Texas PUC Approves First 765-kV Lines Despite Opposition

Estimated Time to Read: 16 minutes

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated since its original publication to include a statement from State Sen. Kevin Sparks following the PUC’s approval of the first 765-kV transmission projects. Sparks is urging regulators to defer further 765-kV decisions until the 90th Texas Legislature can review the broader transmission strategy, its costs, private property impacts, and potential alternatives.

---

Texas regulators have approved the first 765-kV transmission lines under the controversial Permian Basin Reliability Plan, marking a significant new stage in a debate that has increasingly drawn scrutiny from lawmakers, landowners, energy producers, and policy organizations.

On August 28, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) unanimously approved Oncor Electric Delivery Company's Dinosaur Switch to Longshore Switch and Longshore Switch to Drill Hole Switch projects. Together, the projects encompass more than 400 miles of new 765-kV transmission infrastructure stretching across West and Central Texas.

The approvals move Texas from transmission planning toward implementation even as opposition has grown substantially.

In June, 43 Texas lawmakers formally entered the regulatory proceedings and asked that determinations of need be deferred. Following a marathon July Senate hearing, Senate Business and Commerce Chairman State Sen. Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown) and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) called for regulators to halt the current process. After an August House hearing, a bipartisan group of 30 representatives similarly called on the PUC to deny the pending applications. Days later, Texas energy producers and landowners joined calls for abatement.

Then, on the same day as the PUC vote, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced his support for pausing the 765-kV buildout, arguing that the Texas Legislature never expressly authorized transmission infrastructure of this scale and should have an opportunity to review it.

That legislative pressure has continued following the approvals. State Sen. Kevin Sparks (R-Midland), whose district includes much of the Permian Basin, is now urging the PUC to defer decisions on the remaining 765-kV proceedings until the 90th Legislature can comprehensively review the strategy.

The PUC moved forward anyway.

That makes the latest approvals about considerably more than transmission infrastructure. The controversy increasingly raises questions about Texas grid reliability, legislative intent, regulatory authority, private property rights, ratepayer costs, and who ultimately gets to make major energy policy in Texas.

Key Takeaways From the Texas PUC 765-kV Transmission Approval

The August 28 approvals represent the first individual 765-kV transmission projects authorized for construction under the Permian Basin Reliability Plan. Oncor's Dinosaur to Longshore project is expected to span roughly 235 to 270 miles, depending on the approved route, while the Longshore to Drill Hole project adds approximately another 160 miles. Oncor currently anticipates completing the projects in 2028 and 2029, respectively.

The approvals do not settle the broader Texas 765-kV transmission debate. Additional projects remain in separate regulatory proceedings, leaving substantial portions of the proposed transmission network unresolved. But the first approvals matter.

Once transmission projects move from planning into route approval, property acquisition, financing, and eventual construction, reversing the broader policy becomes increasingly difficult. The PUC's action therefore begins transforming the state's 765-kV strategy from a regulatory plan into physical infrastructure.

That is happening only months before the 90th Texas Legislature convenes in January 2027.

Texas Lawmakers Push to Reconsider 765-kV Lines

The PUC's decision did not occur in the absence of legislative scrutiny. It came after months of increasingly organized efforts by Texas lawmakers to slow, reconsider, or halt the current 765-kV transmission strategy.

In June, 43 members of the Texas Legislature, including 34 State Representatives and nine State Senators, filed an amicus brief supporting a request by American Stewards of Liberty to defer determinations of need for several proposed 765-kV transmission projects. The lawmakers argued that the Permian Basin Reliability Plan raised serious questions about whether the proposed infrastructure was consistent with legislative direction and whether it represented the most reasonable and cost-effective solution for Texans.

The coalition included lawmakers from both chambers, among them State Reps. Greg Bonnen (R-Friendswood), Brad Buckley (R-Salado), Jeff Leach (R-Allen), David Spiller (R-Jacksboro), Ellen Troxclair (R-Lakeway), Cody Vasut (R-Angleton) and others, along with State Sens. Donna Campbell (R-Bulverde), Pete Flores (R-Pleasanton), Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), Brent Hagenbuch (R-Denton), Bob Hall (R-Edgewood), Joan Huffman (R-Houston), Angela Paxton (R-McKinney), Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) and Kevin Sparks (R-Midland).

Their argument went beyond individual transmission routes. The lawmakers questioned whether Texas should commit to an enormous long-distance transmission buildout before regulators sufficiently evaluated alternatives, including policies that could encourage dispatchable generation closer to electricity demand.

