Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

A Mesa County district judge has restricted Pivot Energy and other defendants’ use of a shared private easement to access their separate properties outside of Palisade amid an ongoing dispute involving trespassing, road-safety concerns and an assault described in court filings.

The easement provides access to James Sterling’s property at 656 39 Road outside of Palisade, where Pivot Energy has leased land for a solar project. Defendants also planned to install power lines within the easement to serve the separate Summy Solar Project, which is on property that has no rights under the easement, according to the documents.

The preliminary injunction prohibits using the easement to benefit the Summy project, including installing those power lines, but does not prohibit continued access within the easement to Sterling’s property.

District Judge JenniLynn E. Lawrence also found that Sterling’s excavation created unstable slopes along the easement road that could threaten the roadway and nearby power poles.

The injunction prohibits Sterling from creating further unsafe conditions and bars defendants from trespassing on Cullen and Krista Howard’s property, including by using a shortcut outside the designated easement.

The ruling does not resolve the lawsuit or impose a blanket prohibition on nearby solar development. It addresses property access, the permitted uses of the easement and conditions along the roadway while the lawsuit proceeds.

Dispute centers on shared easement

The lawsuit was filed April 17 by James and Christine Murphy, Raven Novak, Cullen and Krista Howard, and James and Maureen Delany.

Defendants include Sterling, Pivot Energy Development LLC, Pivot Solar 44 LLC, Sturgeon Electric Company and Public Service Company of Colorado, which operates as Xcel Energy.

Lawrence issued the written preliminary injunction Sept. 25 following a Sept. 4 evidentiary hearing. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order April 23.

According to the court’s findings, Sterling entered into solar and battery-storage leases with Pivot in December 2022. Pivot subsequently entered agreements with Xcel to connect solar facilities to the electrical grid, and Sturgeon contracted to install utility infrastructure.

According to the plaintiffs’ statement in the case-management order, Sterling removed a community gate and kicked neighboring landowner Cullen Howard in the chest when confronted. The statement says Sterling later pleaded guilty to third-degree assault and is subject to a mandatory protection order.

The judge distinguished between the solar project on Sterling’s property and the Summy Solar Project south of the easement properties. The Summy property is not among the parcels served by the easement.

Lawrence found that defendants intended to install power infrastructure within the easement to connect the Summy project to an Xcel substation.

“None of the Defendants have any present legal right to use the Easement to benefit the Summy Property,” Lawrence wrote.

The judge concluded the landowners had established a reasonable probability of prevailing on that issue and that an injunction was necessary to protect their property rights while the litigation continues.

Trespass and road safety

The order also addresses a shortcut across the northeast corner of the Howards’ property that lies outside the designated easement.

Lawrence found that property owners had historically used the shortcut with permission, but intensified use led the Howards to revoke that permission and post no-trespassing signs.

According to the order, video evidence showed each defendant or its employees trespassing on the property before the Howards roped off the shortcut.

The judge also found Sterling removed substantial amounts of soil along the roadway, creating vertical cuts of eight to 10 feet. The excavation left unsecured slopes of loose dirt likely to wash into the road and potentially destabilize nearby power poles. The order states the cut-away banks could fail at any time.

The injunction prohibits Sterling from creating further unsafe conditions, including additional vertical cuts that leave unstable slopes.

Defendants dispute restrictions

In their statement included in the case-management order, Pivot and Sterling argue the easement broadly permits access and utility uses benefiting Sterling’s property, including uses associated with solar development.

They contend the agreement does not restrict access to residential purposes or require neighboring owners’ approval before reasonable improvements are made. They also deny that their use and modifications have overburdened the properties crossed by the easement.

Xcel denies wrongdoing and argues the agreement permits installation of electrical distribution lines to connect the solar projects. Alternatively, the utility asserts it can acquire additional property rights through condemnation. Sturgeon denies wrongdoing, negligence and trespass.

“The fact that certain utility companies can use eminent domain does not give them license to use an easement they have no legal right to use without any due process or compensation,” Lawrence wrote in the preliminary injunction order.

The case-management order schedules a seven-day trial, beginning Sept. 27, 2027, continuing through Oct. 1 and Oct. 4-5. It also notes Pivot, Sterling and Xcel may seek to pause discovery depending on progress in Xcel’s condemnation action.