Next public meeting May 4, 2026 4:00 PM Box Elder County Fairgrounds Contact commissioners →

The Stratos Project

A proposed 9 GW data-center and natural-gas power campus on 40,000 acres in western Box Elder County.

The project, in numbers
62 square miles 40,000 acres
9 gigawatt power system
4.24B gallons of water / year = 13,000 AF/yr · actual demand not published
Stratos vs. every Utah data center combined
3× bigger at Phase 1
10× bigger at full buildout
All 48 Utah data centers combined draw ~920 MW. Stratos Phase 1 = 3,000 MW. Full = 9,000 MW.
Still publicly unresolved
Actual water demand Not published
Environmental impact Not published
Military use Not identified
Job & revenue clawback Not identified
County authority after consent Unclear
Public record status

Public information still needed.

The public meetings described several large project numbers and several items that remain unpublished, pending, or not yet enforceable in the reviewed record.

Water capNo public annual water budget or binding cap found.
Environmental impactNo project-specific environmental-impact study or emissions estimate has been published.
TrafficRoad and construction traffic studies were described as future work.
Jobs2,000 permanent jobs claimed. No clawback identified in the meetings.
Anchor tenantNo verified anchor tenant named in the reviewed record.
ControlIf consent is granted, land-use control inside the project area shifts from Box Elder County to MIDA.
Scale, in everyday units

The same project, four ways.

Four comparisons show the scale: homes, emissions, gas, and water rights.

How much electricity?

~4×

Enough generation for about 5.1M Utah-style homes. Utah has about 1.18M households.

How much environmental impact?

~2×

No project-specific environmental-impact estimate has been published. A gas-power calculation at 60% capacity suggests roughly doubling Utah's current electric-power emissions, released from a project area about 35 miles from Brigham City.

How much gas?

+105%

About one Utah's worth of natural-gas demand. Utah plus Stratos would roughly double current statewide use.

How much water is tied up?

4.24BGAL/YR

About 4.24 billion gallons per year in contracted rights (= 13,000 acre-feet per year). Actual project demand has not been published.

Scale check

How large would Stratos be?

This compares Stratos with the combined power capacity of every data center now operating in Utah.

  1. Average existing Utah data center · 48 facilities running today~20 MW
  2. All operational Utah data centers, combined · 48 facilities920 MW
  3. Stratos Phase 1 · proposed3 GW
  4. Stratos full buildout · proposed9 GW
Phase 1 ≈ 3× the entire current Utah industry. All 48 Utah data centers running today add up to about 920 MW. Stratos Phase 1 alone (3 GW) would be more than 3× that. Full buildout (9 GW) would be nearly 10× the entire current Utah industry. It would be added on top of Utah's grid, not drawn from it.
Money & governance

The $108M promise, the tax breaks, and who controls the land.

The $108M / year figure is a full-buildout projection. The reviewed public record does not identify a clawback if jobs or revenue fall short.

Who controls the land?

If consent is granted, MIDA, not Box Elder County, becomes the land-use authority inside the project area for at least 50 years.

  • MIDA = Military Installation Development Authority (created by Utah Legislature, 2007).
  • Development Review Committee: 8 members. 1 MIDA executive (chair), 6 county-recommended technical experts, 1 non-voting landowner.
  • Project area duration: at least 50 years per MIDA's testimony.
  • What the county can still stop: not clearly specified in the public record.

What revenue is promised?

$108M / yr at full buildout. $30M / yr in Phase 1. Today, total countywide property tax: $76M / yr.

  1. Phase 1 · first ~3 years$30M / yr
  2. Box Elder property tax today$76M / yr
  3. Stratos full buildout · claimed$108M / yr

Plus an up-front $5.2-5.4M / yr × 3 yrs starting at the first building permit. (April 22 said $5.2M; April 27 said $5.4M.)

What tax breaks are granted?

Three concessions reduce what the county would normally collect on a project this size.