They also warned about the consequences of approving projects before those questions are resolved. Once Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) are granted, projects can advance toward land acquisition, eminent domain proceedings, and rate recovery commitments that become increasingly difficult to reverse.

Legislative concern intensified during the summer.

Texas Senate Leaders Call for a 765-kV Halt

The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce held an extensive July 29 hearing examining the effects of the proposed 765-kV transmission lines on private property rights and whether Texas's existing regulatory process adequately protects affected landowners.

More than 100 people testified during a hearing that stretched approximately 15 hours. Lawmakers questioned the scale of the projects, the 180-day approval process, routing decisions, costs, eminent domain, and whether House Bill 5066 (HB 5066), authored by State Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth) was ever intended to produce infrastructure of this magnitude.

Sen. Kevin Sparks, whose district includes portions of the Permian Basin that would benefit from additional electricity infrastructure, questioned whether Texas had sufficiently examined alternatives before using eminent domain against property owners.

Sen. Lois Kolkhorst similarly questioned whether lawmakers understood what HB 5066 would ultimately become when they voted for it.

Following the hearing, Senate Business and Commerce Chairman Charles Schwertner called on the PUC to reject the pending applications until lawmakers could overhaul the approval process during the 90th Legislature.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick backed that call, arguing that the existing process for proposing and approving transmission lines needed reform. Importantly, Patrick acknowledged that many believe the infrastructure ultimately must be built, but argued that grid reliability should not come at the expense of Texas landowners and communities.

The emerging legislative resistance has not necessarily been an argument against building transmission infrastructure. Increasingly, it has become an argument over whether Texas is building the right infrastructure through the right process.

Sparks renewed his concerns following the PUC's August 28 approvals. While supporting transmission necessary to connect reliable, energy-dense generation with growing industrial demand and acknowledging the continued need for local Permian Basin transmission upgrades, Sparks urged regulators to reserve further decisions on the remaining 765-kV proceedings until lawmakers return in January.

“These lines do not address the primary issue of power generation,” Sparks said, arguing that growing electricity demand presents Texas with an opportunity to rebalance generation toward more reliable energy and address underlying ERCOT market policies before committing to an expensive cross-state transmission buildout.

Sparks called for the 90th Legislature to consider the record, costs to ratepayers, effects on private property, and alternatives such as encouraging generation closer to demand before additional 765-kV projects are approved.

Texas House Lawmakers Question the 765-kV Transmission Plan

The Texas House subsequently conducted its own examination during an August 19 House State Affairs Committee hearing.

Lawmakers heard from regulators, transmission providers, energy producers, manufacturers, landowners, policy organizations, and other stakeholders representing competing perspectives on the 765-kV transmission debate.

The hearing again exposed concerns about the accelerated regulatory process.

State Rep. Drew Darby (R-San Angelo) noted that the Legislature's decision to establish the 180-day approval timeline had been presented in the context of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan, not as authorization for regulators to construct 765-kV transmission lines across large portions of Texas. Darby told witnesses that lawmakers needed to reconsider the issue.

Following the hearing, a bipartisan group of 30 House members called on the PUC to deny the pending transmission applications, effectively asking regulators to allow the Legislature another opportunity to address the process before construction proceeds.

The House intervention further demonstrated that concerns about the 765-kV strategy were no longer limited to affected landowners or a handful of lawmakers.

Both chambers were now actively questioning how Texas arrived at the current plan.

Energy Producers and Landowners Call for a Pause

Pressure on the PUC continued immediately before its August 28 vote.

On August 26, the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) and a coalition of Texas oil and gas producers and landowners urged regulators to grant a motion to abate the pending proceedings. The coalition argued that the existing CCN process was inadequate for an infrastructure undertaking of this scale and that the 90th Legislature should be given an opportunity to consider both procedural reforms and alternatives to the current 765-kV strategy.

The letter also challenged the assumption that additional transmission by itself resolves Texas's underlying reliability problems. Its signatories argued that deficiencies in the ERCOT wholesale electricity market have discouraged sufficient investment in dispatchable natural gas generation and that centrally planned transmission risks treating the symptom rather than the underlying problem.

Ultimately, the coalition asked the PUC to pause the CCN proceedings so lawmakers could consider whether the existing 765-kV plan is the right solution and whether broader electricity market reforms could reduce the need for additional long-distance transmission.

