Administrative law judges found that an electricity delivery company failed to notify more than 1,600 impacted landowners of a public meeting for a 765-kilovolt transmission line segment, which could give the regulatory agency overseeing the project grounds to reject the application.
The judges warned that a state appellate court had recently admonished the Public Utility Commission of Texas overseeing this project for failing to follow its own rules on public notice.
In an August 14, 2026, filing, Judges Pratibha Shenoy and Brent McCabe rejected electricity delivery company Oncor’s objections to their earlier finding that the utility did not comply with state public meeting notice requirements. The judges said landowners whose property fell within 520 feet of route segments added or modified after Oncor’s 2025 public meetings did not receive notice of a public meeting to “identify routing constraints or address concerns.”
The dispute involves Oncor’s proposed Dinosaur Switch-to-Longshore Switch 765-kV transmission line, a 235- to 270-mile project extending from near Glen Rose to west of Forsan. PUCT commissioners are scheduled to consider the application August 21.
Notice Failings
Oncor sent approximately 2,533 written notices for public meetings held in June 2025. But after those meetings, the company identified approximately 1,650 additional property owners within 520 feet of route links that had been added or modified.
Those landowners did not receive notice of a public meeting, according to the judges. More than 4,200 written notices were later sent to landowners after Oncor filed its application with PUCT, but the judges concluded that subsequent notice did not satisfy the public meeting requirement.
Texas Administrative Code Section 22.52 requires a utility to hold at least one public meeting before filing an application when at least 25 people would be entitled to direct-mail notice. The rule is intended to provide affected landowners an opportunity to identify constraints and raise concerns before routes are finalized.
This is an agency rule that PUCT approved under the authority state lawmakers granted it in the Public Utility Regulatory Act.
In their July 24 proposal for decision, Judges Shenoy and McCabe concluded that Oncor “did not meet the requirements” of the rule. They found that the original public meeting notices failed to reach landowners near the route ultimately included in the application.
The judges also rejected Oncor’s argument that legislative provisions and PUCT directives related to the Permian Basin Reliability Plan superseded the ordinary notice rules.
“Oncor does not identify any such provision or directive,” the judges wrote. “The Commission orders filed with the Application relate to the PBRP and assignment of responsibility to [Transmission Service Providers], and do not modify the notice provisions.”
They cited a recent Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals opinion warning that a state agency may not disregard its own rules. In Public Utility Commission of Texas v. City of Denton, the court ruled that PUCT failed to follow its public notice requirements when it made a significant change to a rate-filing package.
Oncor Disputes Ruling
Oncor objected to the judges’ proposed findings, arguing that the rule requires only one public meeting and does not mandate a new meeting whenever route modifications affect additional landowners.
The company argued that applicants commonly add or modify routes after public meetings and before filing an application. It also maintained that its obligation was to notify property owners identified through county tax rolls when its public meeting notices were mailed.
“Oncor has fully complied” with the Texas Administrative Code, the company has maintained.
Options for Resolution
The judges rejected Oncor’s argument. They wrote that according to 22.52(a)(5), notification failure constitutes cause “for extending certain deadlines.”
Attorneys for American Stewards of Liberty wrote that 22.52(a)(5) provides “day-for-day” extension when there is a failure to provide notice, but that remedy “is no longer available here.”
“This proceeding has advanced through discovery, testimony, evidentiary hearing, briefing, and the issuance of the PFD. Reopening intervention deadlines at this stage would not restore opportunities that affected landowners have already lost,” Attorneys Shan Rutherford and Elena Folgueras wrote.
While noting the extension option, the Judges did write that “the rule does not limit the Commission’s discretion to address deficiencies by other means, including denial of the Application.” They left it up to PUCT commissioners to decide on a solution.
Rutherford and Folgueras argued that PUCT must deny the application.
Broader Fight
Dinosaur-to-Longshore is part of the 765-kV Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) Permian, which proposes three high-voltage transmission lines spanning more than 1,200 miles. The projects are intended to address rising electricity demand in the Permian Basin by moving electricity from East Texas to the natural gas-rich Permian Basin, with lifetime costs reportedly approaching $100 billion to be borne by ratepayers.
The Dinosaur-to-Longshore line would connect with the proposed Longshore-to-Drill Hole line to form the northernmost corridor. PUCT commissioners will be taking up these segments in their August 21 meeting.
Critics have argued that PUCT, ERCOT, and Oncor transformed lawmakers’ regional reliability directive into a de facto statewide 765‑kV grid plan.
PUCT Chairman Thomas Gleeson told a Texas Senate committee in July that lawmakers did not specifically mandate the 765-kV transmission buildout. After that hearing, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and State Sen. Charles Schwertner (R–Georgetown) called on PUCT to reject pending 765-kV applications until lawmakers can reform the approval process.
Gov. Greg Abbott, who appointed all five PUCT commissioners, has also called for guidelines and guardrails on transmission expansion.
If you are a citizen with information regarding bureaucratic overreach, please email scorecardtips@protonmail.com.
