Utah County planning panel recommends denial of Rocky Mountain Power zoning change after lengthy public hearing

The Utah County Planning Commission voted unanimously May 19 to recommend denial of a proposed text amendment that would reclassify transmission lines rated 345 kilovolts and above from a conditional use to a permitted use in county land-use rules.

The change, sought by Rocky Mountain Power, would add a standards-based permitted-use path for future high-voltage corridors and remove the county’s conditional-use review for those projects. Company counsel Cameron Sabin told the commission the draft standards require compliance with federal, state and local law, noise limits measured at the edge of the right-of-way, 90-day mailed notice to landowners within 300 feet, and measures to reduce visual impacts. "Were not here tonight talking about any particular facility. This is about an ordinance for all future facilities," Sabin said.

Why it matters: Residents and several commissioners said the draft removes meaningful local review and site-specific protections that communities rely on to address noise, electromagnetic fields, wildlife and geotechnical risks. Joseph Ybarra, a Salem Park resident speaking for more than 40 families, told the commission Rocky Mountain Power had admitted in a separate filing to the Utah Public Service Commission that required newspaper notice had not been published in one earlier instance, and urged denial: "A company that admitted in writing that it failed to follow the most basic notice requirements is not a company you should reward by removing local oversight," he said.

What staff and the applicant said: County staff and Rocky Mountain Power said the proposed standards were intended to be more specific than the previous conditional-use process and to provide enforceable requirements for large transmission facilities. Sabin outlined how federal (NEPA, Army Corps, FERC) and state (Utah Public Service Commission, Department of Environmental Quality, State Historic Preservation Office) reviews address many environmental and safety concerns, and said developers must demonstrate compliance with those requirements. He also said the company had worked with staff on redlined drafts and was open to additional outreach, including in-person open houses.

Public concerns: Dozens of residents pressed multiple themes: failures of notice and inconsistent outreach; possible chronic EMF exposure near homes and schools; harm to wetlands and migratory birds; seismic/liquefaction risk for large monopoles; agricultural impacts (soil compaction and irrigation interference); and significant property-value losses if high-voltage corridors bisect residential or developable land. Several speakers urged the commission to retain conditional-use review so the county can require site-specific conditions such as setbacks, undergrounding where necessary, or mitigation for farmland.

Commission action and next steps: Following deliberation, a commissioner moved and the panel seconded a motion recommending denial; the Planning Commission voted unanimously to send that recommendation to the Utah County Commission, which will consider final action at a future meeting. The planning staff will forward the minutes and record; the applicant said it will continue targeted outreach to landowners and maintain a project website for questions.

The planning bodydid not adopt the draft ordinance as written; commissioners suggested next steps could include revisiting a May 2025 county ordinance change that added an owner-signature requirement for conditional-use filings or negotiating clearer, enforceable standards to protect homes, farms and sensitive habitats. The County Commission will take up the Planning Commissionrecommendation at a later date.