Residents in Colorado's Elbert County fight Xcel Energy over transmission line running through their properties
As Colorado's energy infrastructure ages, Xcel Energy is aiming to build 550 miles of new transmission lines to accommodate the grid and Colorado's continuous growth. However, residents in Elbert County are resisting efforts from Xcel's proposition, as a portion of the project is intended to travel through the county, which they say will disrupt their way of life. Wednesday night, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denying Xcel's application to the Board of County Commissioners at the end of the month. Until then, Xcel has begun eminent domain initiatives as well as having already acquired nearly 50% of the land needed for the project voluntarily.
Tuesday night at the county fairgrounds in Kiowa, Xcel presented their application to the Planning Commission. It went so long, it spilled over to Wednesday night. The Elbert County Staff of Community Development and Services deemed the application incomplete for not submitting more detail about wildfire protection, and recommended to the Planning Commission to deny the application, which they did.
Route of Segment 5
The entire Power Pathway project consists of five segments, with Segments 2 and 3 completed and Segment 1 under construction. Xcel's $1.7 billion double-circuit 345-kilovolt electric transmission line will be used to increase reliability across Colorado. "If we lose one of our transmission segments, we have the ability to route electricity around the state," Andrew Holder, the Xcel Community Relations Director, told the commission during Tuesday's meeting.
Xcel Energy's proposed line, Segment 5.
CBS Colorado
But for years, Xcel and those directly impacted or simply living in Elbert County have been at odds over the avenue of Segment 5. "The proposed route selected in Elbert County... is the least impactful compared to other route alternatives evaluated," said the Siting and Land Rights Manager, Jennifer Chester, in her presentation for Xcel to the Planning Commission.
"A lot of folks are ranchers. It's our charge to take care of this land where we live," says Kerry Jiblits, who lives in Elbert County.
Jiblits is a board member for the Elbert County Environmental Alliance (ECEA) with more than 400 people on its mailing list. While the transmission line isn't going through her property, Elbert County is her home. She "moved here for a reason," she says.
The group formed to resist projects that harm the environment and wildlife in the area, Jiblits tells CBS Colorado. They are environmentalists who are all in for renewables. "We're not against the project, we're against this route."
Xcel on the other hand, is looking to unlock solar and wind power potential with all that open space on the Eastern Plains. The utility company told CBS Colorado in a statement in part, "We have collaborated with the Elbert County community for four years, addressing questions, concerns and acquiring land rights voluntarily. We adjusted the project's location by 50 miles to accommodate community wishes while keeping project costs low for our customers."
Those who participated in Tuesday's public comment say otherwise.
"There was not one single person who spoke in favor of Xcel other than the Xcel representatives," Jiblits tells CBS Colorado. She and others in ECEA have met with Xcel many times and even with the president of Xcel Energy-Colorado, Robert Kenney. "Their idea of collaboration is to tell you that this is what [they're] going to do. They have not worked with us in the least."
Risk of wildfire
But the risk of wildfire is why the Community Development and Services staff in its presentation Tuesday recommended that denial. "The applicant has not submitted the request level of detail of information for proof of fire protection or risk associated with fire behavior."
"Wildfire is a huge concern out here," says Jiblits. The Magic Dog fire last October near CO-86 used aerial firefighters, Jiblits tells CBS Colorado. The water came from a body that is adjacent to the proposed Segment 5 route. "They scooped water out of a pond nearby. The transmission lines will be going right next to that pond now. How are they going to be able to access that water?"
CBS Colorado reached out to Elizabeth Fire Rescue about how they plan to work around the line in the future, but have not heard back.
Elbert County fire districts cover at least 700 square miles and firefighters in the area are mostly volunteer.
There's a way to avoid the risk. According to a 2021 study by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the utility company is taking on the ambitious goal of burying 10,000 miles of above-ground electric distribution power lines in high-risk wildfire areas, which is called undergrounding. Even though PG&E has logistical and technical challenges awaiting it, as well as a near $20 billion price tag, it's possible and currently happening.
The first speaker at Tuesday's meeting, Mike Walker of Elizabeth, said, "Xcel says it costs too much to bury the lines."
What's in it for Elbert County?
"There's no benefit. The power is for the Denver metro area," says Jiblits.
Xcel told CBS Colorado, "While we do not provide electric service to Elbert County residents, the Pathway project will provide important tax revenue benefiting the county, cities, fire and school districts."
Although Jiblits, and many in the county, aren't buying it. "The taxes that we will get from this project, will be offset by the money we lose in decreased property values and property valuations," says Jiblits.
On its website, Xcel says they've used a third-party real estate appraiser analysis, and the transmission line will not impact property vales. Additionally, Holder said on Tuesday that Xcel will pay a 1.26% tax on its new facilities, on top of a $2.5 million project impact fee.
"Their attitude is, 'We're going to do what we want. What you say doesn't matter.' They're just going through and checking boxes," Jiblits says.
Eminent domain
"There were several people who wanted to speak," Jiblits says about Tuesday night's meeting, "but who were unable to speak because of the ongoing litigation."
That is eminent domain proceedings. Xcel told CBS Colorado partly, "We remain committed to making every effort to reach a fair and reasonable settlement, but when negotiations are unsuccessful, we have to exercise our eminent domain authority."
Although alternate lines have been offered, Segment 5 is moving ahead as proposed. Jiblits says, with larger acreage farther east, families won't be as impacted from the project. "There are already rights of way out there that they could follow and use. They don't need to take our land for their project."
Xcel and Elbert County residents will have to wait more than two weeks for a vote from the Board of Commissioners on June 24.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Forbes
17 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
CNET
21 minutes ago
- CNET
Stay Hydrated With Stanley Drinkware, Now Up to 40% Off for Father's Day
If staying hydrated is on your list this summer (as it should be), you need a water bottle that's not just big enough but also keeps your water cold for hours on end. Stanley's drinkware is a solid choice, and with current discounts, you don't have to spend a fortune. The brand is currently running its Father's Day sale, with up to 40% off everything from tumblers to pitchers to flasks (lunch boxes too). As someone who's just started taking hydration seriously -- thanks to her Stanley tumbler -- I highly recommend not missing out on these steep discounts. All the deals are around only for a limited time. We don't know how long the sale or the stock is going to last, so you might want to hurry. Some of our top picks from the sale include the 30-ounce Stanley IceFlow 2.0 flip straw tumbler, which comes with an easy-carry handle. This one keeps your drinks cold for up to 20 hours, or iced for up to three days, making it perfect for those long days when you're out and about. It can be yours for just $26 after a 25% discount right now, and you can choose from multiple colors. If you're after a bigger size, consider the 40-ounce tumbler with the same features, now for $34. For people who can't part with their hot coffee or tea even in the summer, the 12-ounce stay-hot camp mug is now available for just $20. And why stop at drinks when you can also grab the 14-ounce Stanley classic food container at a 14% discount? It can keep your food hot or cold for up to 7 hours. Why this deal matters Stanley products are known for their durability and that classic minimalist design, but they often come with a higher price tag. This sale lets you grab some of the top-rated options at a discount of up to 40%, making it a great time to invest in your drinkware or related items for a lot less.
