Residents warn of wildfire risk, eminent-domain threats as PUC hears Xcel’s Power Pathway appeal in El Paso County

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission took public comment Jan. 26 in Rush on Xcel Energy’s request to begin construction of segment 5 of the Colorado Power Pathway, a high-voltage transmission corridor the company says is needed to serve the Front Range. Commissioners put the hearing on the record as part of proceeding number 25A-0355E and said an evidentiary hearing is scheduled in mid-February, with a final decision expected in April.

PUC staff framed the legal question as whether construction can proceed through El Paso County despite the county’s denial of a land-use permit and said the commission must weigh statutorily prescribed factors including the need for the line, conflicts with local land-use plans, natural-hazard risks, feasible alternatives and impacts on residents. The PUC director summarized the process for filing and how public comments enter the record.

Most speakers at the Rush hearing urged the commission to reject or substantially alter Xcel’s proposal. Residents and local fire officials repeatedly raised wildfire and wind-driven grass-fire concerns in eastern El Paso County, noting long volunteer response times and limited local water supplies. Aaron Hicks, fire chief for the Edison Fire Protection District, told the commission he had sought coordination with Xcel and had not received answers; he said temporary on-site water resources described in filings (small trailers or portable tanks) were inadequate for the scale of a fast-moving grass fire.

Several residents described specific local conditions they said increase risk. Ellie Cox presented wind and fire alerts and said volunteer departments in the corridor have small rosters and average response times she estimated at roughly 20–25 minutes. ‘‘Overhead power lines in high wind areas with very dry conditions is a disaster waiting to happen,’’ Cox said.

Multiple commenters also raised property impacts and long-term community effects. Cheryl Potts told commissioners El Paso County ‘‘receives no meaningful benefits from this project’’ and argued her community would bear visual, economic and environmental harms while electricity flows to the Denver metro area. Landowners, including Jeremy Gardner and others, described letters from the company or its contractors that they said threatened eminent domain; Gardner said some landowners were effectively forced to accept offers they considered inadequate.

Not all speakers opposed the pathway. Several landowners said they had negotiated easements directly with the company, reported reasonable interactions and said transmission access can bring local economic opportunity. Myron Sams said he believes the risk is low based on experience with existing lines and supported the project as ‘‘progress.’’

Speakers suggested alternatives to overhead towers, including different routing, undergrounding cable where feasible and greater use of existing corridors. Gary Austin pointed to recent fiber-optic conduit work along Highway 86 as an example of modern plowing technology that leaves small surface scars and asked why transmission options could not use similar techniques.

Several commenters referenced past fires and settlements during the record of prior proceedings as context for their concern; others pressed the commission to require clear, written mitigation commitments from the company if construction were to proceed. Residents and local officials also sought assurance that Xcel would coordinate directly with volunteer fire departments, provide larger on-site water resources during construction and deliver written plans addressing post-construction incidents.

The PUC did not make a decision at the hearing. Commissioners thanked the public, reminded attendees that written comments filed under proceeding 25A-0355E would carry equal weight, and confirmed that the evidentiary hearing with witnesses and cross-examination is set for early February and that a final decision is expected in April.