State bureaucrats are racing to build 765‑kV transmission lines into the energy‑rich Permian Basin instead of adding new, reliable power plants, according to a landowner‑backed nonprofit.
American Stewards of Liberty, a property‑rights group with members in the line’s path, argues the project threatens private land, will raise electric bills, and defies Gov. Greg Abbott’s post‑2021 blackout reliability directive.
Critics contend that Public Utility Commission of Texas, grid operator ERCOT, and electricity delivery company Oncor have turned a targeted Permian Basin fix into a more than $30 billion extra‑high‑voltage buildout with limited public input and without PUCT or Oncor having any experience operating 765‑kV lines in Texas.
More than 20 parties, including affected landowners, opposed the project at a March administrative law hearing.
Bureaucrats Rushing and Rebelling
American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) has raised a red flag regarding the project, specifically how little time affected locals have to contest the Longshore–Drill Hole 765‑kV transmission line into the Permian Basin.
On December 11, 2025, Oncor applied to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) for a building certificate. Before 2023, it would have taken 365 days to approve a project like this. State lawmakers slimmed that to 180 days in 2023 with House Bill 5066.
ASL attorneys Shan Rutherford and Elena Folgueras argued this “compressed schedule is not incidental” and “presents a disadvantage to affected landowners,” particularly for an unproven project for which sufficient time is needed to understand all of its impacts, hire attorneys, and develop evidence from specialists.
As previously reported, during the March hearing, an Oncor engineer made several startling admissions.
- Oncor had no prior experience building a 765-kV line.
- An earlier assessment of this project having “no adverse impacts” on oil and gas pipelines was based on the company’s previous experience with transmission lines in the Permian Basin.
- Oncor hadn’t produced “any project-specific engineering study” on the impacts this proposed power line would have on oil and gas infrastructure.
While PUCT and its subsidiary, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), have taken full advantage of HB 5066’s compressed timeline, ASL argued it has gone far beyond its boundaries elsewhere, treating it “as if it were a directive to construct particular 765‑kV projects.”
According to the law’s text, HB 5066 directs PUCT to order ERCOT to identify regions with inadequate transmission lines and to develop a reliability plan. From there, PUCT “shall develop a plan” to administer the reliability plan.
In its initial closing argument, ASL wrote that these agencies translated this into building specific 765‑kV projects, which is not the intent of the law. In pursuit of this goal, bureaucrats are not checking the boxes that state law, Public Utility Regulatory Act §37.056, requires for such projects.
State lawmakers aren’t the only ones PUCT and ERCOT appear to be defying. ASL referenced Gov. Greg Abbott’s July 2021 directive to PUCT, a few months after the statewide winter blackouts.
Because of the failure of unreliable energy sources during the winter freeze, namely wind and solar, Abbott’s number one assignment to PUCT was to “streamline incentives” so as “to foster the development and maintenance of adequate and reliable sources of power, like natural gas, coal, and nuclear power.”
At the bottom of his list was accelerating “the development of transmission projects” to increase connections between new or existing reliable power generation and “areas of need.”
Where’s The Electricity?
PUCT has been slow in following Abbott’s orders. During the April 1 hearing of the State Senate Committee on Business & Commerce, PUCT Chairman Thomas Gleeson admitted that PUCT was still looking at its market design, and that the current one still does not incentivize building reliable energy sources.
Gleeson was responding to State Sen. Kevin Sparks (R–Midland), who had expressed concern about a University of Texas projection that by 2029, Texas’s energy generation mix would be up to 62 percent unreliable sources—solar, wind, and batteries.
ASL argued that since the 2021 winter blackouts, PUCT had failed to meaningfully increase reliable generation that will operate in extreme winter weather. While wind and solar have increased, winter demand has grown, and ERCOT’s winter reserve margin has significantly declined.
Claims the grid is stronger, ASL states, “rely primarily on revised demand assumptions rather than demonstrable improvements in dispatchable capacity.”
In a time when Texas needs more reliable energy, ASL highlighted there is plenty in the very area into which PUCT is building transmission lines.
“The Permian Basin is one of the most energy-dense regions in the country and already serves as a major hub of oil, gas, and associated energy production,” ASL stated. “If sufficient generation were developed closer to load in the Permian Basin, the very conditions necessitating long-distance, high-capacity transmission—and the associated efficiency concerns those lines are designed to mitigate—would be substantially reduced or eliminated.”
Oncor, owned by California-based Sempra, is aware of this. Jared Gurley, an Oncor Engineer, admitted during the March administrative law hearing that the basin is “energy dense.” But the “overwhelming majority” of the 89 identified energy sources in Oncor’s model are located in East Texas. ASL cautions that this region is “where dispatchable generation is already concentrated and susceptible to a regional weather event.”
State Rep. Charlie Geren (R–Fort Worth), HB 5066’s primary author, wrote to the PUCT in September 2024 urging the agency to keep the Permian Basin Reliability Plan separate from a larger statewide plan. Geren did not respond to a request for comment.
Only 10 of the 89 identified sources would be based in the energy-dense Permian Basin. Half of these would be battery storage systems, which ASL found are not “capable of sustaining load needed for the Permian Basin over extended periods.”
