The family had sold approximately 90 acres to Xcel Energy in 2022 for $585,000 to accommodate the Goose Creek substation. However, negotiations later broke down over a separate 550-foot right of way needed to connect two wind farms to the electricity grid.
Utility Dive and the Kiowa County Independent, Xcel Energy is challenging a ruling that denied it the power to seize a disputed easement from a fourth-generation farming and ranching family, according to reporting by The Colorado Sun. A dispute over a narrow strip of ranchland in eastern Colorado has become a broader legal battle over how far an electricity utility can go to secure land for renewable energy projects. The conflict centres on Dryland Partners, a family-run agricultural business operated by Darin Dickey and his brothers in Cheyenne County.
In June 2026, Cheyenne County District Judge Mike Davidson rejected the utility’s condemnation petition, finding that it lacked the authority to acquire the land through eminent domain for the proposed generation tie lines. The judge also determined that the utility had acted in bad faith by pursuing a route that would cause unnecessary harm to the landowners despite the availability of less damaging alternatives.
The utility offered $19,000 for the easement, an amount the family considered inadequate compared with compensation negotiated for a separate wind energy connection at the same substation. The ruling could therefore have implications beyond the Dickey family’s property, potentially influencing how renewable energy developers secure land for connections to the wider electricity network.
The family proposed alternative routes that it said would reduce disruption to its farming operations. The Dickey family objected to this alignment, citing potential safety concerns for heavy agricultural machinery and possible interference with an existing natural gas pipeline right of way. Xcel maintained that its offer exceeded fair market value and argued that the family’s alternative proposals would involve prohibitively expensive changes. The disagreement over compensation, however, is only one part of the case. The central legal question is whether a regulated utility can use eminent domain to obtain land for generation tie lines that connect individual power plants to the grid. The distinction between transmission infrastructure and generation tie lines is central to the dispute. the family argued that the disputed connections primarily serve individual generating facilities rather than directly delivering electricity to consumers While utilities have established authority to acquire certain land for public transmission infrastructure. The utility has argued that the unresolved easement is delaying the completion of infrastructure needed to bring the two wind farms online. The family, meanwhile, has maintained that it remains willing to negotiate a solution using alternative routes and reasonable terms. The outcome will determine more than the location of a power line across an agricultural property. It could also help clarify the limits of eminent domain when utilities seek land to connect privately developed or utility-owned renewable energy projects to the grid.
Dryland Partners had previously reached an agreement with NextEra Energy Resources to connect its Dusty Rose wind farm to the facility.
However, on August 31, 2026, the state’s highest court declined to take up the case through this expedited route.
Xcel said it would continue with its appeal before the Colorado Court of Appeals. Xcel sought to have the Colorado Supreme Court consider the case directly, arguing that the dispute raised important questions about renewable energy development and the utility’s condemnation powers. The decision did not resolve the underlying legal questions.