Recently, there has been a controversial policy debate within the burgeoning policy subsystem concerning the installation of high voltage power lines (HVPLs) in Northwest Arkansas and South Missouri, particularly in the areas under direct impact. While proponents argue that such an installation is inevitable to efficiently and reliably support the identified electric load in the region, opponents claim that the lines will degrade the natural environment and hamper the tourism-based local economy in affected regions, notably in Ozark Mountain areas. Of particular interest is to understand how local policy elites perceive the benefits and risks associated with such polemic proposals, which is critical for comprehending the formation and changes of related government policies. Based upon the dual processing model of decision making, this study systematically investigates the triadic relationships between (1) more profound personal value predispositions, (2) affects and feelings, and (3) perceived benefits and risks related to HVPLs among local policy elites in the state of Arkansas. In doing so, we analyze original data collected from a statewide Internet survey of approximately 500 local leaders and key policymakers (e.g., members of city council and chamber of commerce) about their opinions on the related issues, while considering other factors claimed by previous literature, including political beliefs, trust, knowledge level, and demographic characteristics. Analytical results suggest that grid-group cultural predispositions (i.e., hierarchism, egalitarianism, individualism and fatalism), as deeply held core values within local policy elites’ belief systems, both directly and indirectly (through affective feelings (e.g., negative valence)) shape their perceived utility associated with the installation of HVPLs. We conclude this paper by suggesting some practical considerations for better designing policy addressing controversial issues of this nature.