Elbert County planning commission recommends denial of Xcel Energy Colorado Pathways permits

The Elbert County Planning Commission on an extended hearing night recommended denial of Xcel Energy's land-use applications for a 345-kilovolt transmission segment that would cross Elbert County as part of the Colorado Pathways project, saying the applications were incomplete and raised unresolved public-safety, environmental and property-rights concerns.

Commissioners voted 9-0 to recommend denial of the major permit (application 1041-2024-9235) and separately voted 9-0 to recommend denial of the Special Use by Review (SUR-2024-9236). The motions cited multiple sections of Elbert County's zoning rules and repeated staff findings that required materials and signed fire-protection agreements were not in the record.

Why it matters: The county recommendation is an advisory step in local land-use review; Xcel Energy has a parallel certificate process at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). If the county denies the permits the company could pursue administrative or legal remedies; commissioners and county staff said unresolved questions about emergency planning, eminent domain filings and mitigation made the applications ill-suited for approval now.

Xcel Energy representatives repeatedly defended the project as a statewide reliability and transmission initiative intended to increase redundancy into the Front Range. Parker Rosack, identified in the hearing as Xcel's senior manager of transmission engineering, said the line's purpose included moving generation from the southeast into the front-range grid and providing alternate paths in the event of outages.

"The plan typically is to replace [retired thermal units] with solar and wind generation," Rosack said when commissioners asked what would backfill retiring fossil units that now feed the Harvest Mile substation. He also described construction sequencing and said detailed natural-resource surveys would be completed closer to construction.

Commissioners and county staff pressed multiple topics in detail: the accuracy and completeness of the project's visual simulations (KOPs); the project's claimed tax benefit; whether Xcel had authority and had initiated condemnation actions; where construction water would come from; the applicant's evidence on wildlife and cultural-resource surveys; community outreach results; the county fee owed under its SUR schedule; and whether the company would fund or participate in local wildfire mitigation and first-responder needs.

Key details and numbers discussed in the hearing included: the county's estimate of the project build cost within Elbert County (about $127,488,931), the county-level construction fee at 2% of construction cost (the applicant estimated roughly $2.5 million), and Xcel's account of land-rights activity (48 landowners affected in Elbert County, 27 easements acquired, 13 condemnation cases filed and roughly eight remaining negotiations). Rosack and other Xcel representatives said construction in Elbert County was currently sequenced for 2026'027 (start in the third quarter of 2026 and substantial work through mid-2027) but would depend on permits and land rights.

Eminent domain and land acquisition: Commissioners repeatedly asked why Xcel had filed condemnation cases before local approvals were decided. Company counsel read state statutes and cited Colorado Revised Statutes (Title 38) that vest certain utilities with eminent-domain authority; the hearing included direct statutory citations given by the applicant (CRS 38-4-103; CRS 38-5-104; CRS 38-5-105). The applicant also said it had sent notice packages and that condemnation filings are part of a multi-step acquisition process Xcel uses when voluntary agreements fail. The company said it continued to try to reach voluntary settlements.

Public outreach and route selection: Several commissioners and residents questioned the accuracy and completeness of community-meeting materials and the route-selection record, including a county overlay that the commissioners said showed missing or outdated placards and mapping exercises. Commissioners flagged one KOP (visual simulation) taken on Highway 86 where nearby homes appeared omitted from the simulation; the applicant's testimony acknowledged contractors took photos to specifications and that the photo simulations reflect a specific vantage point, but commissioners said that example undermined trust in other KOPs.

Environment, wildlife and cultural resources: County staff and referral agencies asked about compliance with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey protocols. Xcel's team said they have engaged Tetra Tech for community and resource work, that targeted wildlife surveys (raptor, burrowing owl, etc.) are planned closer to construction, and that cultural resources flagged in record searches would be avoided or otherwise protected during design and construction.

Fire, emergency response and community mitigation: Commissioners and multiple fire-district representatives pressed Xcel on wildfire risk, equipment and local response funding. Xcel said it has statewide wildfire mitigation plans and conducts asset-specific wildfire planning; company representatives said they have met with local fire districts and offered to continue coordination. Commissioners said written, signed fire-protection agreements and specific resource commitments were missing from the application and staff record.

Taxes, fees and local benefits: Commissioners challenged the company's earlier tax-revenue figure for the county and said county treasurer documents showed a much smaller property tax base from existing transmission assets than Xcel had quoted. County staff and the applicant agreed a formal construction-cost statement and resulting fee calculation (per the county's SUR fee schedule, $20,000 plus 2% of construction cost) would be provided only if the county approved the project; Xcel offered to provide an Elbert-County-specific cost estimate for the record.

Decisions and next steps: Commissioners adopted staff's recommendation and voted to recommend denial of both the major permit and the special-use application. The hearing record shows the planning commission's recommendation now goes to the Board of County Commissioners; any final decision at the county level could be appealed or, separately, Xcel could pursue remedies under state statutory processes or the PUC docket.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Recommend denial of Major Permit 1041-2024-9235 (Xcel Energy Colorado Pathways Segment 5) - Motion text (as read into the record): "I move to recommend denial of the major 1041 permanent application number 1041-2024-9235 on the basis that the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the applicable approval criteria as required under the Elbert County zoning regulations..." - Mover/second: not specified in hearing record - Vote: Diana Edstrom (Aye); Dan McCallan (Aye); Kyle Denardo (Aye); Nicole Hunt (Aye); John Gresham (Aye); Didi Shott Grace (Aye); Van Sands (Aye); Robert Polodick/Politek (Aye); Kevin Kirkwood (Aye) - Tally: Yes 9 / No 0 / Abstain 0 - Outcome: Motion passed (recommendation to deny)

- Motion: Recommend denial of Special Use Review SUR-2024-9236 - Motion text (as read into the record): "I move to recommend denial of the SUR permanent application number SUR-2024-9236 on the basis that the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the applicable approval criteria as required under the Elbert County zoning regulations..." - Mover/second: not specified in hearing record - Vote: same nine commissioners recorded as voting Aye - Tally: Yes 9 / No 0 / Abstain 0 - Outcome: Motion passed (recommendation to deny)

What the record shows and what it does not: The transcript includes detailed questioning from commissioners, county staff references to missing items (notably signed fire-protection agreements and some updated studies), and multiple clarifications from Xcel engineers and counsel. The record also contains company estimates (Elbert-County construction estimate, water contract with the town of Simla, and an estimated SUR fee) and company statements about land-acquisition activity including 13 filed condemnation cases in Elbert County. It does not include a signed county-level construction-cost statement by the applicant (the county said the final cost statement and fee would be provided only after board approval) nor a finalized, county-approved fire-protection agreement.

A note on sourcing and attribution: Quotes in this story are attributed only to named participants in the hearing record. Statements summarized as "the company," "county staff" or "commissioners" are paraphrases of the hearing record when no single speaker name was provided by the transcript.

Ending: The planning commission's recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners, where the county's final land-use decision will be made. The record shows several outstanding issues commissioners identified as material to the county's land-use determination: completed and agency-reviewed wildlife surveys, signed fire-protection agreements and a detailed, county-reviewed construction-cost submission tied to the county's fee schedule. Xcel Energy has the project under a PUC certificate docket separately; county and company representatives said both processes could affect next steps for permitting, land acquisition and construction.