  • Energy-use tax 6% → 0.5%

    92% reduction in the state energy-use tax rate for the project.

  • Personal-property tax 100% relief

    Data-center equipment fully exempt.

  • Real-property tax 80% rebate

    80% rebated to the developer. Only 20% flows to taxing entities.

The $108M / yr revenue claim is what's left after these concessions are applied.

Who else is affected? Every local taxing entity.

"County revenue" is shorthand. Several taxing authorities normally receive a portion of property and energy-use taxes from a project this size:

  • Box Elder County General Fund. Funds the sheriff, county roads, public health, county administration.
  • Box Elder School District. Funded primarily by property tax. The 80% real-property rebate reduces what flows to schools.
  • Special service districts. Fire, water, sewer, and library districts each draw from property tax.
  • State of Utah. Energy-use tax has a state portion. The 6% → 0.5% cut directly affects state revenue.
  • Cities and towns. The project area is unincorporated, but adjacent towns (Tremonton, Snowville, Brigham City) absorb traffic, workforce, and infrastructure pressure without a direct claim on the project tax base.

In the reviewed public record, the $30M Phase 1 / $108M full-buildout figures describe what flows specifically to Box Elder County after MIDA's distribution rules and the tax cuts above are applied. The exact distribution to each entity depends on the final interlocal agreement, which has not been signed.

What is not guaranteed? The $108M / yr depends on full buildout (10-year horizon), 4,000 construction and 2,000 permanent jobs, and continued energy and compute taxation through that buildout. The reviewed meeting record contains no clawback mechanism if jobs or revenue fall short. See the commissioner Q&A below for what was asked and what was answered.
In the room

What the commissioners asked, and what they were told.

Eighteen questions raised by Box Elder County commissioners in the April 22 and April 27, 2026 meetings, with the substance of the answers given. The summary below shows where the public record stands; click any question to expand the full exchange and link to its moment in the recording.

Across both meetings: where things stand

Strongly answered

  • Infrastructure funding responsibility (developer up front)
  • Revenue projections

Partially answered

  • Jobs
  • Governance
  • Economic benefits

Not fully answered

  • Environmental impacts (studies pending)
  • Enforcement of promises
  • Long-term public costs
  • State vs local control

April 27, 2026 · Special Commission Meeting

Watch the full meeting on YouTube →

Timeline / UrgencyAsked by: Commissioner Vincent Why is this project being moved forward on such an accelerated timeline?

Answer summary. The project is competing with other states. There is an opportunity to secure limited energy-generation technology. The timeline is driven by external competition and equipment availability.

Key point. Urgency is external, not based on local readiness.

Watch at 17:50 on YouTube
Military useAsked by: Commissioner Bingham What percent of this project would actually be considered military use?

Answer summary. No percentage was provided. Framed broadly as supporting national security and military systems.

Key point. Military role is not quantified.

Watch at 19:05 on YouTube
Pollution concernsAsked by: Commissioner Vincent (chair, prompting topic) What about pollution in our communities?

Answer summary. Project will follow state environmental permitting. No specific emissions or pollution data presented.

Key point. Relies on regulatory process rather than defined impacts.

Watch at 20:55 on YouTube
Environmental & water studiesAsked by: Commissioner Perry What environmental or water impact studies have been completed?

Answer summary. Preliminary due diligence done. Formal studies (environmental, traffic, etc.) not yet complete. Will occur during permitting.

Key point. Key studies are still pending.

Watch at 21:20 on YouTube
Job estimatesAsked by: Commissioner Vincent What is the basis for the estimate of 2,000 jobs?

Answer summary. Based on projected data center operations and potential manufacturing. Described as a conservative estimate.

Key point. Jobs are projections, not guarantees.

Watch at 22:55 on YouTube
Tax incentivesAsked by: Commissioner Vincent What is the basis for the level of tax incentives being proposed?

Answer summary. No detailed formula provided. Justified by projected revenue scale.

