Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Elbert County directs counsel to appeal PUC decision on Excel Power Pathway

Elbert County Board of County Commissioners · June 10, 2026
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

After an executive session, the Board of County Commissioners voted to direct county counsel to work with outside counsel to file an appeal in Elbert County District Court challenging the PUC denial related to the Excel Power Pathway matter.

Following an executive session on legal strategy, the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners voted June 10 to direct county attorney Lance Ingalls to work with outside counsel to file an appeal in Elbert County District Court challenging the Public Utilities Commission's decision concerning the Excel Power Pathway.

County attorney Lance Ingalls summarized the legal scope for a potential appeal, telling the board that "appeals are limited to purely legal issues, and they're limited to the record that was before the PUC." He also said the board could consider a later request for a stay of the PUC order, but that the immediate decision was whether to authorize counsel to pursue an appeal.

After discussion in executive session, Commissioner Sorter moved to direct Ingalls to coordinate with outside counsel and file the appeal; the motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote. No further procedural timeline was announced at the meeting.

The appeal direction follows public comment raising where the county could pursue remedies after a 37‑page PUC denial of the county's reconsideration. Commissioners said they had received legal advice and were following counsel's recommendation in seeking appellate review.

The board also discussed, in executive session, a proposed fee agreement with Shepherd Solar and later voted to bring a redlined draft of that agreement forward for public discussion at a July meeting, but no final fee agreement was approved on June 10.