El Paso County commissioners deny Xcel Energy 10-41 permit for Segment 5 of Colorado Pathway

El Paso County commissioners on July 24 voted 5-0 to deny Xcel Energy's request for an Areas and Activities of State Interest (10-41) permit to site 45 miles of 345-kilovolt, double-circuit overhead transmission line, known as Harvest Mile Segment 5 of the Colorado Pathway.

Why it matters: The decision blocks XcelEnergy's planned corridor across eastern El Paso County, where the company said the line would provide bulk transmission capacity for new generation across the state. Opponents warned the line and related development would increase wildfire risk, damage rural roads and alter long-standing ranch and farm landscapes.

The board explained its denial by citing concerns over public safety, conformance with the county master plan and uncertainty about long-term local impacts.

County staff introduced the application as a request for a 10-41 permit under El Paso Countyregulations to locate and construct a major public utility facility in unincorporated county land. Principal planner Carrie Parsons summarized technical materials and staff recommendations, describing a proposed 150-foot-wide right-of-way, temporary construction areas and an associated development agreement the applicant signed.

"This item is quasi-judicial," Parsons told the commission during the hearing, noting the board could consider only evidence in the hearing record. She also summarized the siting review criteria the board must apply under Chapter 5 of the county10-41 regulations.

Xcel project lead Andrew Holder described the Colorado Pathway as a multi-segment, statewide transmission project the company said has already won a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). "It improves the state's electric reliability," Holder said, and Xcel said the project is intended to support additional generation interconnections across eastern Colorado.

Company presenters and consultants provided technical details: Brett Dilts, county engineer, summarized a traffic-impact estimate of roughly 134 peak daily construction trips during the busiest three months; Xcel and its engineers described structure heights of roughly 105 to 140 feet, spans near 1,000 feet and typical overhead construction within a 150-foot corridor; and transmission engineer Christina Fabian said design follows the National Electric Safety Code and is sized for a 95-mile-per-hour wind design case with additional ice and concurrent-load factors.

County wildfire and emergency staff, and Xcelwitnesses, described mitigation measures. Roland Peterson, El Paso Countyfire safety and wildfire mitigation program manager, testified about the region's grassland fuels and wind-driven fire risk. Xcel described a companywide wildfire mitigation plan that includes situational awareness tools, inspections, vegetation management and a limited use of operational tools such as remote automatic de-energizing of circuits under certain high-risk conditions.

Public testimony ran more than two hours and included landowners both supporting and opposing the line. Supporters such as rancher Ray Timon, who said his property is on the proposed route, stressed lease revenue and broader grid reliability; Timon said, "I considered a very generous offer" and supported the easement. Opponents highlighted wildfire danger, road damage and potential follow-on development (solar and wind farms) that they said would change rural character. Jeremy Gardner, a fourth-generation eastern El Paso County resident, called the proposal "a land grab" and urged commissioners to protect family ranches.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on several topics including the number and placement of cameras and weather stations for early-fire detection, the ability and resources of volunteer fire departments to respond in the remote eastern plains, the status of easement agreements (Xcel said 58 of 64 El Paso County landowners had agreed to easements as of June 17), and whether the PUCdecision that approved the transmission project's CPCN meant local denials could be overridden.

After about six hours of presentation, public comment and questioning, the chair moved to deny the 10-41 permit. The motion passed on a roll-call vote: Commissioner Wysong, Commissioner Nelson, Commissioner Applegate, Vice Chair Williams and the chair all voted aye. The clerk recorded the action as the board denying the permit, 5-0.

What's next: The denial affects XcelEnergy's planned alignment through El Paso County for Segment 5. Xcel and other project stakeholders indicated potential legal appeals and regulatory steps remain possible; in the hearing the company noted the project had required and received a CPCN from the Colorado PUC, and that Elbert County earlier denied a related permit and that matter was then proceeding through separate processes.

The commissioners also instructed staff to file the county's formal action and return any applicable recommendations for implementation steps as needed.

(Clarifying details: the requested 10-41 application described a 45-mile overhead, double-circuit 345-kilovolt transmission line in eastern El Paso County; Xcel reported 58 of 64 affected unincorporated county parcels had signed easement agreements as of June 17; the applicant estimated typical peak construction traffic at about 134 daily trips during the busiest three months; proposed pole heights were typically 105 to 140 feet; typical span lengths were on the order of 1,000 feet.)