PUC denies motion to strike and denies summary‑judgment motion in Colorado Power Pathway siting dispute

Public Utilities Commission · February 18, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission denied Public Service's motion to strike portions of Albert County witness testimony and denied the county's motions for prehearing legal rulings and summary judgment, keeping the evidentiary hearing schedule intact.

DENVER — During its Feb. 18 meeting the Colorado Public Utilities Commission denied a motion by Public Service Company of Colorado to strike portions of Albert County witnesses’ testimony in the Colorado Power Pathway siting dispute and then denied Albert County’s prehearing legal‑question and summary‑judgment motions, keeping the scheduled evidentiary hearing in place.

Alec Peters, commission counsel, summarized the company’s motion to strike testimony from three County witnesses, which alleged company representatives told locals that the route was a "done deal" and that Public Service could appeal local denials to the Commission. "Accordingly, the motion should be denied," Peters said after explaining the evidentiary standards and the party‑opponent and agency‑agent exceptions that, in his view, supported admission.

The commission agreed and voted 3‑0 to deny Public Service’s motion to strike. Later in the same proceeding, counsel Ruthie Harper recommended denying Albert County’s request for a prehearing ruling on statutory interpretation and a separate motion for summary judgment, saying those matters involve mixed questions of law and fact that require a full evidentiary record. "The county has the burden to prove the absence of any genuine issue of material fact," Harper told commissioners.

Commissioners Plant and Gilman joined Chair Blank in both unanimous decisions. The commission indicated the motions on the legal standards and summary judgment were not appropriate to resolve before the hearing and that disputed factual questions should be tested at the evidentiary hearing.

What happens next: The evidentiary hearing in the Colorado Power Pathway siting case will proceed as scheduled; parties are free to address legal interpretation and factual disputes in the hearing record and post‑hearing statements of position.

The PUC’s rulings preserve the challenged testimony in the record and keep factual disputes open for the full hearing process.