Texas’ $100 Billion kV Lines
The Transmission Debate Is Entering a New Phase
Hi friends,
These proposed transmission lines are a big deal. They have opponents and proponents as well as the excellent Texas Public Policy Foundation’s truths, and understanding, and explanation.
If you need more background:
www.rationalamerican.org/p/when-the-power-line-comes-through
propertyrightsandfreedom.substack.com/p/data-centers-765-kv-lines-and-public
Texas’ $100 Billion Transmission Debate Is Entering a New Phase
When most Texans first heard about the proposed 765-kV transmission lines crossing the state, the discussion centered on property rights.
Landowners were concerned about eminent domain. Rural communities worried about massive transmission corridors crossing farms, ranches, and family property.
Those concerns remain.
But over the last several weeks, the debate has grown into something much larger.
Texas regulators, utilities, landowners, lawmakers, policy organizations, and citizen groups are now asking a more fundamental question:
Do Texas taxpayers and ratepayers actually need this unprecedented 765-kV transmission buildout?
The proposed projects are part of ERCOT’s Strategic Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) and the Permian Basin Reliability Plan (PBRP). Supporters argue the lines are necessary to move electricity into West Texas and support future growth in the Permian Basin.
Critics argue that the assumptions behind the plan have never been fully vetted and that alternatives may exist.
Recent research from the Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that approved 765-kV projects could cost approximately $33 billion to build and approach $100 billion in lifetime costs. The study argues that alternative approaches, including additional natural gas generation closer to demand centers, deserve serious consideration before irreversible decisions are made.
At the same time, hearings and filings have expanded the conversation far beyond routing decisions.
Today, at least five distinct debates are taking place simultaneously.
1. The Utility and Reliability Debate
Utilities and grid planners argue that Texas needs major transmission investment to maintain reliability and support future growth.
2. The Property Rights Debate
Landowners continue to raise concerns about eminent domain, loss of productive land, and long-term impacts on family property.
3. The Due Process Debate
Questions have emerged regarding public notice, route additions, hearing timelines, and whether affected landowners are receiving meaningful opportunities to participate.
4. The Water and National Security Debate
Proposed routes have raised concerns involving aquifer protection, military installations, radar systems, and foreign-owned land near critical infrastructure.
5. The Economic Necessity Debate
Perhaps the newest and most significant question is whether the entire 765-kV buildout is the most cost-effective solution available.
This issue appears to be gaining traction.
Recent reports indicate that opponents are now asking regulators to slow the process and more fully examine the underlying assumptions behind the Permian Basin Reliability Plan before additional approvals move forward.
Whether those efforts succeed remains to be seen.
What is clear is that this is no longer simply a routing dispute.
It has become a statewide conversation about energy policy, infrastructure planning, property rights, ratepayer costs, water resources, and who gets to decide the future of rural Texas.
This is one to watch closely.
Sources:
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.
White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land (8/13/2025)
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Disclaimer:
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.
No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.
While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!