\u201cUnderstanding that folks are not happy with the process,\u201d he said, \u201cI think, on the law, the ALJ was wrong here.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
This is in regards to Oncor\u2019s proposed Dinosaur to Drill Hole<\/a> 765-kilovolt transmission line. This line would span approximately 390 miles from near Glen Rose to near the Culberson\u2013Reeves county line.\u00a0<\/p>\n It is composed of two segments\u2014the Dinosaur to Longshore and Longshore to Drill Hole lines. Gleeson\u2019s memo<\/a> addressed the administrative law judges\u2019 Proposal for Decision<\/a> in the Dinosaur to Longshore line.\u00a0<\/p>\n Dinosaur to Drill Hole<\/a> is part of the 765-kV Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) Permian, a key part of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan (PBRP). STEP Permian proposes three transmission lines spanning more than 1,200 miles<\/a> to move electricity from East Texas to the natural gas-rich Permian Basin. A pro-landowner group<\/a> likened the project \u201cto hauling water to the sea.\u201d<\/p>\n Landowner complaints of not being \u201cmeaningfully included<\/a>\u201d in the process have helped elevate this project to the attention of state officials. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick<\/a> and members<\/a> of the state House and Senate called for PUCT to deny all pending 765-kV projects until the legislature can reform the approval process in 2027.\u00a0<\/p>\n American Stewards of Liberty<\/a> (ASL) and a more than 30-member coalition that includes the Texas Public Policy Foundation<\/a> requested that PUCT abate all five segments.\u00a0<\/p>\n The PUCT commissioners, appointees of Gov. Greg Abbott<\/a>, adopted the proposals<\/a> for decisions<\/a> with modifications from Gleeson\u2019s memos.\u00a0<\/p>\n Shortly afterwards, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton<\/a> filed<\/a> an amicus brief with PUCT in support of ASL\u2019s motion to abate.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cHere, the Commission has approved a Plan that appears to reach beyond the Legislature\u2019s clear direction,\u201d the brief read. \u201cThe Legislature must be afforded the time to review the Plan and its potential impacts so it can then enact additional legislation to provide whatever additional guidance it deems fit.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe need to ensure that a project of this size is being carried out in a way that is best for the people of Texas,\u201d Paxton wrote in a statement. \u201cThere must be clear guardrails from the Legislature for this scale of buildout. I will always act to put Texans first.\u201d<\/p>\n Elena Folgueras, an attorney for American Stewards of Liberty, questioned the wisdom of PUCT moving forward with lawmakers asking questions. \u201cThey have raised serious concerns about the treatment of landowners. They are actively considering whether the statutory framework governing these projects needs to change,\u201d she told commissioners.\u00a0<\/p>\n Erath County Judge Brandon Huckabee told commissioners about what he\u2019s heard from his constituents. \u201cThey look towards Austin and see a regulatory system that\u2019s complicated, expensive, nearly impossible for an ordinary landowner to navigate, and standing in the middle of all that is a family just trying to protect the place they call home,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t question the need. Texas needs more power, but surely we can meet that need without making Texas believe their government is simply something else they have to defend their property from.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Consistent with his memos, Gleeson told commissioners that bisecting properties should be avoided, and they should authorize Oncor to work with landowners on route siting and \u201cmake reasonable accommodations where they can to accomplish this goal.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n He called on attorney Jaren Taylor, representing Oncor, about landowner complaints.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cRegardless whether landowners want [the transmission line] on their property, which I know they don\u2019t, what we can\u2019t have happen is all these landowners coming here and telling us that they don\u2019t feel on board, negotiated, or had discussions in good faith,\u201d he said. \u201cThe expectation is we will not hear this going forward, that you all need to meaningfully engage with these landowners in this process. Is that understood?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cUnderstood,\u201d Taylor replied. Commissioner Courtney Hjaltman said, \u201cLandowners, if they\u2019re not doing that, come back and let us know, because the expectation is on them.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Folgueras explained what impacted landowners can expect after PUCT\u2019s final decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n She said that the transmission service provider, in this case Oncor, will approach landowners to negotiate easement terms and compensation. \u201cIf a landowner chooses to not accept that compensation amount, Oncor can file a condemnation petition,\u201d she continued. \u201c[That] outlines their ability to take the land and that they offered a fair price for the property. A landowner can then obviously contest that compensation amount.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n What follows is a special commissioners hearing to determine if the amount the company offered is \u201cjust and reasonable.\u201d Whatever amount they decide is deposited into the registry of the court. \u201cIf a landowner chooses to withdraw that money from the registry of the court, they have waived their right to take claim,\u201d she said. \u201cRight to take essentially is you contesting whether or not the [Transmission Service Provider] has authority to condemn and take your land.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n PUCT spokesman Rich Parsons confirmed in a statement that Texas Utilities Code \u00a7 181.004 and PURA \u00a7 37.053(d) authorizes electric utilities to condemn property.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, Chairman Gleeson\u2019s memo established that the integrity of property along the transmission line\u2019s path should be respected whenever possible. The adopted order, along with commissioners\u2019 statements today, make clear the Commission\u2019s expectation that the electric utility must work closely with affected landowners,\u201d he wrote. \u201cChapter 21 of the Texas Property Code governs the condemnation process. Before initiating a condemnation proceeding, an electric utility must make a bona fide offer that complies with Texas Property Code \u00a7 21.0113. If the parties cannot agree on damages, the electric utility may file a condemnation petition under Texas Property Code \u00a7 21.012.\u201d<\/p>\n When asked if they would pledge not to resort to eminent domain, Oncor replied in a statement that it \u201cis committed to treating impacted landowners with respect and working collaboratively with them throughout the easement process. This includes evaluating landowner requests for route deviations consistent with the ordering language expected to be used by the Commission, which can help minimize potential impacts while meeting engineering, reliability, and safety requirements.\u201d The full statement<\/a> is available here.\u00a0<\/p>\n In her address to the commissioners, Folgueras questioned the claimed need for the project. \u201cERCOT has revised its load forecasting methodology. New generation has been announced in and around the Permian Basin,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil & Gas Association, disagreed. \u201cWest Texas operations, West Texas homes, schools, businesses are all threatened today because it lacks access to dependable, reliable, affordable interconnection into the ERCOT grid,\u201d he said, advocating for the 765-kV project. \u201cThere are six gigawatts of unmet, unconnected load demand in West Texas now.\u201d<\/p>\n However, Will McAdams, a former PUCT commissioner, previously<\/a> told Texas Scorecard that \u201cyes, it is possible\u201d that temporary power generation could be deployed to buy more time to consider the 765-kV project. Staples had complained this is \u201cexorbitantly expensive.\u201d<\/p>\n The Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates<\/a> the lifetime cost of all STEP projects ERCOT approved through December 2025 at nearly $100 billion. The foundation\u2019s Dr. Brent Bennett has advocated<\/a> that the solution to Permian Basin energy demand is for lawmakers to reform the electricity market, enabling the development of reliable energy generation where it is needed.<\/p>\n With Texas attempting to conserve and expand its water supply, concerns about the project\u2019s impact on groundwater<\/a> have also been raised.\u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1788009610_851_robert-writer-150x150.jpg\")
<\/p>\n