ERCOT, ASL charged, created a model that ignored the possibility of developing new power generation in the Permian Basin and, by so doing, “effectively” baked into its study the conclusion that transmission was the solution.
“Electricity that does not exist cannot be transmitted,” ASL argued.
Pricetag
Critics have estimated that this massive transmission build-out will cost more than $30 billion, which amounts to $200 per year for the typical Texas household at current cost allocations. PUCT chairman Gleeson testified in April that PUCT will change “the methodology by which we allocate transmission [cost].”
The estimated number could be higher. ASL warned that Oncor hadn’t procured a ratemaking expert, and that one of PUCT’s own witnesses admitted that the staff has “little direct experience” with the expected costs of 765-kV lines, and such costs will be determined later.
Gleeson admitted to senators that the final rates for customers could take years to determine.
“In other words, the evidence establishes that the Commission is being asked to approve a project without knowing whether or how the ultimate costs will be considered for ratemaking purposes,” ASL’s attorneys wrote.
Critics warn that the Permian Basin Reliability Plan’s threats aren’t only to wallets and energy security, but land as well.
Property Threats
As recorded in ASL’s Statement of Position, Oncor’s proposed routes for the Longshore-Drill Hole line “would dissect multiple farming properties, including dryland farms that rely solely on rainfall.”
These properties, valued at roughly $1,500 to $4,000 an acre, ASL wrote, “would suffer permanent devaluation and loss of productive use.”
Furthermore, in “several cases, the transmission line would run through the middle of the property, effectively severing access to substantial portions of the land and leaving no practical way to reach or farm those areas.”
As for the “electronic systems” these farms use, there’s concern that a nearby 765-kV line could interfere with them.
Rights-of-way that would have to be built for the transmission line, ASL stated, would interfere with GPS-guided farming, create 60-80 foot wide barren corridors, introduce invasive weeds, increase chemical and tillage needs, and degrade natural watering features and surface water flow.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department made recommendations on how to cap the transmission line’s environmental impacts. But ASL is concerned that all of these recommendations “may not” be incorporated into final decisions.
No final route for the transmission line has been picked either, which means that specific federal or state permits and “route specific impacts” can’t be identified. This, ASL asserts, makes it “impossible” for PUCT “to fully evaluate environmental integrity at this stage,” and they shouldn’t “assume future wildlife clearances.”
Conclusion
The March hearing took place in the State Office of Administrative Hearings before administrative law judges Amy Davis, Andrew Lutostanski, and Cassandra Quinn. Supporters and critics of the Longshore–Drill Hole 765‑kV line are awaiting their decision.
PUCT Chairman Gleeson seems confident his agency will prevail. He told senators during the April 1 committee hearing that he expects the plan’s first project application in mid-June and then will follow the approval process.
ASL attorney Folgueras wrote to Texas Scorecard that even if the judges side with Oncor, this fight isn’t over.
In that scenario, the judges would issue a Proposal for Decision (PFD) recommending approval. Parties can file exceptions, then the PUCT commissioners make the final decision. Appeals may follow in court.
American Stewards for Liberty will keep fighting. “These proposed transmission lines would permanently impact landowners’ property, yet the decision is being rushed in just 180 days. Texas landowners and ratepayers deserve a process that safeguards communities, defends property rights, and does not waste billions on a boondoggle project hauling water to the ocean,” Folgueras wrote in a statement.
According to past case history, the judges’ proposal for decision in a transmission case is often issued six to eight weeks after the hearing, with a PUCT final order six to eight weeks after that. This was before state lawmakers shrank PUCT’s approval timeline to 180 days.
Gov. Greg Abbott appointed Chief Administrative Law Judge Kristofer Monson, who oversees the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Abbott also appointed all five commissioners who oversee PUCT, including Gleeson.
Andrew Mahaleris, Abbott’s press secretary, wrote in a statement to Texas Scorecard that “it is critical that we continue to invest in a wide variety of power generation sources and a robust transmission system to ensure access to reliable, affordable power. Expanding access to all forms of energy, especially dependable dispatchable power, is crucial for long-term prosperity. Governor Abbott will continue working with the legislature to build a grid with enough energy to power Texas for the next century.”
In a statement, PUCT spokesman Rich Parsons provided a list of PUCT and ERCOT reforms since 2021 that he wrote made the state grid “more reliable than ever.” These include requiring weatherization of electric facilities and approving loans through the voter-authorized Texas Energy Fund for more than 3,500 megawatts of new dispatchable power.
“PUCT strongly encourages Texans to participate in the Commission’s transmission line route selection, and we have many ways they can do that throughout the entire process. Public input is critical,” he wrote. “Leadership and support from Gov. Abbott and the Texas Legislature have been critical to ensuring the grid remains resilient, reliable and continues to power our state’s growing economy.”
ERCOT stated it “is not a party to this PUCT CCN proceeding and therefore has no comment on intervenor filings. The PUCT would be the appropriate entity to address questions related to the docket.”
Oncor spokesman Andrew Clark wrote in a statement that “Oncor’s application explains the need for additional transmission capacity and addresses considerations related to critical reliability benefits, system planning, and potential local impacts. We will continue to participate in the ongoing review process.”
If you are a citizen with information regarding bureaucratic overreach, please email scorecardtips@protonmail.com.
