Perfect location: Wyoming is already the biggest net energy supplier in the country [1] so it has the required grid access, and also the 2nd lowest population density [2], next to Alaska (excluding Jackson which has become a mecca for billionaires for some reason).
Teton county manages to simultaneously have a very low population density, yet feel extremely overcrowded for a few reasons:
1. Only something like 2% of the land in the county is privately owned. Most land is NP or NFS. Also, the super rich have created land trusts in the name of "the environment" to prevent development encroaching on their estates*.
2. We get millions of tourist per year on their way to GTNP & Yellowstone.
3. People from outside communities drive hours to fill a endless supply of "good paying" jobs fueled by the tourist & ultra-rich. At anytime in the local classified, you'll find 4-5 pages of "help wanted" and maybe only 1-3 "for rent" listing
Having spent substantial time in both places, the answer is skiing and weather. While the skiing in Washington State is excellent, in the Tetons it's world-class, possibly in the top 5 best places to ski in the world. And Jackson is substantially sunnier than dreary Western Washington, where all the culture is.
> Wyoming is already the biggest net energy supplier in the country [1] so it has the required grid access,
This is a misunderstanding of what the EIA is saying. The "net energy export" of Wyoming is coal in gondola cars carried by diesel trains, not electricity.
Wyoming does not have significant grid connectivity other than what you'd expect for a very sparsely populated Western state.
The username is apt. Locating baseload plants closer to where power is used would be more efficient to provide district heating along with lower transmission costs.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WY
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...