<\/p>\n
Our guest columnist, Jada Jo Smith, stands in the Sabinal River with her daughter. While there are no good options for the proposed\u00a0Howard-Solstice transmission line, there is a path that would have the least amount of environmental harm, she writes..<\/p>\n
Sam Owens\/San Antonio Express-News<\/p>\n
Texas is on the verge of building the\u00a0largest transmission line<\/a> in its history, a multigenerational project with impacts that will last forever.\u00a0<\/p>\n The proposed Howard-Solstice 765-kV<\/a> line will stretch more than 300 miles from South San Antonio through the Hill Country and into West Texas, past Fort Stockton. The line\u2019s tower lattices will exceed 140 feet in height and require rights of way approaching 200 feet wide \u2014 electricity infrastructure at a scale Texas has never seen.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n There is no way to build a project of this magnitude without impact. No matter which route is selected, this line will disturb land, disrupt ecosystems and permanently alter parts of Texas. It will cross working ranches, fragment wildlife habitat and change landscapes that have remained largely intact for generations.<\/p>\n But not all routes are equal, and that is why the decision now before the Public Utility Commission of Texas, commonly known as the PUC, matters so much. As the commission considers the application from AEP Texas and CPS Energy to build this line, the focus must be on minimizing damage and preserving the most sensitive parts of our state. There is a route option in the application to do just that.<\/p>\n In our work to protect Texas\u2019 most iconic river basins, the Hill Country Preservation Coalition\u00a0developed a \u201cleast harmful route\u201d<\/a> for the Howard-Solstice transmission line \u2014 a mitigation-focused approach that follows existing infrastructure corridors, avoids sensitive river basins and reduces unnecessary land fragmentation.<\/p>\n That means avoiding the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone \u2014 which provides drinking water for more than 2 million Texans \u2014 and protecting river basins like the Medina, Sabinal, Frio, Nueces, Devils River and Lower Pecos by staying as close as possible to existing highways and infrastructure corridors.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n No transmission line is good. But we believe this is is the least bad option \u2014 and we\u2019re encouraged CPS Energy and AEP Texas seem to agree.<\/p>\n In their application to the\u00a0PUC, the companies evaluated more than 200 potential links and advanced 77 route options, including Alternative Route 9 \u2014 which aligns with the least harmful route and reflects concerns raised by landowners, conservation groups and local communities.<\/p>\n Additionally, a majority of Alternative Route 9 overlaps with a route the applicants identified as best meeting regulatory requirements. In addition to most of the alignment, the two routes have almost the same expected cost and distance, within about a 1% difference.<\/p>\n The eastern portions are nearly identical, both avoiding the most sensitive areas and following existing infrastructure corridors leaving San Antonio. But as the route moves west, Alternative Route 9 makes a meaningful improvement by more closely following U.S. 277 northbound before shifting west at a point farther north. This provides stronger protection for the Devils River, and reduces exposure to the Lower Pecos River region and other sensitive areas.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Alternative Route 9 will still be disruptive, but it best mitigates damage by reducing intrusion into pristine river basins and limiting land fragmentation. This is what good governance requires. It is also what sound engineering and fiscal discipline demand. Routing alongside existing infrastructure reduces construction complexity, and lowers the risk of delays, litigation and cost overruns.<\/p>\n It is also worth noting that calls for a more deliberate review have been raised.\u00a0Legislators from both sides of the aisle<\/a> have urged the PUC to extend the procedural schedule, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, joined by energy leaders, has questioned<\/a> whether elements of this build-out should be delayed or reconsidered based on updated demand forecasts. The Hill Country Preservation Coalition\u00a0agrees a delay would be prudent.<\/p>\n But under the current framework and timeline, the\u00a0PUC faces a clear choice for the Howard-Solstice transmission line. Alternative Route 9 is the only option provided that reduces risk to water, landowners and taxpayers while aligning with the applicants\u2019 own analysis and meeting regulatory requirements.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n As this project moves through some of the most pristine parts of Texas, we have a responsibility to limit the damage as much as possible \u2014 and with the limited choices they provided, that means choosing Alternative Route 9.<\/p>\n Jada Jo Smith is the founder of the Hill Country Preservation Coalition, a grassroots coalition of landowners and conservation groups committed to preserving the Hill Country and neighboring regions.<\/p>\n Sign up for the ENsights opinion newsletter<\/p>\n<\/p>\n