(The Center Square) – At townhall, city council and county commissioner meetings being held statewide, Texans are united in opposition to $40 billion worth of transmission line projects cutting across the state, using eminent domain and passing costs onto rate payers.
At issue is the implementation of a law by state regulatory agencies with a history of failure. In 2023, HB 5066, filed by state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott. Its stated goal was to expand transmission lines to support energy reliability in the Permian Basin.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the state grid and nearly collapsed it in 2021 due to systemic failures, recommended in 2024 that the Public Utilities Commission of Texas approve building transmission lines across the entire state, not just local transmission upgrades outlined in the legislation.
Both ERCOT and the PUCT are subject to state legislative oversight; all four PUCT commissioners were appointed by Abbott.
Geren objected, stating his plan, the Permian Basin Reliability Plan, “should be kept separated from the larger state plan and should not be the trigger for such a state plan without robust stakeholder and legislative input.”
ERCOT responded, stating it was implementing its own plan, which the PUCT approved in October 2024. Fast forward to December 2025 and ERCOT’s Board of Directors endorsed two transmission projects: the Western Loop, an Oncor and American Electric Power project, and the Eastern Loop, an AEP, CPS Energy, Oncor and CenterPoint Texas project.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation has expressed opposition to regulatory expansion, stating “the only way to keep transmission costs down is to minimize building large transmission projects in the first place. The Commission and ERCOT should always first study alternatives to new transmission before approving new projects. TPPF does not universally endorse dynamic line ratings, relaxing of contingencies, or increased use of energy storage, but these options need to be considered given the high costs and long timelines for building new transmission.”
It also notes that the lifetime of the transmission expansion projects could top $100 billion with an annual cost of $3 billion passed on to ratepayers. That equates to an additional minimum of $200 a year in electric costs for a typical household, it estimates.
This after 2021 failures led to Texans’ electricity bills already increasing by $16 billion, The Center Square reported. The Power Grid Stability Act passed on industry costs to consumers, including loan costs of multi-billion-dollar energy companies.
Landowners across the state have also been receiving notifications in the mail stating the transmission lines will come through their property with the threat of eminent domain.
The current regulatory phase “is one of the most important stages for landowners,” Austin-based Braun & Gresham, PLLC, explains. “Once routes are finalized, the process shifts toward acquisition and potential condemnation.”
It also adds that “the scale of this expansion is unlike anything Texas landowners have seen in decades. These projects are not optional infrastructure. They are tied to public utility planning and will move forward through regulatory approval,” meaning surveyors could have access to landowners’ property, routes will cross privately owned land and “easements may be acquired through negotiation or condemnation.”
American Stewards of Liberty says the project will “take 4,000 linear miles of private land to build three new 765kV power lines. This defies logic … akin to hauling water to the sea.”
It estimates Texas landowners would lose a minimum $8.2 billion in condemned and devalued land if the projects aren’t stopped by the state legislature and governor.
Now lawmakers are opposing the projects, arguing they exceed the scope of the law they supported three years ago.
“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,” state Rep. Brad Buckley, R-Salado, and a group of lawmakers wrote the PUCT. “This is a misguided project. And for $30 to $40 billion, we ought to know what we’re doing. It really appears like we are taking a step in the wrong direction for Texas.”
Proposed projects include:
Oncor Longshore to Drill Hole: impacting Andrews, Culberson, Ector, Glasscock, Howard, Loving, Martin, Midland, Reeves, and Winkler counties. Oncor/LCRA Big Hill to Sand Lake: impacting Crane, Crockett, Ector, Irion, Pecos, Reagan, Reeves, Schleicher, Tom Green, Upton, and Ward counties. Oncor Dinosaur to Longshore: impacting Borden, Bosque, Brown, Callahan, Coke, Coleman, Comanche, Eastland, Erath, Glasscock, Hamilton, Hood, Howard, Jones, Mitchell, Nolan, Runnels, Shackelford, Somervell, Stephens, Sterling, and Taylor counties.AEP/CPS Howard to Solstice: impacting Atascosa, Bandera, Bexar, Crockett, Edwards, Kerr, Kinney, Medin, Pecos, Real, Sutton, Terrell, Uvalde, and Val Verde counties.Oncor/LCRA Bell County East to Big Hill: impacting Bell, Burnet, Concho, Coryell, Lampasas, Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Menard, Milam, Mills, San Saba, Schleicher, Tom Green, and Williamson counties.
