Xcel Energy’s push for 48 miles of power lines and temporary construction areas hit a stumbling block recently when the Elbert County Planning Commission recommended denial on both counts.
The Planning Commission’s June 3 meeting focused on Xcel Energy’s Colorado Power Pathway 1041 and Special Use by Review applications. The community turned out in force and the meeting ran well into the evening and eventually had to be continued on June 4.
That night, after multiple presentations, extensive public comment, and board discussion, the Elbert County Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial for both applications. The next step in the process will be the Board of County Commissioners hearing on Tuesday, June 24, at 1 p.m. in the Elbert County Fairgrounds Agricultural Building, 95 Ute Ave. in Kiowa. If the Board of County Commissioners denies Xcel’s application, Xcel will likely appeal that decision with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
The applications, for 48 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and temporary construction areas running generally northwest across western Elbert County, were deemed incomplete by Elbert County staff. Xcel Energy felt their application was sufficient and chose to move forward with the public hearing process regardless.
Despite the fact that its application was still under consideration, Xcel has already filed condemnation cases seeking eminent domain, the legal process where private property can be taken for public use, against 13 homeowners.
Xcel’s documents lacking
The June 3 meeting began with a review of the project, highlighting the portions of the application considered insufficient. Xcel has not submitted Proof of Fire Protection, a signed “Fire Prevention and Safety Agreement” form for Kiowa Fire Protection District or Big Sandy Fire Protection District, as required by Elbert County Zoning Regulations. Xcel had also not responded to comments from all referral agencies, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Elbert County Office of Emergency Management, Elbert County Public Works Department, and more.
The county listed all of the following application criteria, from the 1041 and SUR, as “Not Adequately Addressed”:
• No significant risk from natural hazards,
• No significant adverse effect on local services or capacity of delivery systems,
• Will not create financial burden on the county,
• Benefits outweigh losses,
• Will not burden infrastructure,
• Will not increase traffic congestion or burden road system,
• Will not cause significant air, odor, water, noise, or light pollution and
• Will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of Elbert County residents.
Xcel was given a chance to present an overview of their project and argued that the Power Pathway Project will improve tax revenue, bring revenue to local businesses during construction and attract new energy projects along the Pathway. Xcel also offered up a “Wildfire Mitigation Plan,” which they say addresses fire coverage in the area and wildfire mitigation plans.
During the following public comment, resident after resident expressed their disdain for the project, citing concerns about lower property values, eroding property rights, increased wildfire risk, no direct benefit to Elbert County, and on and on. Not a single person expressed support for the Power Pathway.
Elbert County Environmental Alliance Board Member Kerry Jiblits said, “As you know, ECEA has been opposed to this route from the start and has actively worked to have it changed for over three and a half years. The staff did a great job and they … said that the application has “not been deemed complete” by Elbert County. However, Xcel has chosen to proceed with the incomplete applications to Public Hearing.”
“What arrogance,” she went on. “Why are they willing to go ahead with an incomplete application? Most likely because they are willing to bulldoze through whatever Elbert County and officials say, and appeal any decision not in their favor to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. They are just checking a box with this Public Hearing … Elbert County is not a box to be checked off.”
Eric Jiblits also stood to speak about the loss of personal property rights and the way Xcel seems to be backing landowners into a corner. Most cannot afford legal representation to oppose Xcel’s use of force and eminent domain, Jiblits said, and he estimates that 56% of affected landowners are “emptying their savings and retirement accounts to fight Xcel’s theft of their land.”
Land acquisition underway
Some attendees are already engaged in condemnation proceedings with Xcel and couldn’t speak freely on the topic. Forty-eight Elbert County landowners will have the transmission line going through their property; 13 of those are currently in condemnation proceedings; and 27 have already reached an agreement with Xcel to acquire an easement.
Ramah resident Roger Shults asked commissioners to deny and oppose the Pathway. “Eminent domain, also known as condemnation, is the power of the government to take property for public use, even if the owner doesn’t want to sell,” he said. “This power is established in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that “just compensation” be paid to the property owner. Just compensation typically means fair market value.”
