PUC Approves Howard-to-Solstice 765-kV Transmission Line

Estimated Time to Read: 10 minutes

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) approved the Howard-to-Solstice 765-kilovolt transmission line on September 11, advancing a major component of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan while modifying the route to address concerns raised by landowners.

The approximately 370-mile line will connect CPS Energy’s Howard Road Station in Bexar County to AEP Texas’s Solstice Station near Fort Stockton. Commissioners selected a modified version of Route 4 that moves the line north of Uvalde and gives AEP Texas and CPS Energy greater flexibility to negotiate route adjustments with consenting landowners.

The decision reflects the difficult balance confronting Texas. The state needs more transmission capacity to support economic growth and grid reliability, but infrastructure of this scale also raises legitimate questions about private property, ratepayer exposure, legislative oversight, and how confidently future electricity demand can be projected.

Key Takeaways From the Howard-to-Solstice Approval

The PUC did not simply adopt the originally proposed route. Its most substantial modification moves the eastern portion of the Howard-to-Solstice transmission line north of Uvalde, allowing more of the project to follow existing transmission infrastructure.

According to a commissioner memorandum, the revised route will parallel approximately 23.6 additional miles of existing transmission line right-of-way. About 60.3 miles, or 16.35 percent of the modified route, will follow existing transmission corridors. The change should reduce the amount of previously undisturbed land affected by the project. It also reduces certain impacts on woodland, wetlands, open water, caves, and springs identified in the regulatory record.

Those benefits come with tradeoffs. The modified route affects 15 additional habitable structures and approximately 1.5 more miles of cropland. It also requires the utilities to address additional airfield and radio tower considerations.

No route of this length can avoid every impact. The PUC’s decision illustrates why routing requires transparent criteria, serious landowner participation, and flexibility where an adjustment can reduce the burden without undermining the project.

Texas Landowners Gain Additional Routing Flexibility

The PUC also adopted language allowing AEP Texas and CPS Energy to make more than minor deviations from the approved route when every affected landowner consents.

A deviation must preserve a reasonably direct path and cannot cause an unreasonable increase in cost or delay. This flexibility could help utilities avoid dividing generational farms and ranches or placing transmission infrastructure unnecessarily close to homes and other improvements. The provision is a constructive response to landowner concerns. It recognizes that maps developed during a regulatory proceeding cannot always account for every condition on the ground.

Still, cooperation after approval does not eliminate the need for strong procedural protections. Once a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity has been granted, utilities can move toward easement acquisition and potentially eminent domain. Landowners should receive timely notice, understandable project information, meaningful opportunities to participate, and fair compensation throughout that process.

The PUC Retains the Pecos River Crossing

The approved Howard-to-Solstice route retains Link 165, which crosses the Pecos River at a location involving a span of approximately 3,700 feet and a significant vertical rise.

Commissioner Courtney Hjaltman had requested additional assurance from AEP Texas that the crossing was technically feasible. She proposed using an alternative western route if the utility could not provide a satisfactory answer. The commission ultimately retained Link 165 after receiving additional assurances from AEP Texas. The utilities will now be responsible for completing the crossing as represented during the proceeding.

This type of technical scrutiny is appropriate. When engineering feasibility affects the selection of a route across private land, regulators and the public should receive clear evidence that the approved project can be constructed safely and reliably.

Economic Growth Strengthens the 765-kV Case

The strongest argument for the Howard-to-Solstice transmission line is that Texas electricity demand is growing faster than the infrastructure needed to serve it.

Oil and gas production, manufacturing, population growth, electrification, semiconductor facilities, hospitals, liquefied natural gas development, and other large investments are increasing demand across the ERCOT system. Many of these projects involve actual capital commitments and signed service agreements, not merely speculative data center proposals.

Texans for Responsible Infrastructure Investment argues that approximately six gigawatts of industrial demand is already waiting for service, with customers prepared to pay their assigned interconnection costs. The coalition also points to large manufacturing investments already underway, including semiconductor, automotive, pharmaceutical, and bioscience projects.

Transmission planning must look years ahead because major power lines cannot be built when a customer suddenly needs electricity. Planning, regulatory approval, easement acquisition, engineering, and construction can take the better part of a decade. Waiting until demand fully materializes risks leaving completed industrial facilities without adequate power.

Texas also faces existing transmission congestion. Supporters of the 765-kV plan estimate that congestion associated with West Texas constraints already costs consumers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Building additional capacity could allow less expensive generation to reach customers, reduce congestion costs, and improve the grid’s ability to move electricity during periods of extreme demand.

These are substantial arguments in favor of the project and should not be dismissed.

