Skip to content
Local Insights
About this visual Public Utility Commission of Texas / county records

A transmission plan becomes a route across somebody’s land. Texans need to see which routes have legal approval, what local governments have actually adopted, and what remains unresolved before equating a planning decision with construction.

Body / subject: Public Utility Commission of Texas / county records

Data / source: Public Utility Commission of Texas signed CCN orders, docket filings and meeting records

First published: date not yet reconciled · Updated Sep 14, 2026

Five applications form three tracked import paths. Approved mileage sums only selected routes in two inspected signed orders: 242.56 and approximately 181.6 miles, displayed as approximately 424.2. Eight unique county governments have inspected adopted opposition records, including conditional or county-specific routing actions. This historical minimum is not a statewide census or a verified current-position count. Approval is separate from construction and energized status. Reported decisions, proposed routes, research leads and automated filing checks do not inflate approved totals.

Read the explanation
Skip to content
Local Insights

Lines of Power · Texas / 765 kV

Texas is drawing new lines of power.

The routes, the county objections and the decisions behind Texas’s 765-kV transmission buildout.

Follow the five applications Read the story
Editorial illustration of transmission towers crossing a Texas landscape
Conceptual illustration · not a route map

424.2approx. miles

Miles approved

Selected routes in signed orders

At least 8counties

Opposing routes

Documented county action

2of 5 tracked

Projects approved

Signed final route orders

PUCT orders & county records · Reviewed Sep 14, 2026 · 5 applications / 3 corridors
Approved does not mean built. County opposition is a documented minimum. Definitions & coverage

01 / The routes

Three corridors. Five decisions.

The proposed import paths connect Central and South Texas to the Permian Basin. Each application has its own proceeding.

Connection guide · not a geographic map

Import path 2

Central import path

Bell County EastSand Lake

Further review reported; no signed route approval in this register.

Docket 59475Docket 59182

Import path 3

Southern import path

HowardSolstice

Conditional approval reported; the signed order remains to be reviewed.

Docket 59336
02 / The decisions

Follow each application.

A signed order, a reported commission decision, and an administrative recommendation carry different weight. The labels below preserve those distinctions.

Showing 5 applications

Docket 59315Import path 1Route approved

Dinosaur–Longshore

242.56

approved route miles

The PUCT issued a signed order approving Route 559. The approved route measures 242.56 miles; approval does not establish that the line has been built or energized.

Applicants
Oncor
Record status · Aug 28, 2026
Signed final order · Route 559
Construction / energized
Not verified in this review
Open the docket ↗Utility project page ↗
Evidence & what happens next for Dinosaur–Longshore

What to watch. Watch the docket for rehearing or court developments and construction-progress reports; verify easement and construction milestones separately.

Geographic scope. Application areas include alternative routes. They do not establish which counties the final line crosses.

Docket 59029Import path 1Route approved

Longshore–Drill Hole

181.6

approved route miles

The PUCT issued a signed order approving Route 476, approximately 181.6 miles long. The order authorizes the project; it does not establish construction or operation.

Applicants
Oncor
Record status · Aug 28, 2026
Signed final order · Route 476
Construction / energized
Not verified in this review
Open the docket ↗Utility project page ↗
Evidence & what happens next for Longshore–Drill Hole

What to watch. Watch the docket for rehearing or court developments and construction-progress reports; verify easement and construction milestones separately.

Geographic scope. Application areas include alternative routes. They do not establish which counties the final line crosses.

Docket 59182Import path 2Further review reported

Big Hill–Sand Lake

197–222

proposed alternative miles

The question of need is joined with Bell County East–Big Hill. Administrative judges recommended denial on August 20; the chairman recommended further review on September 9. The Texas Tribune reported the commission sent both proposals back to SOAH on September 11. No final route order was located in this review.

Applicants
Oncor / LCRA Transmission Services Corporation
Record status · Sep 11, 2026
Reporting + primary context
Construction / energized
Not verified in this review
Open the docket ↗Utility project page ↗
Evidence & what happens next for Big Hill–Sand Lake

What to watch. Check for the written remand order, a supplemental proposal for decision and a new oral-argument date. Do not count an ALJ recommendation as a cancelled project.

Mileage basis. Application alternatives summarized in the August 20 proposal for decision; no selected final route verified.

Geographic scope. Application areas include alternative routes. They do not establish which counties the final line crosses.

