Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Transmission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Elbert County commissioners to deny Xcel/"Excel" transmission and solar applications
Summary
Multiple residents and an environmental group urged the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners to deny applications from the utility (referred to in the record as "Excel"/"Xcel"), citing potential property-value loss, environmental harm, eminent-domain threats and the prospect of appeals to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
At the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners meeting, several residents and a local environmental group urged the commissioners to deny a utility's recent transmission and future solar-related permit applications, citing concerns about property values, landscape impacts and potential legal pressure on the county.
Those speaking during the public comment period said the utility's filings (referred to in the record as "Excel" or "Xcel") had inconsistencies and posed threats to local landowners. Sunny Mills (27310 Forest Ridge Drive) told commissioners the project would be "so industrial in a riparian habitat that it would destroy home values and change the feel of that particular beautiful area of Elbert that overlooks Pikes Peak." She urged use of the county's comprehensive-plan process and for creative siting to avoid harming scenic and riparian areas.
A speaker identifying themselves as representing the Elbert County Environmental Alliance said the county planning commission had exposed "inconsistencies, omissions, and discrepancies" in the utility's application, and noted a claimed $2,000,000 in local tax revenue from the utility in 2024 that the speaker said public records show was $224,000. That speaker also warned the utility had threatened appeals to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and lawsuits if local approvals were denied.
Pamela Chappell (30680) said outside advocates advised caution: review contracts carefully and consider outside legal advice. Trent Chapel (30680 Mountain View Trail) focused on projected local economic impacts, saying, "If the county gets their proposed $2,000,000 a year...let's discuss land use, loss of land use, and depreciation of land value," and urged commissioners to protect local property values over regional power-supply interests.
Speakers frequently raised three themes: (1) potential damage to property values and viewsheds; (2) environmental impacts in riparian and agricultural areas; and (3) legal pressure from the utility through appeals to the PUC or district court actions. Several commenters said the utility had already pursued or threatened court filings that, they claimed, involved eminent-domain-style immediate-possession filings against landowners.
Commissioners did not take a formal vote on the applications during the meeting. The record shows public comments concluded before the meeting moved to other agenda items.
The record includes references to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and to district-court filings; speakers said those bodies could be used to challenge local decisions but did not cite specific statutes or case numbers at the meeting.