Why Texas Selected 765-kV Transmission

The debate is not only about whether Texas needs additional transmission. It is also about what type of transmission the state should build.

Supporters contend that 765-kV lines can move larger amounts of electricity over long distances more efficiently than 345-kV alternatives. They also argue that the higher-capacity lines can require fewer parallel corridors and fewer structures to move an equivalent amount of power.

The technology itself is not experimental. Thousands of miles of 765-kV transmission infrastructure have operated in other parts of the United States and Canada for decades. AEP has experience operating this equipment outside Texas.

Texans for Responsible Infrastructure Investment estimates that the 765-kV strategy could save approximately $230 million annually over lower-voltage alternatives. The coalition also argues that broader congestion reductions could produce annual benefits of approximately $300 million to $500 million.

Those estimates should receive the same scrutiny as the cost projections offered by critics. But if the state must significantly increase long-distance transmission capacity, it is reasonable to consider whether a higher-voltage backbone provides better long-term value than repeatedly expanding a lower-capacity system.

More Generation Alone Does Not Eliminate Transmission Needs

Some critics of the 765-kV plan have argued that Texas should encourage more dispatchable generation closer to West Texas demand instead of building such an extensive transmission network. Additional generation near demand could reduce the need for some long-distance infrastructure and deserves consideration. But generation and transmission are not interchangeable.

A new power plant cannot serve customers if the surrounding transmission system lacks the capacity to move its electricity. Likewise, generation located closer to one industrial load may not provide the broader flexibility needed to move power throughout ERCOT during changing grid conditions.

Texas Policy Research (TPR) has previously emphasized that the state should evaluate different combinations of generation and transmission rather than assume that the current 765-kV proposal is the only possible solution. That position should not be confused with arguing that Texas can meet its growing electricity needs through generation alone.

A reliable grid requires both sufficient generation and the infrastructure necessary to deliver it.

Ratepayer Costs Still Require Transparent Review

The economic case for transmission does not remove the need for cost discipline.

Previous research cited by TPR estimated approximately $33 billion in capital costs for the transmission projects included in its analysis, with substantially higher lifetime costs after financing, utility returns, maintenance, and taxes. Supporters respond that those figures fail to account adequately for congestion savings, avoided lower-voltage construction, economic growth, and the costs of failing to expand the grid.

Both sides are describing real economic consequences. Building too much infrastructure can burden ratepayers with unnecessary costs. Building too little can increase congestion, constrain investment, weaken reliability, and ultimately cost consumers more.

The PUC and ERCOT should therefore disclose the assumptions supporting major transmission projects, including projected demand, expected congestion savings, alternative configurations, and the allocation of costs. Where identifiable large loads create extraordinary infrastructure requirements, regulators should continue examining whether those customers are bearing an appropriate share of the resulting costs.

Transparency will make the case for necessary infrastructure stronger, not weaker.

Legislative Oversight Remains Necessary

The Howard-to-Solstice approval also continues a legitimate debate over legislative intent.

House Bill 5066 (HB 5066), passed in the 88th Legislative Session (2023), directed the PUC to develop a reliability plan for the Permian Basin. It did not expressly require a 765-kV transmission system. Several lawmakers have since questioned whether the infrastructure now emerging from that directive exceeds what they believed the legislation authorized.

That concern does not mean the PUC selected the wrong technology. It means lawmakers should clarify the policy.

Administrative agencies need discretion to apply technical expertise, particularly in complex electricity proceedings. But projects that reshape the Texas grid, affect thousands of landowners, and commit ratepayers to decades of costs also warrant clear legislative direction.

The 90th Texas Legislature should review the 765-kV strategy, strengthen landowner protections, examine cost allocation, and establish appropriate standards for future projects. That review can occur without assuming that previously approved lines should be abandoned.

Texas Needs Transmission With Appropriate Guardrails

The Howard-to-Solstice approval moves Texas closer to constructing a high-capacity transmission backbone capable of supporting continued economic growth in West Texas and across the ERCOT system.

There is a credible case for the investment. Demand is growing, transmission congestion already imposes costs, industrial projects cannot wait indefinitely for service, and 765-kV technology may offer meaningful efficiency advantages over lower-voltage alternatives.

There are also credible concerns about the approval process, private property rights, long-term costs, demand assumptions, and the division of authority between regulators and elected lawmakers.

Texas does not have to choose between reflexively opposing new transmission and granting regulators a blank check. It can build needed infrastructure while demanding evidence, transparency, cost discipline, and respect for landowners.

The Howard-to-Solstice decision reflects progress toward meeting the state’s electricity needs. The task for lawmakers and regulators is to ensure that the broader 765-kV strategy remains justified as its costs, routes, and underlying demand become clearer.

---

---