Twenty-four victims of the Marshall fire have filed a mass action lawsuit against Xcel Energy for what they believe to be the company’s role in starting the destructive blaze.
The lawsuit, filed in Boulder County District Court, alleges that Xcel Energy’s power lines and energy utility equipment caused the Marshall fire on Dec. 30, 2021, and seeks compensation for the victim’s financial losses and emotional distress.
The lawsuit against Xcel was filed Thursday, the same day the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office and District Attorney released the results of the 18-month investigation into the causes of the Marshall fire, which went on to destroy over 1,000 homes, kill two people and become the most destructive fire in Colorado history.
In the county’s report, the district attorney found that there was insufficient or no evidence to pursue criminal charges, but left the door open for civil suits. Civil suits typically face lower standards for proof and evidence than a criminal prosecution.
The lawsuit was filed by Marshall Fire Attorneys, a group of fire litigation law firms. It alleges that sparks from arcing power lines owned and operated by Xcel Energy near the intersection of Colorado 93 and Colorado 170 started the Marshall fire.
“Xcel Energy has failed to act responsibly and protect the communities it serves,” said Michael Yancey, an attorney in the lawsuit. “We are seeking justice for the harm that has been caused, and we hope that this lawsuit will lead to significant changes in the way Xcel Energy operates.”
Tyler Bryant, a spokesperson for Xcel, said that the company believes that the ignition of the Marshall fire had nothing to do with Xcel’s power liens.
“We believe the second fire burned into an area already burned by the fire from the first ignition, and did not cause damage to any homes or businesses,” he said. “We strongly disagree with any suggestion that Xcel Energy’s power lines caused the second ignition, which according to the (county) report started 80 to 110 feet away from Xcel Energy’s power lines in an area with underground coal fire activity.”
The county’s report on the Marshall fire said the blaze had two ignition sources, one that was caused by a buried burn pile, and another that was most likely caused by hot particles discharged from Xcel Energy power lines. The investigation ruled out embers from the other ignition point and provided evidence that the lines in the area were damaged enough to spark a fire.
The report could not rule out an existing coal seam burning actively under the area as a possible ignition source. Investigators also found no evidence of criminally negligent or reckless system design or maintenance on the part of Xcel.
The victims’ complaint points to a witness video of sparks flying out of a malfunctioning powerline and cites a statement from an Xcel spokesperson that acknowledged that wires could have touched an arced. The suit argues that Xcel’s operation and maintenance of the electrical lines were a substantial cause of the Marshall fire and its resulting damages.
Xcel disputes this allegation.
“We have reviewed our maintenance records and believe the system was properly maintained,” Bryant said. “We operate and maintain our electric system consistent with leading energy service practices and we’re proud of our employees and the work they do to deliver safe, reliable and clean energy to our communities.”
