Planning commission pauses decision on Rocky Mountain Power’s 345 kV line after notice dispute
Loading...
Summary
Utah County planners continued the conditional‑use decision for Pacificorp’s Spanish Fork–Mercer 345 kV transmission line after dozens of residents said they did not receive statutorily required notices; commissioners asked the utility to provide proof of mailings before they vote.
The Utah County Planning Commission on Aug. 29 continued action on Pacificorp’s application for a conditional‑use permit to build a 345‑kilovolt transmission line between Spanish Fork and Mercer after widespread public objections over whether affected landowners were properly notified.
Commissioners heard a two‑hour presentation from the applicant team — represented by Rita Ruderman of Power Engineers and Pacificorp project staff — describing a preferred, approximately 48‑mile route, monopole heights of 90–135 feet, a 125‑foot corridor, and extensive outreach including five public open houses and targeted mailings in 2024 and 2023. Greg (county staff) summarized the county’s jurisdiction: staff reviews only the line segments inside unincorporated Utah County and evaluates anticipated detrimental effects and mitigation under county code chapter 16.94.
During a lengthy public‑comment period, more than 40 residents and landowners — many speaking on behalf of the Salem Park Residents and Wildlife Coalition — said they did not receive the direct mailed notice the law requires for high‑voltage siting. Joseph Ybarra, speaking for the coalition, told the commission that 40 signed declarations had been collected in 72 hours asserting no receipt of notices and urged commissioners to withhold approval under Utah Code §54‑18‑304(2). Several speakers warned of potential household equity losses, harm to wetlands and migratory birds, increased wildfire risk, and health concerns for children.
Dr. Gabor Meze, a principal scientist at Exponent, who the applicant brought in to address health concerns, summarized decades of epidemiological and laboratory research and said major international reviews have not confirmed adverse health effects at exposures typical near transmission lines. "The available evidence does not confirm any adverse health effects in association with EMF at the levels we are experiencing in our daily lives," he said.
Commissioners debated their legal obligations and timing constraints. State law generally requires a land‑use authority to rule within 60 days of application, but it also allows withholding a decision “until the public utility satisfies the notification and public workshop requirements.” Several commissioners said testimony from affected landowners who said they were not notified constituted sufficient concern to pause the decision. The commission voted to withhold the decision and continue the item until Pacificorp produces documentation showing it complied with the statutory notice and public‑workshop requirements.
The continuation is procedural, not a final denial: staff said the applicant may provide additional records of its mailings and outreach, and the commission will reconvene the item when those materials are available or at its next meeting. Commissioners also noted that any conditions they consider would have to identify specific, reasonably anticipated detrimental effects and offer mitigation tied to county code.
Next steps: Rocky Mountain Power/Pacificorp has been asked to provide the mailing list and evidence of distribution; the commission will place the item back on an agenda when it has sufficient evidence to proceed. If the utility fails to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements, the commission indicated it may require additional public outreach or postpone final action.
