Utah News Dispatch
Candidates for Utah’s 3rd Congressional District clash on national monuments, nuclear energy
Celeste Maloy, left, listens as Kent Udell answers a question during a 3rd Congressional District debate at Utah Tech University in St. George, Friday, Oct. 2, 2026. (Pool photo by Jud Burkett special to The Tribune)
Candidates vying for Utah’s 3rd Congressional District made their pitches for what will be the largest district in the state, clashing over environmental issues, nuclear energy, forest management and the boundaries of Utah’s recently reduced national monuments.
Republican Rep. Celeste Maloy, going into her second general election candidacy, now for an updated district, faced Democratic nominee Kent Udell, a mechanical engineer in a debate held Friday at Utah Tech University in St George, moderated by Bob Evans from FOX 13 and broadcast by PBS Utah.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.
Maloy has represented Utah’s District 2 since late 2023. After the state’s congressional maps changed this year, she’s competing for the 3rd Congressional District’s seat, the home of Utah’s five national parks as well as posh ski resort cities, miles and miles of rural lands eyed by eager energy developers, and national monuments with controversial borders.
“I was standing in the Oval Office when the announcement was made about reducing the monument boundaries. So obviously, I support that decision. It was made by listening to elected officials from Utah,” Maloy said during the debate.
Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante are probably two of the most controversial monuments in the nation, Maloy said, because of the way they were created — by the executive branch.
“Congress should be making those decisions, and when Congress declares a national monument like Cedar Breaks, they tend to be uncontroversial.”
But, for Udell, the previous, larger boundaries, established by Democratic administrations “worked out great,” he said.
“To throw that out the window to disrupt our tourist industry, to disrupt our system, for what? A handful of sagebrush rebels and mining companies? No, that’s public land, and that needs to be protected for everybody,” Udell said, adding that if elected, he would work to get the former boundaries established by law.
Another point of contention between the candidates was on the country’s energy strategy. When Maloy thinks about the oil and gas industry in Utah, she thinks about substantial jobs for rural Utahns. When she thinks about other energy sources, she sees big potential for nuclear power.
Udell criticized that nuclear power is one of the most expensive energy resources in the country.
“We have better options. We have wind and we have solar,” he said. “So who is pushing this? Well, it seems like it is a bunch of entrepreneurs that are keeping the prices of their stocks up.”
For Maloy, the interest of entrepreneurs in a technology is a good hint to determine whether investing in it will pay off, she said. The resource would also be reliable and capable of being turned on and off on demand.
“It’s going to be the energy source of the future that doesn’t disappear. That isn’t controversial,” she said. “It’s going to power the AI future that we are going to have. AI is here. We’re going to be using it. We have to have the power to power it.”
Apart from that, Maloy said, a lot of jobs in rural Utah are in mining, oil, gas and in the future, in nuclear energy — “things that my opponent just said he doesn’t care about,” she said.
“I want to do regulatory reform and make sure that we are removing federal barriers to bringing those jobs to rural Utah. I’ve talked to people in the basin who have the training, they have the know-how,” Maloy said. “They just need the federal red tape out of the way so that they can be out producing the energy we need in this country.”
But Udell contested the notion that he doesn’t care about nuclear energy.
“I think it’s got a place. Carbon-free power. That’s great, but we don’t jump into that without having proven that it is going to work and it is going to be safe and it is going to be decreasing our energy costs,” he said. “And until that is proven, I am not in favor of it. Just hold back and make sure that we’re not being forced into buying a timeshare that we don’t want.”
