Xcel Energy can build 48 miles of high-voltage transmission line through Elbert County after the Colorado Public Utilities Commission voted 3-0 on April 10 to override the county’s denial of two land-use permits. The override invoked a state siting statute used three times in 21 years and ordered Xcel to pay the county a $2.5 million impact fee — the same amount Elbert would have collected had it approved the permits. A bipartisan House bill introduced two months earlier would bar utilities from filing eminent-domain suits before obtaining both PUC approval and all local permits — a step Xcel did not complete in Elbert County. The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners filed a motion for reconsideration on April 22, citing the PUC’s acknowledgment of shortcomings in Xcel’s outreach to landowners and local agencies. The commission issued its written order on April 14 in Proceeding 25A-0354E.
C.R.S. § 29-20-108(5) requires the PUC to balance local and statewide interests in major electrical or gas facilities and requires an appealing utility to show the local action would “unreasonably impair” its ability to provide safe, reliable, and economical service. At the April 10 hearing, Lindsey Dundas, an assistant attorney general advising the PUC, told commissioners that commission authority prevails where local decisions conflict with statewide energy needs. PUC counsel Ruth Harper said staff concluded blocking the line would raise costs, reduce reliability, and increase emissions for electricity customers statewide. Commissioner Eric Blank said the state needs the line for grid reliability and resource adequacy.
The Power Pathway is a $1.7 billion, 550-mile transmission loop the PUC approved in 2022. The loop is built in five segments: two complete, two under construction, and Segment 5 — the final piece running through Elbert and El Paso counties. Neither county is an Xcel customer; the line moves wind and solar power from Eastern Plains generators to Front Range cities.
Xcel began discussing the route with Elbert County in summer 2023 and filed formal 1041 and Special Use by Review applications in November 2024; the county returned them incomplete three times across late 2024 and early 2025 and twice signed timeline extensions for more review. The Board of County Commissioners denied both applications on July 2, 2025, finding they failed to meet county approval criteria. Among the deficiencies: no signed Fire Protection and Safety Agreements from the Big Sandy or Kiowa volunteer fire districts. Harper said at the April 10 hearing that the missing agreements complicated the case but were not grounds for denial, noting Xcel cannot compel the districts to sign.
On August 1, 2025, Gov. Jared Polis wrote the PUC asking it to use override authority when local governments deny transmission projects for state clean energy goals. Xcel sued the county in district court that month under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106, alleging Elbert imposed unconstitutional conditions, exceeded its authority on impact fees, and improperly precluded state authority. That suit is still pending. Xcel cited the Polis letter when it filed its parallel PUC appeal in October 2025 under § 29-20-108(5).
Before the county held its hearing on the permit applications, Xcel had begun filing condemnation suits against Elbert County landowners. By June 23, 2025, the company had moved to take 13 of the 48 properties along the route. At the April 10 hearing, Commissioner Tom Plant called the pre-permit condemnation “disrespectful to the people of the community.” Plant also said the commission was working within a narrow set of legal determinations.
HB26-1278 would require an investor-owned electric utility to obtain both a CPCN from the PUC and all necessary local land-use approvals before initiating any condemnation proceeding for high-voltage transmission infrastructure. Rep. Chris Richardson, R-Elizabeth, a former Elbert County commissioner, is the prime House sponsor, joined by Sens. Rod Pelton, R-Cheyenne Wells, and Marc Snyder, D-Colorado Springs, with 16 additional cosponsors from both parties. The bill was introduced February 19 and is in the House Energy & Environment Committee; it is not retroactive and does not affect the existing Elbert County condemnations.
In its April 22 statement, the Elbert County BOCC said the county never opposed the transmission project, only the proposed route, and that Xcel had not disclosed cost analysis for an eastern alignment the county requested. The PUC takes up Xcel’s parallel appeal in El Paso County (Proceeding 25A-0355E) at its April 29 meeting. Staff has recommended the El Paso denial also be overridden.
The commission ruled on the question § 29-20-108(5) asked: whether Segment 5 serves statewide energy needs. It did not rule on whether a utility should secure local permits before condemning land — a question commissioners raised from the bench but said fell outside their legal determinations. HB26-1278 would answer that question prospectively. Whether Elbert’s regulations and conditions were lawful is a question for district court.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 