Docket 59475Import path 2Further review reported

Bell County East–Big Hill

214–244

proposed alternative miles

Administrative judges recommended denial, citing unresolved need and public-meeting notice failures. The chairman proposed remand; The Texas Tribune reported both Import Path 2 proposals were returned to SOAH on September 11. This is not a verified final rejection or a route approval.

Applicants
Oncor / LCRA Transmission Services Corporation
Record status · Sep 11, 2026
Reporting + primary context
Construction / energized
Not verified in this review
Open the docket ↗Utility project page ↗
Evidence & what happens next for Bell County East–Big Hill

What to watch. Check for the written remand order, supplemental findings on reliability and consumer savings, and the next oral-argument date.

Mileage basis. Application alternatives summarized in the August 20 proposal for decision; no selected final route verified.

Geographic scope. Application areas include alternative routes. They do not establish which counties the final line crosses.

Docket 59336Import path 3Conditional approval reported

Howard–Solstice

368.5

filed route miles · not in approved total

The Texas Tribune reported conditional approval on September 11, with further landowner accommodations. A same-day applicant filing identifies Route 4 Mod 1 as the previously studied Briscoe 2-1 route, measuring 368.50 miles. A signed final order was not located; these miles remain outside the approved-mile counter.

Applicants
AEP Texas / CPS Energy
Record status · Sep 11, 2026
Reporting + primary context
Construction / energized
Not verified in this review
Open the docket ↗Utility project page ↗
Evidence & what happens next for Howard–Solstice

What to watch. Read the signed final order when posted; confirm the selected route, landowner-deviation conditions, cost scope and final mileage before updating approval metrics.

Mileage basis. September 11 applicant informational filing describes the route discussed at that day's meeting. This is filed alternative-route data, not a verified final-order length.

Geographic scope. Application areas include alternative routes. They do not establish which counties the final line crosses.

03 / Local opposition

Where counties have pushed back.

8 county governments with documented opposition to a tracked project or local routes. Some resolutions are conditional or seek another route.

Documented county opposition, project scope, adoption dates and source records
CountyAdopted action / scopeAdoptedRecord
Brown CountyAdopted a resolution formally opposing the proposed Dinosaur–Longshore 765-kV power line.
Scope & provenance for Brown County

The resolution title opposes the project as proposed; its findings specifically address proposed Brown County routes and local impacts. Do not treat this as opposition to every Texas 765-kV project.

Feb 9, 2026Read the record ↗
Comanche CountyApproved the resolution opposing the Dinosaur–Longshore project going through Comanche County and directing it to the PUCT.
Scope & provenance for Comanche County

County-specific routing opposition; not evidence the court rejects every alternative route outside Comanche County.

Recorded vote: All approved; motion passed. Minutes do not give a numerical tally for this item.

Jan 12, 2026Read the record ↗
Callahan CountyAdopted conditional opposition to Dinosaur–Longshore routing through Callahan County and requested delayed filing and alternative routes.
Scope & provenance for Callahan County

Opposes routing through Callahan County until Oncor addresses stated concerns, considers alternatives outside the county, gives proper notice, supplies engineering detail, and addresses construction damage. It is not unconditional opposition to the entire project.

Mar 19, 2026Read the record ↗
Bandera CountyAdopted opposition to Howard–Solstice construction anywhere in Bandera County.
Scope & provenance for Bandera County

Explicitly limited to any part of Bandera County.

Aug 28, 2025Read the record ↗
Real CountyAdopted opposition to Howard–Solstice and its current routes through Real County, authorizing the county judge to seek alternatives.
Scope & provenance for Real County

Section 2 names the project and its current routes through Real County; Section 3 seeks alternative routes. Preserve this local routing qualification.

Aug 22, 2025Read the record ↗
Edwards CountyApproved opposition to Howard–Solstice and its current routes through Edwards County, authorizing pursuit of alternatives.
Scope & provenance for Edwards County

Opposition is to the project and current routes through Edwards County; alternative routes are expressly contemplated.

Aug 26, 2025Read the record ↗
Medina CountyPassed a resolution opposing Howard–Solstice construction and its current proposed routes through Medina County.
Scope & provenance for Medina County

The adopted motion explicitly concerns current proposed routes through Medina County.

