Дата публикации: 30-07-2026 20:25:47

Texas has approved a massive expansion of its transmission system to carry more electricity into the Permian Basin. The proposed 765-kilovolt corridors would cross through hundreds of miles of ranches, farms, schools, and rural communities.
At a Texas Senate Committee on Business and Commerce meeting Thursday, senators examined the proposed transmission line project and its impact on landowners. The lines are part of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan, a state-approved effort to move significantly more electricity into West Texas as power demand from oil and gas operations and other growth rises. The plan calls for three major 765-kilovolt import corridors, a voltage not currently used on the ERCOT grid.
During an hourslong hearing before the Texas Senate Committee on Business and Commerce, farmers, ranchers, school leaders, county officials and other property owners asked lawmakers to pause proposed 765-kilovolt transmission projects. Many said they received confusing or late notices, struggled to navigate a complicated legal process and were given too little time to challenge routes that could permanently affect their land.
Country music singer Tanya Tucker, who lives on a ranch near Briggs in Burnet County, told lawmakers that one of the proposed routes would cross land where she has recorded music and posed for album and magazine covers.
“This isn’t the way we do things in Texas,” Tucker said. “You don’t rush in and turn someone’s life upside down.”
Tucker said she supports a strong electric grid and remembers melting snow for water during the deadly 2021 winter storm. Still, she asked state leaders to take a longer look at alternatives before disrupting landowners’ lives.
“Before you disrupt so many lives, I just ask that you take a longer look at the other options,” Tucker said.
Why Texas is planning new 765-kV lines
The proposed lines are part of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan, a package of transmission projects intended to address growing electricity demand in West Texas. The plan includes upgrades within the Permian Basin region and includes three high-capacity import paths that can move electricity into the area from other parts of the ERCOT grid. State regulators opted for 765-kilovolt lines instead of lower voltage alternatives.
The demand underlying the Permian plan is largely tied to the electrification and continued growth of oil and gas operations. Separately, Texas is also seeing a surge of proposed data centers and other large power users across the state.
ERCOT officials told lawmakers that more than 90% of the extremely large projects currently seeking grid connections are data centers. But regulators emphasized that data centers are not the only reason Texas needs more transmission. Population growth, traditional industry and oil and gas operations are also increasing demand.
One proposed piece of the Permian system, the Dinosaur Switch-to-Longshore Switch project, would stretch from near Glen Rose toward the Big Spring area. Depending on the route selected, that segment could run roughly 236 to 269 miles and cost an estimated $2.20 billion to $2.45 billion, including station work.
Landowners question whether the process is fair
Much of the public testimony focused less on whether Texas needs reliable electricity and more on whether the state has created a fair process for deciding where the lines should go.
State law gives the Public Utility Commission 180 days to decide these transmission applications. Landowners argued that the deadline is too short for projects of this size and complexity.
Utilities may spend months or years studying potential routes before filing an application. Some affected property owners testified that they had only weeks to learn the process, find a specialized attorney, review thousands of pages of filings, and submit evidence.
“This process should not move so quickly that due process becomes collateral damage,” said Paul Grimmie, whose working cattle ranch in San Saba County is crossed by a proposed route.
Grimmie said the compressed timeline creates the perception that meeting a schedule has become more important than protecting private property rights.
Jason Howerton, a Bell County landowner representing himself in one of the proceedings, said lawmakers expanded the factors the PUC must consider while shortening the deadline for making a decision.
“More to evaluate, half the time to evaluate it,” Howerton said.
Several witnesses said route segments were added or changed after earlier public meetings. They argued that owners on those newly added links had far less time to prepare than people who had known about the project from the beginning.
“Same day for everybody technically, but the routes were already locked,” Howerton said. “We couldn’t propose an alternative. We could only object.”
Darian Stern testified that a proposed line would be placed on his neighbor’s property, leaving his family just outside the formal notification and compensation boundary.
“Bureaucracy draws a nice little box and pretends consequences stay inside,” Stern said. “One inch does not mean zero impact.”
Other witnesses described potential disruptions to cattle operations, irrigation, orchards, wildlife habitat and plans to build homes or expand businesses.
Katie McDowell said a proposed route would cross her family’s organic dairy in Erath County. She testified that losing pasture could reduce the number of cattle the farm can support and that construction could threaten years of soil improvements and regenerative farming practices.
Some landowners say maps missed important properties
Several witnesses testified that project maps failed to identify homes, schools, wells, airstrips or other features that could be affected by a route.
Vanessa Horsford founded White Horse Christian Academy on her family’s property in Stephenville. She said a proposed route would divide the land, disrupt expansion plans and run through the area intended for a future campus.
Horsford said the school, which serves nearly 200 students, was not accurately shown on the maps used in the routing process.
“You cannot avoid a school that you refused to acknowledge,” she told lawmakers.
Erath County Judge Brandon Huckaby also raised concerns about the school, a family-owned organic dairy and agricultural property used by Tarleton State University.
“I came here to ask you to look beyond the lines that are on these maps and see the people underneath them,” Huckaby said.
He said he could not assure affected families that Texas had demonstrated their sacrifices were “absolutely necessary.”
Other landowners said they learned about routes from neighbors, community meetings or social media rather than directly from the utility. Some testified that they missed procedural deadlines or were removed from cases after struggling with unfamiliar filing requirements.
Mia Surratt, who said she has worked with hundreds of landowners through community meetings, asked whether an average property owner can realistically exercise the rights provided under state law.
“A right that cannot be realistically exercised is a right that has been diminished,” Surratt said.
Could Texas build generation closer to the Permian?
Many landowners urged the state to build more natural gas generation near the Permian Basin rather than moving electricity across hundreds of miles of private property.
They argued that West Texas is rich in natural gas and that producing electricity closer to the demand could reduce the amount of long-distance transmission required.
Regulators and industry officials have acknowledged that generation is generally most efficient when built close to customers. But they also argue that local power plants do not eliminate the need for a statewide transmission network, which must move electricity as demand, weather and available generation change across ERCOT.
How reliable are the forecasts?
The hearing also exposed uncertainty about how much of Texas’ projected electricity demand will become real development.
ERCOT created a process known as Batch Zero to distinguish viable large-load projects from speculative or duplicate requests. Projects may be required to show site control, equipment orders, financial backing and other evidence that they are likely to be built.
But representatives of the data-center industry said the first round may still have awarded valuable grid capacity to speculative projects. Cliff Pompey of Compass Data Centers testified that his company was approached about proposed sites whose developers had received allocations but allegedly lacked the money to meet later security requirements.
“You’ve basically created liquid gold,” Pompey said, describing the limited power allocation as something speculative developers could attempt to sell or use to attract an established partner.
Pompey urged ERCOT to require proof of financing and project viability earlier, saying that could remove speculative requests and “right-size” the amount of infrastructure Texas plans to build.
What happens next
The Senate committee does not choose the routes. Those decisions remain with the Public Utility Commission.
Lawmakers can, however, change the rules governing future transmission cases. Witnesses asked the Legislature to consider extending the 180-day timeline, requiring new public meetings when routes change, improving notices and instructions for self-represented landowners, verifying important properties before routes are selected, and examining whether neighboring landowners deserve greater protections.
Many also asked state leaders and the PUC to pause the current 765-kV proceedings.
This story uses functionality that may not work in our app. Click here to open the story in your web browser.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Схожие новости