Xcel, county spar over wildfire mitigation, cameras and potential conditions in PUC hearing on Segment 5

Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel Energy) defended its wildfire mitigation measures, equipment and outreach at a Colorado Public Utilities Commission evidentiary hearing on Feb. 5, 2026, saying the company follows industry standards and has several operational layers to reduce fire risk on Segment 5 of the Colorado Power Pathway.

Company witnesses described the 2025–27 wildfire mitigation plan and multiple operational tools intended to reduce ignition risk: sensitive relay protection and high‑speed tripping on transmission terminals, non‑reclose operation in high‑risk periods, routine helicopter and ground vegetation inspections, and coordination with emergency responders. "The company's position is that it follows applicable industry and engineering standards to appropriately minimize the risk of wildfire associated with transmission facilities," said a company witness during cross‑examination.

On early‑detection tools, multiple company witnesses described Panorama ("Pano") AI camera systems that the company is already operating in other areas. The company said the cameras are targeted for its medium‑ and high‑risk wildfire tiers (tier 2 and tier 3) under its wildfire mitigation plan, but that actual detection ranges and triangulation can provide visibility at 40 miles or more in practice. "We have seen range of these cameras exceeding 40 miles," one company witness told the commission.

County staff and intervenors focused their questions on whether the company provided sufficiently detailed, county‑specific wildfire and emergency response materials for El Paso County and whether the company had engaged the local volunteer fire districts. El Paso County planner Carrie Parsons told commissioners she had asked the company repeatedly for a more detailed site‑level wildfire plan and for clear evidence of two‑way coordination with the three local volunteer fire districts that would serve the route. Parsons said she reviewed a document labeled a county‑specific plan the company uploaded May 7 but found it did not include all of the county’s requested, site‑level details.

The county also raised concerns about potential “leapfrog” development: staff reported they had seen proposals for solar projects that would seek to tie into the Pathway route if it were approved, and said that outcome could change the character of the rural place type along the route. Xcel witnesses said some benefits — such as state‑assessed tax revenue and development agreements to repair roads or provide other mitigation — are customary company practices and could be part of post‑approval conditions, but warned against creating precedent that would distort county permitting statewide.

Commissioners pressed the company for specificity and for possible conditions that would be enforceable if the PUC were to grant the appeal. Xcel agreed to work with the commission and county staff to shape a set of possible conditions addressing wildfire coordination, camera access and monitoring, inspection cycles, and commitments on roadside and construction mitigation; Public Service Company said it would circulate proposals to parties for review.

What’s next: The PUC continued the hearing record with company witnesses and asked parties to exchange proposed conditions and identify additional documentary evidence; commissioners said they would consider whether any follow‑up testimony or exhibits were needed to clarify coordination, site‑specific mitigation and the practical effect of any conditions.