Elbert County commissioners deny Xcel Energy 1041 permit and special-use application for Power Pathway project

The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners voted July 2, 2025, to adopt resolutions denying two land-use applications from the Public Service Company of Colorado, doing business as Xcel Energy: a major 1041 permit for site selection and construction of a major public utility facility (Project No. 1041-2024-9235) and a special use by review for the Power Pathway project (Project No. SUR-2024-9236).

County Attorney Lance Ingalls told the board that the denials reflect the board’s findings from a June 24 hearing and that he had prepared draft written findings to capture the commissioners’ concerns and questions. Ingalls said the findings, if adopted, are “not the same as what staff had recommended” and read into the record an added paragraph intended to bridge the difference between the staff report and the board’s conclusions.

The board voted to approve the resolution denying the major 1041 permit and then approved the resolution denying the special use by review. Each motion carried on the recorded voice vote, with the clerk announcing “All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries.” The transcript records the approvals without individual roll-call vote tallies by commissioner.

Nutgraf: The resolutions formalize the board’s earlier, preliminary denial after a continuation from the June 24 hearing and rest on written findings prepared by the county attorney that the board said reflect testimony and presentations given at the public hearing. The decisions trigger the applicant’s statutory appeal window; the county attorney advised the commissioners not to accept media interviews during that 28-day appeal period.

The attorney said the draft SUR resolution contains a newly added paragraph (identified in the draft as paragraph m) that states: “based on the evidence and testimony at the public hearing and significantly based on the presentation of the applicant, the board is knowingly making some findings here in that are different from those findings recommended in the staff report.” The same explanatory paragraph appears verbatim in the denial draft for the 1041 permit (identified as paragraph s in that draft).

The transcript shows the board first took an initial vote on the applications at the June 24 hearing, then directed the county attorney to prepare written findings of the basis for denial. On July 2 the attorney presented the drafts and the board moved to adopt the resolutions as amended. The motions and approvals were brief; the clerk’s roll-call responses and the recorded “ayes” indicate the board carried the motions but individual named votes were not read into the record during the two item votes in the provided transcript excerpt.

The board then formally closed the land-use hearing. The transcript includes no further detail about the substantive contents of the findings beyond the attorney’s summary that the board’s conclusions differ from staff recommendations, nor does it record the applicant’s response in this excerpt. The resolutions and draft findings were available to the board before the July 2 action, the attorney said.

Ending: Because the transcript records only the board-approved resolutions and the attorney’s summary language, details in the written findings (beyond the quoted paragraph) and any legal rationale the applicant may present on appeal are not included here. The applicant has 28 days to appeal the county’s decision; the county attorney advised commissioners to avoid giving interviews while that appeal window remains open.