Coal-plant initiative back on ballot

The Utah Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that voters in Sevier County will get a chance to vote Nov. 4 on a measure that, if passed, would allow the county's residents to decide whether coal-fired power plants should be built in their back yard.

The court's five justices heard oral arguments Wednesday and were asked by plaintiffs in the case against Sevier Power Co. for a speedy decision, in light of the approaching general election. Just a few hours after the hearing, the justices late Wednesday afternoon stayed a ruling last month by 6th District Judge Wallace Lee, who had decided that a citizen group, the Right to Vote Committee, did not have the legal right to put the matter on the November ballot. The justices plan to issue a formal written opinion later.

"We're absolutely thrilled, you can imagine," said Jeffery Owens, attorney for the Right to Vote Committee. "We're back on the ballot."

Sevier County residents will vote on a measure called Proposition 1, which aims to give power to the people to decide the fate of any proposed power plant whose primary source of fuel is coal. If the initiative is passed, it will require amending Sevier County's zoning ordinance to say that a coal-fired power plant cannot be issued a conditional-use permit without voter approval.

Sevier Power attorney Fred Finlinson said that the company, which wants to build a 270-megawatt plant near Sigurd, may request a rehearing. "We're surprised, and we're looking at our options," he said.

The company had contended that based on Senate Bill 53, which became law last May, the ballot initiative should not go forward. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley. It bans local initiatives for land-use or zoning measures and allows public protests only before zoning ordinances are set.

The measure was touted by Goodfellow during the 2008 Legislature as a way to protect private property rights from citizen-led initiatives. The bill's co-sponsor, Rep. Kevin Garn, R-Layton, said during the session that the bill's intent is to stop people from petitioning the administrative process of land developing.

But the Supreme Court decision allows the ballot initiative to go forward in Sevier County. In order for a Nov. 4 vote to take place, ballots that have been printed without the proposition on it will have to be redone, and absentee ballots already mailed out will somehow have to be recalled.

Owens said county officials knew the issue was coming up before the Supreme Court when they took a "risk" in deciding to print the ballots without the initiative. "I guess that's their problem," he said.