Recorded vote: 4–0

Nov 17, 2025Read the record ↗
Kerr CountyApproved formal opposition to Howard–Solstice and its current routes through Kerr County and submission of a protestor form to the PUCT.
Scope & provenance for Kerr County

County-specific opposition. This action authorizes a protestor filing, not intervenor status.

Recorded vote: 4–0–1; Judge Kelly abstained

Apr 1, 2026Read the record ↗

This is an inspected minimum covering Dinosaur–Longshore and Howard–Solstice, not a statewide census or a current public-opinion measure. It counts adoption of an action; every resolution’s continuing status has not been reverified. Bandera, Real and Edwards records are signed county documents hosted by a preservation coalition, with that provenance disclosed above.

Other local actions under review · excluded from the count

Burnet County. Minutes show 4–0 adoption; signed resolution requests alternative routes outside Burnet County and delayed filing. Operative clauses do not explicitly adopt opposition. Keep as a separate action category unless a later unequivocal opposition record is verified. Source ↗

Val Verde County. Coalition categorizes document among county resolutions, but the inspected document is a signed concerns letter asking planners to consider environmental, military, tourism, and land-use effects. No formal adopted opposition or vote verified. Source ↗

Coleman County. Official agenda lists opposition resolution; minutes or signed adopted resolution not located in bounded review. Source ↗

Llano County. News reports adoption, but a primary adopted resolution or minutes was not retrieved. Excluded pending primary verification. Source ↗

Uvalde County. October 2025 adoption reported in local coverage; date and primary outcome record not established in this bounded review. Source ↗

04 / Your next step

Find your line in the record.

Start with the application and its latest procedural orders. The docket is the place to establish what is scheduled, what has been decided, and what remains open.

  1. Open the relevant docket.Each project above links to its PUCT filings, newest first. Look for final orders, hearing notices, and current deadlines.
  2. Check the route before drawing conclusions.A study-area county or an alternative line on a planning map does not establish that your property lies on the approved route.
  3. Verify today’s participation rules.No future intervention deadline was verified in this review. Check current notices before relying on an older project-page date.
Earlier deadlines · closed as of this review

Howard–Solstice
Original deadline to request intervention: Apr 1, 2026 — closed. Original notice ↗

Bell County East–Big Hill
Original deadline to request intervention: Apr 27, 2026 — closed. Original notice ↗

These original deadlines are historical. A later procedural order may establish a different opportunity; consult the current docket.

05 / How this is counted

The source is part of the story.

Coverage. The five CCN application segments forming the three 765-kV Permian Basin Reliability Plan import paths. This is not all Texas transmission construction, all 765-kV planning, or a statewide opposition census.

Approved miles sum only the selected routes in signed final CCN orders inspected in this review. Plan approval, an ALJ proposal for decision, a commissioner memorandum and news of a vote are separate evidence states.

The September 11 Howard–Solstice meeting outcome is reported as conditional approval. Its filed Route 4 Mod 1 is 368.50 miles, but that length is excluded from signed-order approved miles until the final order is inspected.

The September 11 return of Bell County East–Big Hill and Big Hill–Sand Lake to SOAH is reported by The Texas Tribune. The primary September 9 chairman memorandum recommends remand; it is not itself proof the commission voted to remand.

No signed final order approving Howard–Solstice or remanding the two Import Path 2 cases was found in the live docket listings through this review. Their current event labels must preserve the reporting attribution.

Application-area counties are not the counties crossed by the selected route. Alternative-route miles are not additive.

Per-project estimated costs are not expenditures or customer bills. Station costs across connected projects must be reconciled before producing a program cost total.

Unknown energized, cancelled and opposition counts are not zero. Physical construction and in-service status need construction reports and utility confirmation.

County objections count distinct county governments with inspected adoption evidence. Conditional and county-specific routing objections remain identified in each record. This is an incomplete historical record of adopted actions, not a poll or a verified current-position census.

Bandera, Real and Edwards are supported by signed county resolutions hosted by a coalition; their provenance is visible. Five other counties have county or official-provider hosted adoption evidence.

Requests to study alternatives, concerns letters, agenda items without adoption evidence and research leads do not enter the opposition count. No comprehensive rescission audit has been completed.

No construction or energized-mile total is established by this register. Do not add the project cost estimates without reconciling shared facilities and accounting scope.

Automated checks inspect new filing metadata every six hours. A source check does not update the editorial review date or turn a filing into an approved outcome. Published numbers change after evidence review.

Download project CSVDownload source register
Full source index