Ken Paxton Challenges the Legislative Basis for Texas 765-kV Lines

Attorney General Ken Paxton added another significant institutional challenge on August 28. Paxton filed an amicus brief supporting a pause in the 765-kV transmission buildout until the Legislature can review the plan.

His argument focuses directly on HB 5066. Passed in 2023, HB 5066 directed the PUC to order ERCOT to develop a reliability plan for regions experiencing rapid electricity demand growth, including the Permian Basin. But no version of HB 5066 expressly mentions 765-kV transmission lines.

Paxton argues that what began as a legislative directive to address regional reliability has developed into a roughly $33 billion transmission strategy that lawmakers never explicitly considered or approved. The fiscal history of HB 5066 further complicates the question.

According to Paxton, the Legislative Budget Board's (LBB) fiscal note projected no anticipated cost to the state or consumers. His brief argues that lawmakers therefore had no adequate notice that passing HB 5066 could eventually underpin transmission infrastructure carrying costs of this magnitude.

Paxton is not arguing that Texas has no reliability problem. Instead, he is asking a more fundamental question: whether regulators should be able to translate a broad legislative directive into a major statewide infrastructure policy without lawmakers explicitly making that decision.

Sparks has now echoed that concern following the first approvals, arguing that HB 5066 addressed Permian Basin reliability but did not require that reliability need to be met through a 765-kV system or expressly grant the PUC unilateral authority to advance a project of this scale without further legislative oversight.

The Case for More Texas Transmission

The growing opposition should not obscure the strongest argument on the other side of the debate. Texas has real transmission needs.

ERCOT, utilities, manufacturers, oil and gas interests, and other supporters of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan have warned that electricity demand in West Texas has been growing faster than transmission infrastructure for years.

Supporters argue that the need predates the recent explosion in data center development and reflects longstanding industrial and oil and gas growth. Some also warn that abandoning the existing plan now could create new reliability risks and force ERCOT and market participants to reconsider substantial amounts of transmission, generation, and load planning already built around the expectation that the 765-kV network will exist.

Texas has already spent years studying and planning for the electricity needs of the Permian Basin. Supporters therefore argue that another lengthy reconsideration could leave the region waiting even longer for infrastructure it already needs. Those concerns deserve serious consideration.

Texas Policy Research has consistently maintained that a growing state requires additional infrastructure. Transmission constraints can threaten reliability, inhibit economic development, and impose costs of their own. Sparks' post-approval statement illustrates that the debate need not divide neatly between supporting or opposing transmission. He supports building transmission that connects reliable generation to growing industrial loads and says needed local transmission upgrades in the Permian Basin should proceed. His concern is whether the broader cross-state 765-kV strategy rests on assumptions that sufficiently account for new generation and alternative combinations of generation and transmission. But establishing that Texas needs more transmission does not automatically establish that every proposed transmission project is necessary. Nor does it resolve the question of who should make that decision.

Research Challenges the 765-kV Buildout

Research from the TPPF and Energy Ventures Analysis has challenged the proposition that the current 765-kV strategy represents the only viable reliability solution. Their May 2026 analysis modeled ERCOT under multiple demand scenarios both with and without the proposed 765-kV infrastructure. The analysis found that future electricity demand could be accommodated without the proposed lines at similar overall cost. It concluded that scenarios without the 765-kV transmission lines required approximately 5 to 7 percent more generation by 2038, with the more significant difference involving where generation would be built rather than how much Texas would need overall.

The study argues that additional dispatchable generation located closer to demand, particularly in West Texas, could reduce or potentially eliminate the need for portions of the proposed 765-kV network.

Its broader conclusion is that the 765-kV strategy represents a policy choice rather than an unavoidable reliability necessity.

The study also estimates approximately $33 billion in capital costs associated with transmission projects covered by its analysis, producing nearly $100 billion in lifetime costs when financing, equity returns, maintenance, and taxes are included.

Sparks also pointed to a recent State Office of Administrative Hearings recommendation involving Import Path 2. According to Sparks, SOAH recommended that the PUC deny those lines after considering evidence challenging whether the proposed facilities are necessary for reliable service. Other 765-kV proceedings remain pending before regulators.

Those estimates are contested by supporters of the transmission buildout, but they strengthen the case for independent scrutiny before Texas makes commitments that could last for generations.

765-kV Lines and Private Property Rights

Cost and reliability are only part of the equation. Transmission lines require land.

