Commission approves ordinance change to make 345 kV+ transmission lines a permitted use with new protections

After more than three hours of public comment and commissioner questions, the Utah County Commission voted to approve a text amendment to the county land-use ordinance that will make power transmission lines rated 345 kilovolts and above a permitted use in all zones, while adding a set of standards intended to protect nearby residents and landowners.

Why the change: County land-use staff and the county attorney explained that the existing code treats 345 kV-and-above lines as conditional uses that are parcel-specific; for a long, multi-parcel transmission route that approach would require a separate conditional-use application and hearing for each parcel the line crosses, a process staff called impractical and likely to create conflicting conditions, years of delay and legal challenges. Rocky Mountain Power and county staff said moving to a permitted-use framework — while baking key standards into the ordinance — creates a predictable process for routing, notice, mitigation and compliance with federal and state controls.

Key standards adopted: The commission adopted the proposed ordinance language with three notable features discussed and added during the meeting:

- Notice: the ordinance requires clearer notice to landowners (the draft required notice at least 90 days before seeking right-of-way activity and notification of owners and lessees within a set distance). Commissioners emphasized the earlier and broader notice requirements compared to an ad-hoc process.

- Noise and measurement: the amendment requires transmission lines to meet defined noise limits measured at the edge of the right-of-way rather than at property lines and applies a more stringent daytime/evening standard than EPA guidance for similar sources.

- Location priority and setback: commissioners successfully moved to add a location-priority preference that encourages routing adjacent to existing property lines (and existing corridors) wherever reasonably feasible, and to adopt a minimum 135-foot setback from existing dwellings with specified exceptions (administrative relief for topographic constraints, reduced setback if the dwelling’s owner consents in writing, and no setback requirement if the line is fully buried).

Public comment reflected sharp divisions. Dozens of landowners and farmers urged denial, saying the change would remove meaningful local review and harm agricultural operations, property values and agritourism businesses. Concerns included alleged notice failures by the applicant, perceived conflicts of interest, friction with agricultural-protection statutes, potential flood/liquefaction risks in river-bottom routing, visual and wildlife impacts, and health concerns about electromagnetic fields near residences. Supporters — including R+ Energies — said the amendment would facilitate regional transmission planning and reliability and that the proposal includes safeguards required by state and federal regulators.

Applicant response and commitments: Rocky Mountain Power representatives (Matt Moskin and Rita Ruderman) said the company has worked with county staff and the county attorney to craft the text amendment, that the amendment does not take away landowner negotiation rights or eminent-domain safeguards, and that the company is willing to meet individually with affected landowners to discuss micro-siting and mitigation. The applicant also pointed to multiple federal and state oversight layers (FERC, NERC, NEPA, the Public Service Commission, Army Corps, DEQ and others) that govern routing, safety and environmental compliance.

Motion and outcome: Commissioner (speaker 2) moved to approve the text amendment as proposed with the additional location-priority language and a 135-foot setback from dwellings (with the exceptions described on the record); Commissioner Gordon (speaker 3) seconded. The motion passed by voice vote (3–0 in favor). Commissioners directed staff to incorporate the agreed wording and return a final ordinance text for signature and publication.

What happens next: Staff will prepare the final ordinance language reflecting the additions approved on the record and will return it for administrative completion and publication. The board and county staff noted that the facility-review board and state-level regulators retain authority over conditions and that, if a given condition imposes additional costs, the facility-review process can determine whether the county (or other local entity) must fund the difference.

No final decision on any specific transmission project — including the Spanish Fork–Mercer proposal referenced repeatedly during public comment — was made; the ordinance change would only alter the permitting route for future or pending transmission-line proposals.