Former El Paso County wildfire manager testifies he was told to reject Xcel filing; county and planner dispute claim
Loading...
Summary
At a Colorado PUC evidentiary hearing on Feb. 5, 2026, former El Paso County wildfire program manager Michael Peterson testified he was told by a county planner to disapprove Xcel Energy’s Pathway filing before he had reviewed it. County staff deny the instruction and say the company’s county-specific wildfire plan was uploaded and available on May 7.
A Colorado Public Utilities Commission evidentiary hearing took an abrupt turn Feb. 5 when a former El Paso County wildfire program manager told commissioners he was told to disapprove Public Service Company of Colorado’s application for Segment 5 of the Colorado Power Pathway before he had reviewed the company’s plans.
"Prior to my review of the Xcel pathways application, I was told by Carrie Parsons outside my office one morning that I should disapprove the plan because the board of county commissioners did not want it to go through," the witness, Mr. Peterson, testified after being sworn.
Peterson, who said he was placed on administrative leave Dec. 19, 2025, and terminated Feb. 3, 2026, also told the PUC that Xcel’s El Paso‑specific wildfire mitigation material was uploaded to the county’s EDARP portal on May 7, 2025, but was not added to the Bluebeam plan‑review software he used, and so he did not see it until months later.
"I was not aware of its existence prior to that," Peterson said of the May filing. Under cross‑examination by El Paso County counsel Jim Martin, Peterson confirmed the dates he received a pre‑termination notice (Jan. 29), filed a public comment (Feb. 1) and was terminated (Feb. 3).
El Paso County planning staff sharply disputed Peterson’s allegation.
"For the record, I am a principal planner, and I am not — and was not — a supervisor to Mr. Peterson," Carrie Ann Parsons told the commission later in the hearing when she was sworn as a county witness. "Mr. Peterson’s allegation that I directed him to disapprove is not supported and not factual."
Parsons and county staff also told the PUC they had access to the documents Peterson said he did not see. She explained the county’s EDARP portal creates an event log that shows when documents are uploaded and when reviewers receive them; county staff pointed to an EDARP screenshot the commission put into evidence showing a May 7 upload of a document labeled "Wildfire mitigation plan — Colorado Power Pathway: El Paso County segment." Parsons said she and other reviewers had that material and could access it through the portal.
County counsel pressed Peterson on whether he had returned reviews through EDARP (he did) and whether his failure to see a file in Bluebeam reflected procedural choices in how plans were uploaded and routed rather than intentional concealment.
The PUC did not make a legal finding at the hearing on the allegation. The panel sustained one objection to the admission of a new email offered the same day as potentially prejudicial without time for opposing counsel to review; the commission said the email could be admitted later if parties agreed.
Peterson was temporarily excused but remained available to return if the commission wanted to reopen questioning. The hearing then proceeded to sworn testimony from Xcel witnesses who addressed wildfire mitigation, site‑specific plans, cameras and related issues.
What’s next: Commissioners asked the parties to continue fact‑gathering and signaled they may take additional procedural steps if the hearing record requires further clarification about who had access to which files and when.
