Xcel Energy is asking state utility regulators to use a little-used statute to override decisions by Elbert and El Paso counties rejecting the proposed route for the company’s $1.7 billion Power Pathway high-voltage transmission line.
The utility also asked for an expedited decision, cutting the time for responses and discovery, and even skipping a hearing, saying that the project could face construction delays, mounting costs or “at worst” risk foundering.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission agreed Wednesday to review Xcel Energy’s motion, but not expedite the proceeding, which means the process could take up to the statutory limit of 250 days.
“I would emphasize that 250 days would be the maximum, and then we’ll endeavor where possible to beat that timeline,” PUC Commissioner Megan Gilman said.
The statute Xcel Energy wants the PUC to use gives the commission so-called backstop siting authority to overrule local land use decisions on electric power and gas infrastructure projects. It has been used three times in the past 21 years.
Xcel Energy filed a motion in 2022 seeking an expedited ruling on a project in the Weld County town of Eaton, but withdrew it after the company and the municipality reached an agreement.
A few legs of a 550-mile line in play
The 345-kilovolt Power Pathway transmission line will run 550 miles bringing wind and solar power from the Eastern Plains to the Front Range. It is being built in five segments in a large loop across 12 counties from Longmont to Pueblo and then up to Denver.
Land acquisition, the company said, has gone smoothly in all the segments except Segment 5, which runs through Elbert and El Paso counties. Segment 5 also goes through Pueblo, Lincoln, Elbert, Douglas and Arapahoe counties.
On June 25, the Elbert County Commission voted to deny Xcel Energy the permits to build a 48-mile section of the line, voicing concern that the route ran through a populated part of the county and that the company would not consider another path.
Xcel Energy’s Power Pathway is being built in five segments with plans to ask for a sixth. The utility says securing right of way for the 550-mile loop was relatively smooth until it began work in Elbert and El Paso counties for the fifth leg of the loop. Segment 2, from Canal Crossing to May Valley is in service. No work has begun on Segment 5, from Harvest Mile to Sandstone. (Xcel Energy map)
The commissioners said they were also unhappy that even before getting county approvals Xcel Energy was seeking court-ordered eminent domain to get rights of way from uncooperative landowners.
The El Paso County Commission on July 24 also denied permits for the 45-mile portion of Segment 5 running through the county, citing several concerns including the risk of lines causing wildfires.
Xcel Energy filed complaints against the two county commissions in their respective district courts. “Counties cannot use that authority to effectively preclude a project that is a matter of statewide concern from coming to fruition,” the utility argued in its Elbert County complaint.
Public Service of Colorado, Xcel Energy’s subsidiary, then filed motions with the PUC asking it to grant the necessary approvals, saying it will be a challenge to meet the goal of having Segment 5 completed in 2027.
In its motion, Public Service proposed one-day hearings before the PUC each for Elbert County and El Paso County in November and a commission decision by Jan. 16, 2026.
“While Elbert County understands the urgency that Public Service now feels, this is a problem of Public Service’s own making,” the county said in a PUC filing, noting that the company waited until November 2024 to file for permits.
“The company chose this timing despite knowing the risks of delay since at least 2021,” the county said.
El Paso County, in a filing to the PUC, said its commission was never supplied with alternative siting options and was asked “to rubber stamp” Xcel Energy’s choice.
With decisions now pending at the county level, in district court and at the PUC, Elbert County argued that sorting through these “complex legal issues … will take time and should not be rushed.”
Neither Elbert County nor El Paso County challenged Xcel Energy’s right to file the motion for a backstop judgment.
There is more at stake than just a power line route, Xcel Energy said, as the Power Pathway is a backbone to providing reliable electricity and meeting the state goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Elbert County’s denial of the company’s requests for siting permits unreasonably impairs the company’s ability to provide safe, reliable, and economical service to the public in a manner consistent with the state’s emission reduction goals,” the utility said in a filing.
It also cited Aug. 1 letter from Gov. Jared Polis who called for “leveraging existing PUC authorities to evaluate and approve existing and forthcoming resource acquisitions, utilizing applicable PUC appeal authority when projects are denied at the local level.”
The letter, however, “does not purport to negate statutory requirements,” El Paso County said.
Among the requirements in the backstop statute is a public hearing in a place designated by the local government and prehearing conferences among the parties.
“We are thankful that the PUC denied Xcel Energy’s request for an expedited hearing and thankful for staff’s recognition associated with the complexities of our case,” Elbert County said in a statement. “We look forward to giving our community another opportunity to share their voice regarding this proposed transmission line project.”
Type of Story: News
Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.