El Paso County commissioners say wildfire, emergency‑service and land‑use concerns justified denial of Pathway Project segment

El Paso County commissioners told the Public Utilities Commission during a July 24 hearing that they denied a 10‑41 permit for Segment 5 of the Pathway Project because the company’s filings did not satisfy multiple local criteria, most notably wildfire mitigation and the capacity of volunteer emergency services.

Chair Carri Geithner, an El Paso County commissioner, testified that the board’s vote to deny was “a cumulative thing” grounded in several factors listed in the county’s denial resolution: a failure to evaluate underground alternatives, an inadequate site‑specific wildfire response plan, inconsistency with the county master plan (risk of leapfrog development), adverse impacts on local emergency services, and harms to visual quality and viewsheds.

Geithner said county staff had reviewed the company’s materials but that the documents and in‑record correspondence left open critical questions about response times, water availability and whether local fire districts had the equipment or personnel to support a new 45‑mile transmission segment through rural eastern El Paso County. “If you don’t have people to send out to a fire, that’s problematic,” she said in explaining why volunteer‑only districts factored heavily into the board’s decision.

County planning witness “Miss Parsons” testified the applicant submitted an El Paso‑specific wildfire mitigation plan (uploaded May 7) but that the material lacked elements the county typically expects under chapter 6 of its land‑development code: historical burn maps, clear water/sourcing strategies, letters or commitment correspondence from affected fire protection districts, and concrete site‑specific measures (cisterns, camera placement and related coordination). Parsons told commissioners she recommended deferring those details to the site‑development plan stage only if binding, enforceable conditions were in place.

Company counsel and witnesses emphasized the project’s multi‑year siting study and outreach (including public meetings and multiple referral rounds), arguing the utility engaged with staff and the public. Commissioners and PUC staff acknowledged the extensive record but said the statutory balance the PUC must weigh — between statewide transmission needs and local land‑use impacts — requires the local concerns to be fully considered when a county finds criteria unmet.

The county’s resolution denying the permit was the practical record of that conclusion; it cited (among other findings) insufficient evaluation of undergrounding options, open wildfire‑risk questions, potential for urban sprawl or leapfrog development and the risk of overwhelming volunteer emergency services. Geithner said an improved, site‑specific mitigation plan plus firm, documented commitments from local fire districts would have been a step toward changing her vote but would not alone have overridden other outstanding concerns.

The county did not present a quantified estimate of incremental emergency costs at hearing; commissioners and staff said it was the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that emergency‑response needs could be met or to propose compensatory measures.

The hearing closed with the parties urged to pursue additional settlements or mitigation proposals; the commission and staff signaled they would consider options that compensate or mitigate local impacts as part of balancing local and statewide interests.