Shults, a realtor, conveyed to Xcel what he felt was an appropriate compensation amount. On May 8, he received an email from Xcel notifying him that the company would be moving forward with filing a condemnation case rather than making an attempt at fair compensation. “… Their next step,” he went on, “is threatening me with condemnation proceedings, which isn’t the right of a private corporation, it’s the right of a government.”
Rick Orcutt lives on property in Ramah homesteaded by his great-grandfather in 1906. “We’ve been in the cattle business since that time,” he said. “And this land is pristine, it is one they [Xcel] do not have to touch, they have constantly lied to us, misrepresented us, everything else, no offers have been made in good faith. The only offers we got were complete jokes. We’ve never been contacted by an Xcel representative, only a contractor. We’ve just been served eminent domain paperwork; we just dropped $5,000 we really didn’t have to drop in order to fight this.”
Several people, including ECEA board member Don Gray, said they’re not opposed to the project itself but are opposed to the preferred route. Many also expressed concerns about the increased risk of wildfire.
Pam Struthers, a wildland-certified volunteer firefighter who worked in Elbert County for 12 years, said she’s also opposed. “The transmission lines and associated infrastructure, they do have the potential to ignite wildfires, especially during dry and windy conditions,” she said. “The construction activity, maintenance, operations and equipment malfunctions could further exacerbate these risks in areas with already high fire danger.”
Debbie Ullom, who served 10 years on the Kiowa Fire Protection District board, said staff in Kiowa is “spread beyond thin” and exhorted commissioners to protect Elbert County property. Both Struthers and Ullom are worried about the area’s limited resources when it comes to fighting fires.
During lengthy board discussion on June 4 between Xcel representatives and the Planning Commission, Commissioner Nicole Hunt asked pointedly why Xcel couldn’t bury a least part of the line. Xcel has consistently said that burying the line is cost-prohibitive and added that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission determined that “undergrounding the route was not in the best interest of the ratepayers.” Xcel admitted they do have some buried lines in Colorado, such as downtown Denver, and said that any interested party could potentially cover the cost differential to have lines buried rather than placed overhead.
Planning Commissioner Kyle DeNardo zeroed in on whether or not the project would directly benefit Elbert County; Xcel could only specifically name short-term benefits and one local contract with the Town of Simla for water during construction. “So realistically … the benefit is minimal, I mean, sponsoring rodeos, eating at restaurants doesn’t really benefit Elbert County as a whole …” DeNardo said.
The ECEA commented, “We are hopeful that the BOCC will take the time to review the Planning Commission’s conclusions and will also vote to protect Elbert County from eminent domain for private gain. This project not only infringes on private property rights and property values, it also flies in the face of all that Elbert County residents hold dear,” they said.
Xcel defends action
Xcel Energy has maintained that the demand for more power outside Elbert County, along with Colorado’s insufficient infrastructure, make the Power Pathway necessary, and that eminent domain is necessary when land negotiations are unsuccessful.
The Power Pathway is made up of five segments totaling about 550 miles. Segment 5, partially within Elbert County, would consist of 275 poles with a 75-foot right-of-way on either side of the pole itself, totaling 150 feet. None of the towers are planned within existing right-of-way.
Xcel hopes to begin construction in Elbert County in the third quarter of 2026. The goal is to transport power from wind and solar facilities in the eastern part of the state to the Front Range. For more information about the Xcel Power Pathway, visit coloradospowerpathway.com.
Elbert County has created a webpage, tinyurl.com/elbert-pathway, that includes the documents Xcel submitted for their 1041 Application as well as the Elbert County staff presentation.
The Agenda Packet from the June 3 meeting is available at elbertcoco.portal.civicclerk.com/event/645/files/attachment/7130.
For more information about the Elbert County Environmental Alliance, visit www.ecealliance.org.