Rural landowners urge county to oppose Xcel Energy transmission route through eastern plains

Several property owners from eastern El Paso County and Rush urged the Board of County Commissioners on July 8 to oppose a proposed Xcel Energy transmission route tied to the Colorado Power Pathway, saying the line would traverse private land, damage local roads and amount to a de facto “land grab.”

Jeremy Gardner, who described himself as a fifth‑generation resident of far eastern El Paso County, told commissioners he and his family have farmed and paid taxes on their land for more than a century and urged the board to “vote no” on the project when it comes before them. Gardner said landowners received early notices and that he believed the permitting process lacked transparency; he told commissioners he had “heard chairman Geithner speak” about transparency and urged that words be matched with votes.

Penny Book, who lives in Rush, said an original proposed route crossed her property and that although the company later proposed an alternate alignment east of her land, she remains opposed. She told the board Xcel’s public materials described eastern Colorado as “clean energy rich” and said the project would serve Front Range demands rather than deliver power locally. In her remarks she called for county support to block the project’s route through private property.

Braden Watson, another rural resident, said he feared eminent domain and said many rural owners lack resources to defend their property rights in court; he urged the commissioners to act as a “first line of defense.”

Book told the board Xcel had proposed a long transmission route and described it as “mammoth poles”; she referenced a state permitting filing and said the project was connected to wind and solar development that would transmit power away from the plains to Front Range users. Book described the proposed infrastructure as “560‑mile, 345‑kilovolt transmission” in her remarks; the transcript recorded a unit error that the county should treat as “345‑kilovolt” (345 kV) when reporting technical specifications.

Commissioners and county staff offered to have planning staff explain procedural questions about scheduling and quasi‑judicial hearing rules for matters that will be considered at a later, noticed hearing. No formal motion to endorse or oppose the project was recorded on July 8.

Ending — Next steps: Speakers urged the county to clarify the permitting timeline and consider whether to take a position or identify protections for rural property owners before the matter advances to the Planning Commission or other hearings.