The approved and proposed 765-kV projects could cross farms, ranches, homes, businesses, and communities throughout large portions of Texas. When voluntary agreements cannot be reached, transmission infrastructure approved through the CCN process can ultimately involve eminent domain.

That places private property rights squarely within the policy debate. The government should face a high burden before allowing private property to be taken for infrastructure projects. Demonstrating some public benefit should not end the inquiry when competing routes or alternative approaches may impose fewer burdens on Texans.

TPR has previously argued that transmission planning should provide meaningful opportunities for landowner participation, transparent routing standards, objective criteria, fair compensation, and sufficient time for affected Texans to understand and challenge proposed routes.

Even transmission industry representatives have acknowledged that the existing 180-day process is inadequate for projects of this size. Following the first approvals, Sparks again emphasized that Texas must simultaneously maintain grid reliability, protect ratepayers, and respect private property rights. He urged those involved in advocating for and developing the lines to consider the long-term effects of today's decisions on future generations of Texans. The 90th Legislature should address that deficiency regardless of what it ultimately decides about 765-kV transmission.

765-kV Lines and Legislative Supremacy

The most significant policy implication may ultimately extend beyond electricity.

Texas Policy Research's Texas Liberty Compact calls for restoring legislative supremacy and ensuring major policy decisions are made by elected lawmakers rather than administrative agencies. The controversy surrounding the Permian Basin Reliability Plan demonstrates why that principle matters.

Administrative agencies require discretion. Electricity regulation is technically complicated, and lawmakers cannot prescribe every engineering decision through statute. But administrative discretion and legislative policymaking are not the same thing.

HB 5066 unquestionably instructed regulators to address electricity reliability in the Permian Basin. The growing dispute concerns whether that authorization also empowered the PUC and ERCOT to choose a massive 765-kV transmission strategy without further legislative approval.

The comparison with Texas's Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) is instructive. When Texas previously undertook a transformative long-distance transmission project, the Legislature expressly directed the creation of CREZ through legislation. TPPF's analysis argues that HB 5066 contained no comparable directive for long-distance 765-kV transmission.

That difference deserves legislative attention. A major infrastructure decision does not become less of a policy decision simply because engineers and regulators possess the technical expertise necessary to implement it.

The 90th Legislature Faces the 765-kV Debate

The PUC's August 28 approvals increase the urgency for lawmakers returning to Austin in January, particularly as additional 765-kV proceedings remain pending. Sparks is now explicitly asking regulators to reserve those remaining decisions until the 90th Legislature can review the broader strategy on a statewide basis. The Legislature should use that opportunity to determine whether 765-kV transmission should form part of Texas's long-term grid strategy.

If lawmakers determine that it should, they should establish clear statutory guardrails governing when projects may proceed, how necessity must be demonstrated, how costs should be allocated, how routes should be evaluated, and how private landowners should be protected. Lawmakers should also examine whether the current transmission planning process adequately tests alternatives before regulated infrastructure costs are socialized across Texas ratepayers. That includes examining the role of dispatchable generation located closer to load, the incentives created by the ERCOT wholesale electricity market, the treatment of rapidly growing large loads, and whether those creating extraordinary new infrastructure demands are bearing an appropriate share of the resulting costs.

The Legislature should not replace one form of central planning with another.

The answer to concerns about centrally planned transmission should not automatically be government subsidies for favored generation resources, nor should lawmakers attempt to dictate every private investment decision. The better objective is a market in which prices and incentives appropriately reflect reliability, scarcity, infrastructure costs, and the consequences of investment decisions.

Grid Reliability Without a Regulatory Blank Check

The Texas 765-kV transmission debate is often presented as a choice between building the proposed lines and risking an unreliable electric grid. That is too simplistic.

Texas can recognize the urgent need for reliable electricity infrastructure while still asking whether the current proposal is the best solution.

It can recognize the value of transmission while protecting private property.

It can accommodate industrial growth without automatically socializing every infrastructure cost across residential and small-business ratepayers.

And it can rely on regulatory expertise without surrendering major policy decisions to administrative agencies.

The PUC's approval of the first 765-kV transmission lines makes those questions more consequential because the debate is no longer theoretical.

Texas is beginning to build. The question now facing the 90th Legislature is whether lawmakers will simply inherit the transmission policy being established by regulators or affirmatively decide for themselves what Texas's long-term electricity infrastructure should look like.

Grid reliability establishes the need to act. It does not determine who gets to act, what authority they possess, or whether every proposed solution is justified.

---