Xcel Accountability
Xcel wants applause for a system that leaves our communities in the dark
Xcel Energy wants Coloradans to believe that public safety power shutoffs are a rare, unfortunate last resort. But in the foothills of western Jefferson County, they are starting to look like something else: a new normal where working families, seniors, and small businesses are told to accept losing power whenever weather conditions get bad enough. That is not resilience. That is a monopoly utility lowering the standard of service for the very communities it is supposed to protect.
And this year, the warning signs are impossible to ignore. Colorado’s snowpack has fallen off a cliff. Official NRCS data showed statewide snowpack at just 22% of median on March 31, with the South Platte basin at 35% on April 1. At the same time, all of Jefferson County is in drought, and communities like Evergreen and Conifer just lived through their driest January–February period in 132 years. Nobody in the foothills needs a lecture to understand what that means: a longer, drier, more dangerous fire season is bearing down on us right now.
So when Xcel says shutoffs are only for extreme conditions, people have every reason to hear something different: get ready to be cut off again and again this summer. In March, Xcel said a Public Safety Power Shutoff in Boulder and Jefferson counties could affect about 18,000 customers, and the company warned restoration could take several hours to several days because crews must inspect entire power lines before turning service back on. That may sound acceptable in a corporate press release. It is not acceptable to a family trying to keep food cold, medicine safe, devices charged, or a business open.
The people of the foothills are doing their part. They clear defensible space. They harden their homes. They buy generators, stock emergency supplies, and live with the anxiety of every red-flag day. But Xcel’s answer is still to shift the burden onto customers and call it safety. You do not get to call yourself a reliable utility while training entire communities to expect repeated blackouts whenever heat, wind, and drought line up.
I’m on the side of the people who live here, work here, and pay the price for this failure. I will fight for real accountability from Xcel, stronger oversight from the state, and a simple principle: if a utility is going to collect our money year-round, it does not get to abandon our communities when conditions get hard.
Fire Safety & Wildfire Mitigation​
House District 27 includes some of the most beautiful — and most fire-prone — parts of western Jefferson County. From the northwest Jeffco mountains to Coal Creek Canyon, the Golden area, and our unincorporated mountain communities, wildfire risk is a constant reality. Dense forests, steep terrain, and continued growth in the wildland-urban interface demand wildfire policy that is practical, local, and effective.
​
Opposing One-Size-Fits-All Clear-Cutting
I do not support broad clear-cutting as the primary wildfire mitigation strategy for House District 27. While it is often presented as a simple solution, large-scale clearing can create new problems in mountain terrain. Removing too much forest cover can open wind corridors that accelerate fire spread, while also encouraging the regrowth of highly flammable scrub oak, chaparral, and understory fuels. That often means repeated treatments, higher long-term costs, and more taxpayer dollars spent with limited benefit to homeowners.
​​
​​​​​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​​
Prioritizing Defensible Space Around Homes
​
The most effective wildfire strategy starts where people live. We should prioritize defensible space around homes and structures by following Colorado State Forest Service Home Ignition Zone guidance. That means clearing ladder fuels, thinning vegetation near buildings, and reducing flammable materials within 30 to 100 feet of structures — or more on steep slopes. These steps can dramatically reduce the risk that embers or radiant heat ignite a home during a wildfire.
​
Helping Homeowners Take Action
​
Wildfire mitigation works best when homeowners have the tools to protect their own property. When cost is a barrier, grant and cost-share programs should be expanded, simplified, and easier to access. Support for mitigation work, reimbursement, ember-resistant vents, and Class A roofing is a smarter investment than sweeping forest removal projects that may not deliver lasting results. We should empower residents, protect taxpayer resources, and focus on the strategies that actually make communities safer.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
A Smarter Path Forward
Wildfire policy in House District 27 should be targeted, homeowner-focused, and grounded in local conditions. That means community education, collaborative planning, and practical mitigation efforts that protect homes without creating unnecessary ecological damage or runaway costs. Our district does not need performative wildfire policy. It needs serious, sustainable action that helps people protect their homes, their property, and their future
Metro District Reform & Protecting Community Character
House District 27 does not need more unaccountable growth mechanisms that shift costs onto residents while insulating decision-makers from real scrutiny. Too often, metro districts are sold as a convenient development tool, but in practice they can create layers of debt, weaken transparency, and leave homeowners paying the price for years through higher property tax burdens and complicated governance structures.
Why Metro Districts Are a Problem
Metro districts are often presented as a way to finance growth without burdening existing taxpayers. But too often, they become a way to push major development forward while hiding the long-term costs from the people who will eventually live there. Residents can end up with higher taxes, limited oversight, and a system that feels designed more for developers and insiders than for families, homeowners, and local communities.
That is not good government. It is not transparent, it is not accountable, and it does not build trust.
Protecting Open Land Before It Becomes a Finance Scheme
One of the best ways to resist bad growth policy is to be more intentional about land use before speculative development gets too far down the track. That is why I support encouraging conservation easements as one tool to help protect vulnerable land from the kind of expansion that often leads to new metro district buildout.
When used appropriately and voluntarily, conservation easements can help preserve open space, protect community character, and limit the spread of development patterns that leave taxpayers and future homeowners holding the bag. They are not the only answer, but they are a practical tool for communities that want more control over their future and less pressure from growth-at-any-cost politics.
A Better Standard for Growth
Growth should be transparent, responsible, and aligned with the long-term interests of the people who already live here. That means more scrutiny of metro districts, stronger accountability, and policies that favor durable community planning over short-term financial engineering.
House District 27 deserves development policies that respect taxpayers, protect local character, and put communities ahead of insiders. We do not need more clever ways to disguise the cost of growth. We need a better standard.
​