Key point. Lacks transparent calculation.

Watch at 23:50 on YouTube
Revenue timingAsked by: Commissioner Bingham When do tax revenues actually begin?

Answer summary. Standard property tax lag applies. Developer provides about $5M per year up front for the first 3 years.

Key point. Up-front payments offset delayed tax revenue.

Watch at 25:55 on YouTube
Governance / authorityAsked by: Commissioner Bingham Who has final authority if there is a disagreement?

Answer summary. MIDA has land-use authority. County participates through the development review committee.

Key point. Shared process, but MIDA retains primary authority.

Watch at 36:55 on YouTube
Environmental protections (wildlife)Asked by: Commissioner Perry What protections will exist for sensitive habitats like Locomotive Springs?

Answer summary. Future studies will determine impacts. Possible mitigation measures (buffers, coordination).

Key point. No concrete protections defined yet.

Watch at 37:45 on YouTube
Energy source (natural gas)Asked by: Commissioner Vincent Why is natural gas being used instead of alternatives like solar?

Answer summary. Natural gas is currently the only scalable option. Ruby Pipeline enables large-scale generation.

Key point. Decision driven by feasibility and scale.

Watch at 32:50 on YouTube
Long-term economic riskAsked by: Commissioner Bingham What happens if energy demand drops in the future?

Answer summary. Revenue tied to energy consumption. Assumes continued high demand.

Key point. No downside scenario clearly addressed.

Watch at 39:55 on YouTube
State influenceAsked by: Commissioner Bingham How much influence will come from the state?

Answer summary. Project described as locally managed with MIDA. No detailed clarification of state control.

Key point. Level of state influence remains unclear.

Watch at 48:05 on YouTube
Infrastructure responsibilityAsked by: Commissioner Perry Who pays for infrastructure?

Answer summary. Developer pays for infrastructure up front. Infrastructure transferred to the county later.

Key point. Long-term maintenance becomes public responsibility.

Watch at 50:20 on YouTube
Public services (fire, EMS)Asked by: Commissioner Perry Who provides emergency services?

Answer summary. County expected to provide services. Possible supplemental arrangements.

Key point. Ongoing costs likely shift to county.

Watch at 52:25 on YouTube
Accountability for job promisesAsked by: Commissioner Perry What happens if projected jobs are not delivered?

Answer summary. No enforcement mechanism described. Confidence based on expected demand.

Key point. No guarantees or penalties outlined.

Watch at 59:45 on YouTube
Transparency / late notificationAsked by: Commissioner Perry Why was the county commission informed late?

Answer summary. Acknowledged as oversight. Attributed to fast-moving process.

Key point. Transparency issue confirmed.

Watch at 43:20 on YouTube

April 22, 2026 · Regular Commission Meeting

Watch the full meeting on YouTube →

Up-front costsAsked by: Commissioner Bingham Are you comfortable talking about the up-front costs to the county?

Answer summary. Developer provides about $16M over 3 years (about $5.2M/year).

Key point. Up-front funding exists, adequacy uncertain.

Watch at 26:46 on YouTube
Growth & infrastructure impactAsked by: Commissioner Perry How will the county handle growth impacts like infrastructure and services?

Answer summary. Future tax revenue expected to fund infrastructure. No detailed plan provided.

Key point. Relies on projected revenue rather than defined strategy.

Watch at 28:01 on YouTube
Sources and methodology

I brought receipts.

Every number on this page traces back to a public source. Meeting-derived facts link directly to the moment in the YouTube recording. Federal and state numbers link to the agency dataset. Estimates show their math. If a number isn't on this list, it isn't on the page.

