Five lawmakers have asked to meet with the Public Utility Commission of Texas leadership to discuss the controversial construction of three new extra-high-voltage transmission lines. The lawmakers raised concerns about the project’s cost, whether it exceeds the intent of state law, overall electrical grid reliability, and private property rights.
Known as the Permian Basin Reliability Plan, lawmakers originally authorized it in House Bill 5066 as a limited fix for a specific region. Critics have said the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), grid operator ERCOT, and Oncor expanded it into a broader buildout of these 765-kV transmission lines with minimum public input.
Brent Bennett of the Texas Public Policy Foundation has estimated the project would cost $90 to $100 billion over its lifetime. Aside from Texans being burdened by increased costs, the expansion could lead to bureaucrats launching other large projects with little direct accountability.
These transmission lines would bring power from East Texas into the energy-rich Permian Basin. In their May 5 letter to PUCT Chairman Thomas Gleeson and the other four commissioners, State Reps. Brad Buckley (R–Salado), Drew Darby (R–San Angelo), Hillary Hickland (R–Belton), and Ellen Troxclair (R–Lakeway), as well as State Sen. Pete Flores (R–Pleasanton) wrote that, instead of building transmission lines, prioritizing “dispatchable energy generation within the Permian Basin … could provide greater long-term grid reliability.”
Dispatchable energy refers to electrical generation from sources such as natural gas, clean coal, and nuclear. The Permian Basin is rich with natural gas.
“It is our concern that increasing transmission capacity without increasing energy generation falls short of the solutions discussed in the aftermath of Winter Storm Uri,” the lawmakers wrote. “In fact, it was made abundantly clear that Texas needs more dispatchable energy generation and prioritizing transmission of energy produced by renewables does nothing to address a significant problem in the mix of electrical generation we currently have in our state.”
A University of Texas presentation in an April 1 Senate committee hearing projected that the state’s energy generation mix would be up to 62 percent of solar, wind, and batteries by 2029.
The lawmakers also wrote that it was their “understanding” the Permian Basin Reliability Plan could be “successfully executed” without constructing all the proposed transmission lines immediately. They specifically mentioned the Bell County East-Big Hill 765-kV line. The letter referenced a December 2024 ERCOT recommendation that, in their view, shows only two of the three lines are needed by 2030.
The lawmakers believe this makes it “clear that one of the three paths is not needed until a later date,” and that it is “prudent to pause further progress” as the legislature prepares to review energy issues ahead of the 2027 session.
A prudent pause is what critics have been asking for, amid multiple reports of landowners scrambling to respond to eminent domain threats brought forth by the project. State Sen. Kevin Sparks (R–Midland) has expressed concern about how much land the state would seize.
During an April 28 meeting of the Erath-Somervell Sub-Regional Planning Commission, Margaret Byfield of American Stewards of Liberty, a consultant to the commission, questioned Oncor’s compliance with federal wildlife preservation requirements for the proposed transmission lines and whether the company is avoiding its due diligence. In its response, Oncor stated it has conducted an Environmental Assessment and route analysis, evaluated community and environmental impacts, and will continue working with federal regulators to remain in compliance with all applicable laws.
American Stewards of Liberty has warned that this project threatens landowners and ignores Gov. Greg Abbott’s directive to prioritize construction of reliable power generation. It has stated this project, which would move energy from East Texas to the Permian Basin, is “akin to hauling water to the sea.”
“Taking time for a fuller policy review and broader public discussion will help ensure that any long-term decisions are informed by a complete understanding of their potential impacts,” the lawmakers wrote in their May 5 letter. “Texans deserve a more thoughtful and deliberate approach to improving existing infrastructure, one that enhances reliability and resilience, reduces costs, and better protects private property rights.”
Brent Smith, county attorney of Kinney County, which borders Mexico, applauded the letter to PUCT. “This is not on many people’s radar in Texas but has become an urgent matter that needs to be addressed immediately by the legislature,” he wrote. “Texas deserves a smarter, more deliberate approach that protects property rights, holds down costs, and truly strengthens our grid.”
Kinney County is on the Texas Border Sub-Regional Planning Committee, along with Uvalde County and the City of Uvalde. Smith told Texas Scorecard this committee is being repurposed to address the transmission line project with the goal of trying to mitigate any harm and ensure “the planning process is better.”
PUCT spokesman Rich Parson responded to Texas Scorecard’s request for comment on the May 5 letter. “Because the Bell County East to Big Hill transmission application is an active contested case, the rule against ex-parte communication prevents PUCT commissioners from discussing issues relating to this application,” he wrote. “We are working to accommodate their meeting request with PUCT leadership to ensure open and continuing communications.”
Gov. Abbott appointed Chairman Gleeson and the other four PUCT commissioners. The deadline for property owners in the Bell County-East Big Hill 765-kV line, who have been notified if the line will be within 500 feet of the proposed line and have filed a protest, is May 13 to file their testimonies.
If you are a citizen with information regarding bureaucratic overreach, please email scorecardtips@protonmail.com.
