9%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 7.0%Martha Harris: 2.1%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 9.9%Martha Harris: 1.1%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination9.9%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Martha Harris: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Martha Harris: 0.6%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.3%

659 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers56%attributed speech292writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJared Polis • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJared Polis • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Energy • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJared Polis • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJared Polis • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMichael O’Connor • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMichael O’Connor • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMichael O’Connor • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Cox • 34 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jared Polis

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words17% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Quote-first Misdirection+39.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jared Polis: 39.1%39.1%Indoctrination+27.5 ptsWriter: 3.8%Jared Polis: 31.3%31.3%Attempt to Sell a Product +19.3 ptsWriter: 12.0%Jared Polis: 31.3%31.3%Unattributed Quote-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Jared Polis: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Jared Polis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.