Source meetings

  • Box Elder County Special Commission Meeting, April 27, 2026 Public recording on YouTube. Primary source for most MIDA-stated numbers cited below. Watch full meeting →
  • Box Elder County Commission Meeting, April 22, 2026 Public recording on YouTube. Earlier presentation of the same proposal. Watch full meeting →

Power & capacity

  • 9 GW full buildout · 3 GW Phase 1 · 40,000 acres Stated by Hilary Venable (MIDA project area director) at the April 27, 2026 special meeting. Note: she said "7.5 to 8 GW" in the meeting; broader public reporting and MIDA board materials reference up to 9 GW. Watch at 3:45 →
  • 3 GW Phase 1 confirmation Stated by Paul Morris (MIDA Executive Director) at the April 22, 2026 commission meeting. Watch at 20:44 →
  • Utah net summer generating capacity: 10,277 MW (2024) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Utah Electricity Profile 2024 (released Nov 10, 2025). eia.gov/electricity/state/utah →
  • Utah total annual electricity generation: 35.1 TWh (2024) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Utah Electricity Profile 2024 (in-state generation). eia.gov/electricity/state/utah →
  • Utah household count: ~1.18M (2024) U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, 2024 ACS 1-year estimates. census.gov/quickfacts/UT →
  • Utah residential electricity ~9,288 kWh/yr per household EIA Sales, Revenue, and Average Price tables (2024). eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price →
  • 5.1M Utah-style homes from 9 GW (derived) Step-by-step: 9 GW × 60% capacity factor × 8,760 hr/yr = 47,304,000 MWh/yr = 47.3 TWh. Divided by 9,288 kWh/yr per Utah household = ~5,093,000 households, rounded to 5.1M. Phase 1 (3 GW) yields ~15.8 TWh ÷ 9,288 kWh = ~1.7M households-equivalent.
  • 3× Phase 1 / ~10× full buildout vs all operating Utah data centers (derived) Step-by-step: all 48 operational Utah data centers combined draw ~920 MW (Deseret News, April 2026). Stratos Phase 1 = 3,000 MW ÷ 920 MW = ~3.3× the entire current Utah industry. Stratos full = 9,000 MW ÷ 920 MW = ~9.8×, rounded to ~10×.

Emissions

  • MIDA has not published an emissions estimate for the project Reviewed both meeting recordings (April 22 and April 27) end-to-end; no quantified CO2, NOx, or particulate figures were presented for Phase 1 or full buildout. The numbers on this page are derived as described below.
  • Stratos Phase 1 ≈ 6.4 MMT CO2/yr · Full buildout ≈ 19.3 MMT CO2/yr (derived) Calculated as: GW capacity × 60% capacity factor × 8,760 hours × 900 lb CO2/MWh ÷ 2,204.6. Emission factor from EPA's standard for new natural-gas combined-cycle plants. EPA GHG equivalencies →
  • Utah electric-power CO2: 20.9 MMT (2023) EIA State Energy Data System (SEDS): Utah electric power CO2. eia.gov SEDS Utah →
  • "4.2 million cars on the road" framing EPA estimates a typical American passenger vehicle emits 4.6 metric tonnes CO2/yr. 19.3 MMT ÷ 4.6 ≈ 4.2 million cars. EPA equivalencies →

Natural gas

  • Stratos Phase 1 ≈ 97 Bcf/yr · Full buildout ≈ 290 Bcf/yr (derived) Step-by-step for 1 GW at 60% capacity factor:
    · Generation: 1 GW × 60% × 8,760 hr/yr = 5,256,000 MWh/yr
    · Heat input: 5,256,000 MWh × 6,400 Btu/kWh × 1,000 = 33,638 billion Btu (33.6 TBtu)
    · Volume: 33.6 TBtu ÷ 1,037 Btu per cubic foot of pipeline gas = ~32.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per GW
    Phase 1 (3 GW) → ~97 Bcf/yr. Full buildout (9 GW) → ~290 Bcf/yr. Heat-rate source: EIA AEO 2025 Cost & Performance Table 8.2 →; gas heat content: EIA heat content of natural gas →
  • Utah natural gas consumption: 276.5 Bcf (2024, all sectors) EIA Natural Gas Consumption by End Use, Utah. eia.gov/ng/Utah →
  • Ruby Pipeline as project gas source Hilary Venable named the Ruby pipeline as a key site-selection asset in her opening April 27 presentation. Austin Pritchett later called it "the catalyst of the project." Watch at 28:58 → · Pipeline capacity 1.5 Bcf/day per EIA. Tallgrass Energy acquired Ruby in 2023 after Chapter 11.

