Rocky Mountain Power proposes second feed, new poles for Castle Valley; commission tables decision

At a Planning and Land Use Commission meeting on Aug. 7, 2025, Rocky Mountain Power presented an application to install a redundant electrical feed into Castle Valley — a project the company says would add roughly 1,100 feet of distribution line and require several new poles to improve reliability for about 370 customers in town.

Dan Vink, manager for Rocky Mountain Power for three counties, told the commission the project originally was scoped at about $160,000 but has risen to roughly $450,000. "I presented this project, at the start of it, and ... had the plans to spend about, about a $160,000 on this project. It has ... got up to about $450,000," Vink said. He described the work as creating a looped, three‑phase feed so portions of the town could be restored from a second direction during outages.

The utility said the main elements are: installing a redundant feed near the fire station, replacing and upgrading some existing overhead poles, and adding three to five new distribution poles where no poles currently exist in order to "complete the circuit." Vink said one pole would be a dead‑end, "clean" pole (a pole with no transformer or other equipment) needed to transition to underground line where the design calls for it.

Why it matters: Rocky Mountain Power said the looped feed would reduce the number of customers affected by any single outage and speed restorations. The company described seasonal "enhanced safety settings" that can cause wider outages when fire risk is high; a second feed would allow some areas to be reenergized from an alternate direction while crews repair the fault. The utility estimated the project would mainly affect customers along Shafer Lane and Castle Valley Drive and said it specifically targets roughly 370 town customers.

Costs, undergrounding and rights: Vink told the commission that state public‑utility rules do not allow the utility to shift the incremental cost of placing existing overhead lines underground onto all ratepayers; customers who request underground conversion typically must pay the difference. "If the customers want it, then they have to pay for that cost," Vink said. He also cautioned that putting line underground at washes or flood‑prone crossings increases engineering complexity and cost — sometimes by "tens upon tens of thousands of dollars" for concrete encasement, steel conduit and erosion protection.

Residents raised visual‑impact and access concerns. Several property owners on Shafer Lane and in the cul‑de‑sac asked whether the new poles could be moved slightly, or whether the line could be put underground for portions adjacent to homes and view corridors. Vink said Rocky Mountain Power staff will meet individually with impacted residents and that the company has some flexibility to move pole locations by 10–15 feet to reduce visual impact. He also said one landowner has offered a possible easement route that could avoid a wash, but noted that obtaining BLM easements and the cultural/environmental reviews that accompany work on federal land can add months to a project timetable.

Engineering tradeoffs: The utility described additional constraints that shaped the proposed route: the need for a clean dead‑end pole to transition to underground distribution, limits to how far underground cable can carry load compared with overhead conductor, the need for additional fusing points when overhead and underground segments alternate, and the shorter service life of underground cable compared with many overhead conductors and poles. Vink said underground cable lifespans are typically 30–40 years in the company’s experience, while many overhead poles and conductors in the area date from the 1950s and continue to function.

Timeline and approvals: Vink said the material for the project was procured and crews were assigned; the utility has a funding window and must complete the work this calendar year to keep the allocated reliability funds. He said Rocky Mountain Power has paused construction pending the commission’s and town council’s review and would return to work only after local approvals. Residents and commissioners asked the company to notify and consult all affected property owners before construction.

Commission action: After extended public comment and questions, the Planning and Land Use Commission voted to table the nonroutine electric installation application and continue discussion at a special meeting on Aug. 14, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. The motion to table was made during the Aug. 7 meeting; the vote record as read aloud in the meeting shows five affirmative votes. The commission asked Rocky Mountain Power to contact impacted property owners and return with revised drawings or clarifications about pole placement, any proposed underground segments, and engineering measures for washes and flood crossings.

Next steps and outreach: Vink said he will meet individually with affected residents to adjust pole location where feasible, provide cost estimates for underground alternatives where requested, and have the company’s estimating team deliver updated plans before the Aug. 14 meeting. Commissioners and residents said they expect written notice of proposed pole locations and any easement requests in advance of the follow‑up meeting.

No formal change to ordinances or franchise agreements was made at the meeting; commissioners indicated they would seek an interpretation of the town’s electric‑installation ordinance (referred to in the discussion as "Ordinance 92‑1") before making a final recommendation to council.

Residents who spoke at the meeting emphasized reliability as well as view‑shed and construction impacts; the commission instructed staff and the utility to continue direct outreach and requested updated material for the next meeting.