Elbert County commissioners instruct legal team to seek reconsideration of PUC ruling on Xcel Energy Pathway route

Elbert County commissioners voted on April 22 to direct county legal staff to file a motion for reconsideration of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission(PUC) decision approving the Xcel Energy Pathway route through parts of the county.

The motion, made during open session after a closed executive session under Colorado Revised Statutes 24-6-402(4)(b), instructs the countylegal team to file for reconsideration "no later than May 1." The board approved the action by voice vote after a motion and second; the chair announced, "Motion carries."

Why it matters: commissioners said the PUC ruling prioritized a statewide interest over local land-use authority and that the approved route would place an industrial power line through the countyeconomic development zone, the county seat and along Highway 86, creating concerns about local impacts and the county's planning authority.

Don Grace, a landowner who addressed the board during public comment, told commissioners that landowners met on related issues in District Court and that Judge Slade "stayed our decisions pending what your decision is in both the matters before you today." Grace urged the board to "continue to fight ... because we believe there's a serious overreach by the PUC."

A commissioner identified in the transcript as Shrader said the executive session was "very informative" but added, "I'm very disappointed obviously with the decision of the PUC," and argued that the decision is "detrimental to our county." Commissioner McDaniel also expressed disappointment, said he had tried to work with Xcel Energy on alternate routes and supported asking the PUC to reconsider. The chair said the board was not opposed to the project itself but was "opposed to the specific route," calling the proposed alignment through local economic areas "egregious."

The motion instructs legal staff to seek reconsideration of the PUCdecision in favor of Xcel Energy and sets a filing deadline of May 1. The board did not record a roll-call tally for the motion in the transcript beyond a voice vote; the chair declared the motion carried.

County staff told commissioners they had prepared a draft public statement consistent with the board's action and would circulate it for review and attempt to release it the same day. With no additional land-use meetings on the calendar, the board adjourned.

Next steps: legal counsel is expected to file the motion for reconsideration by the stated May 1 deadline; the transcript records that a district court judge has stayed related local decisions pending the board's action, which may affect timing and downstream proceedings.