Water

  • 3,000 AF on-site + 10,000 AF near Snowville under contract = 13,000 AF water rights Stated by Austin Pritchett in answer to Hilary Venable in the April 27, 2026 meeting. Watch at 12:30 →
  • "Zero-water turbine" technology aspiration / not yet contractually secured Stated by Hilary Venable, April 27, 2026. The 13,000 AF reflects current rights as a fallback; closed-loop air-cooled turbines would lower demand significantly if secured. Watch at 11:51 →
  • 13,000 acre-feet ≈ 4.24 billion gallons / year ≈ 11.6 million gallons / day Conversion: 1 acre-foot = 325,851.4 U.S. gallons (USGS). 13,000 × 325,851 ≈ 4,236,063,000 gal/yr. USGS Circular 1268 →
  • Great Salt Lake annual structural deficit: ~800K–1.2M AF/yr since 2020 Compiled from USGS water-budget research and Grow the Flow analysis. USGS OFR 78-912 → · Grow the Flow (April 2026) →

Money & jobs

  • $30M/yr Phase 1 · $108M/yr full buildout · claimed county revenue Stated by Hilary Venable, April 27, 2026 meeting. Same figures presented by Paul Morris in the April 22 meeting. Watch at 24:11 (Apr 27) → · Watch at 25:37 (Apr 22) →
  • Up-front developer payments: $5.2M/yr × 3 years (Apr 22) versus $5.4M/yr (Apr 27). Discrepancy worth verifying. Two different numbers were stated across the two meetings. Worth verifying against the final interlocal agreement. Watch Apr 22 at 26:52 →
  • Box Elder County total countywide property tax: ~$76M/yr Stated by a county commissioner during the closing portion of the April 27 meeting: "if you take all the property taxes that are paid in this county, it's $76 million a year for every property tax that's paid in this county. And this return that we're talking about with full development would be $108 million." Watch at 1:16:46 →
  • Buildout: ~10 years · 4,000 construction jobs · 2,000 permanent jobs Stated by Hilary Venable, April 27, 2026 meeting. Watch at 23:06 →
  • Energy-use tax reduced from 6% to 0.5% for the project Reported by Deseret News covering the proposal; the rate change is enabled by MIDA's authority to set differential tax rates inside a designated project area. Deseret News → · Utah Code Title 63H Ch. 1 (MIDA Act) →
  • 100% personal-property tax relief for data-center equipment Utah's existing data-center incentive program exempts qualifying personal property (servers, cooling, switchgear) for facilities ≥150,000 sq ft. Utah Code 59-12-104 (sales/use exemption) → · context summary: Ryan: Utah Credits & Incentives 2025 →
  • 80% real-property tax rebate to developer Project-specific concession in the proposed interlocal agreement between MIDA and Box Elder County. The 80%/20% split was reported in the meeting record and Deseret News coverage. Deseret News → · final agreement was tabled at both April 22 and April 27 commission meetings.
  • MIDA created by Utah Legislature in 2007 Military Installation Development Authority Act, originally enacted by the Utah Legislature in 2007 to support economic development at and near military bases (initially Hill Air Force Base). Utah Code 63H-1-101 (Authority creation) →
  • MIDA project area duration · 50-year expectation Stated by Hilary Venable at the April 27 meeting that the project area "would likely never cease to exist" and MIDA expected to be there for at least 50 years. Project areas under Utah Code 63H-1 may extend up to 75 years. Watch at 36:55 →
  • 8-member Development Review Committee Stated by Hilary Venable at the April 27, 2026 meeting: 1 MIDA executive (chair), 6 county-recommended technical experts, 1 non-voting landowner. Watch at 36:55 →

