414 P.3d 958
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Rocky Mountain Power planned a transmission upgrade (the Project); 0.26 miles of the proposed Segment would cross Promontory property in Wasatch County though existing line sits in Summit County.
- Promontory requested relocation; it agreed to grant a new easement and pay relocation costs but the agreement allowed Rocky Mountain to abandon relocation if permits could not be obtained.
- Rocky Mountain applied for a conditional use permit in Wasatch County; the County denied the permit under a ridgeline ordinance meant to protect ridgeline views.
- The Wasatch County Board of Adjustment affirmed the denial; Rocky Mountain appealed to the Utility Facility Review Board (Review Board).
- The Review Board found the Segment "needed" to provide safe, reliable, adequate, and efficient service and ordered Wasatch County to issue the permit.
- Wasatch County sought judicial review, arguing the Review Board misapplied the Utility Facility Review Board Act by disregarding the County's statutory authority to condition construction and require payment of excess costs.
Issues
| Issue | Rocky Mountain's Argument | Wasatch County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Review Board properly ordered County to issue permit under §54-14-303(1)(d) (prohibited construction when facility is needed) | The County's conditioning amounted to a prohibition; the Segment is "needed," so Review Board must order construction | The County did not prohibit construction but imposed conditions under §54-14-303(1)(a); local government may condition construction and require utility or County to pay excess costs | Court: Review Board misapplied statute; dispute falls under §54-14-303(1)(a), not (1)(d); set aside order and remand for proceedings consistent with County's conditioning authority |
| Scope of local government authority to condition utility facilities when facility is needed | Utility: need for facility should override local conditions if site satisfies service needs | County: even if facility is needed, County may impose conditions so long as they do not impair service and County pays resulting excess costs (per §54-14-201) | Court: County may impose conditions; Review Board erred by treating need as automatic approval; County's ridgeline ordinance could lawfully restrict location if alternatives provide equivalent service |
| Proper statutory avenue for utility appeal when local conditions cause excess costs | Rocky Mountain framed appeal under §54-14-303(1)(d) | County contends appeal should be under §54-14-303(1)(a) because County imposed requirements that could cause excess costs without agreeing to pay | Court: Appeal arises under §54-14-303(1)(a); Review Board should have treated it as such |
| Remedy and allocation of excess costs | Rocky Mountain sought mandatory permit issuance | County sought deference to its policy judgment and conditioning power; argued it must not be overridden without County paying excess costs | Court: County can require alternative siting; if alternatives increase cost, County must pay excess; remand for further proceedings consistent with this allocation rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012) (standard of review for administrative interpretation and review)