Other Utah data centers

  • ~920 MW operational across 48 Utah data centers · 2.6 GW under construction Deseret News, April 2026. Deseret News →
  • Novva, West Jordan: 200 MW on-site gas (approved Dec 2024) Grist, Utah data-center boom coverage. Grist →
  • Joule Capital Partners, Millard County: 1 GW Phase 1 (proposed 2025) Deseret News, October 2025. Deseret News →

Method & assumptions

Every estimated number on this page is built from these inputs. Each topic-specific source group above (Power, Emissions, Gas, Water) shows the full step-by-step arithmetic for its derived figures.

  • GW vs TWh: what's the difference? GW measures power (rate at any instant); TWh measures annual energy (total over a year). Conversion: GW × 8,760 hr × capacity factor = TWh/yr. So 9 GW × 0.6 × 8,760 ≈ 47.3 TWh/yr.
  • Capacity factor (CF): 60% - used in every electricity, gas, and emissions derivation Modern natural-gas combined-cycle (NGCC) plants in the U.S. fleet ran at 57–60% CF in 2022–2024 per EIA. A captive plant designed to power a 24/7 data center could realistically run higher (75–85%), so 60% is conservative; actual annual output (and emissions and gas burn) would likely be higher. EIA NGCC utilization →
  • NGCC heat rate: ~6,400 Btu/kWh - used in gas-burn derivation Heat rate is the fuel energy a plant must consume per unit of electricity produced. Modern combined-cycle new-build heat rates from EIA AEO 2025 cluster around 6,400 Btu/kWh at full load. Older plants run higher (7,000–9,000+). EIA AEO 2025 Table 8.2 →
  • CO2 emission factor: 900 lb/MWh - used in emissions derivation EPA new-source performance standard for new NGCC is 1,000 lb CO2/MWh; modern fleet operating data clusters from 800–1,000 lb/MWh. 900 lb/MWh is a defensible mid-fleet value used here. C2ES summary →
  • Pipeline natural-gas heat content: ~1,037 Btu/cubic foot - used in Bcf derivation Standard EIA reference value for U.S. average pipeline gas. Used to convert from Btu (heat input) to cubic feet (volume). EIA heat content of natural gas →
  • Per-passenger-vehicle CO2: 4.6 metric tonnes/yr - used in cars-equivalent derivation EPA average for a typical American passenger vehicle. 19.3 MMT (Stratos full) ÷ 4.6 = 4.2M cars-equivalent. EPA GHG equivalencies →
  • Per-Utah-household electricity: 9,288 kWh/yr - used in homes-equivalent derivation EIA Sales, Revenue, and Average Price tables (2024). 47.3 TWh (Stratos full) ÷ 9,288 kWh = ~5.1M households-equivalent. EIA residential price tables →
  • Acre-foot to gallons: 1 AF = 325,851.4 U.S. gallons - used in water conversion USGS standard conversion. 13,000 AF × 325,851 ≈ 4.236 billion gallons/yr. USGS Circular 1268 →
  • Why "water rights, not demand" The 13,000 AF figure comes from MIDA describing rights they have purchased or contracted (3,000 AF on-site + 10,000 AF near Snowville). Actual annual project water consumption would depend on cooling technology choices not yet finalized. MIDA stated the goal is air-cooled / closed-loop with much lower consumption, but that tech is "very close, not solidified" per the April 27 meeting record.
  • Confidence and freshness Capacity, generation, and gas figures are estimates: they apply published EPA/EIA factors to MIDA's stated GW capacity. They are reproducible from the inputs above and labeled "estimated" on the page. MIDA has not published a project-specific environmental-impact study, water-demand estimate, or emissions estimate. If MIDA later publishes those, this page should be updated to use the published values.
View map