To understand how we got to this point, we did some research and tried to determine how the Texas CREZ transmission grid project began. As best we can determine, below is a roughly how the CREZ transmission grid came to be and what will happen next.
First, wind power in Texas hit a stopping point due to lack of transmission lines to transport the energy. Wind power developers wouldn't build without transmission lines and utilities couldn't build lines without power generators.
Hence, Senate Bill 20 was passed -- a bill designed to allow for the construction of transmission lines before wind farm development. (See Senate Bill 20 )
Next came the designation of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ), which was done by ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas ) based on wind data collected and transmission costs. ERCOT then made their recommendations to PUCT. (See Analysis of Transmission Alternatives for CREZs in Texas and CREZ Transmission Optimization Study )
PUCT designated the CREZ zones. (See CREZ Zone Map )
PUCT awarded contracts for certain lines to certain TSPs. (See TSP Line Map )
Utility companies further defined alternative routes and sent out notices to "affected" landowners, being landowners who owned property over which the line would pass, or who owned houses or other habitable structures within 500 feet of the line.
Utility companies held public meetings, also referred to as "open houses."
Utility companies further refine alternative routes.
Utility companies select alternative routes and apply for Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCNs) from PUCT, giving notice to affected landowners. Landowners receive formal notice from PUCT that their land is affected by the line and instructions on what happens next. (See Landowners and Transmission Line Cases at the PUC CREZ Projects and Application for a CCN for a Proposed Transmission Line)
As set forth in the above notice, PUCT decides whether to approve an application to obtain or amend a CCN for a CREZ transmission line after considering the following factors:
- The effect of approving the application on the applicant and any utility serving the proximate area;
- Whether the route utilizes existing compatible rights-of-way, including the use of vacant positions on existing multiple-circuit transmission lines;
- Whether the route parallels existing compatible rights-of-way;
- Whether the route parallels property lines or other natural or cultural features;
- Whether the route conforms with the policy of prudent avoidance (which is defined as the limiting of exposures to electric and magnetic fields that can be avoided with reasonable investments of money and effort); and
- Other factors such as community values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, environmental integrity, and the probable improvement of service or lowering of cost to consumers in the area.
If PUCT decides an application should be approved, it will grant to the applicant a CCN or CCN amendment to allow for the construction and operation of the new transmission line.
PUCT conducts a case to evaluate the impact of the proposed CREZ line and to decide which route should be approved. Landowners who would be affected by a new line can participate in the case in the following ways:
- informally, by filing a protest, or
- formally, by intervening in the PUC case. (See Public Participation)
Landowners must intervene in the case by the specified date in the notice letter or they will be prevented from participating in the case. (See Landowners and Transmission Line Cases at the PUC CREZ Projects)
A hearing is held by administrative law judge (ALJ) or State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). The ALJ or SOAH make a recommendation and PUCT may approve or deny the application.
PUCT issues a final order.
Parties may file motion for rehearing.
After the ruling on the rehearing, parties may appeal the decision to the district court in Travis County.
If and when a route is finalized, utility companies contact landowners along the approved line to discuss easement acquisition.
Landowners benefit most by working with experienced counsel to negotiate a fair and adequate price for the easement and loss of value of remaining property.
If a landowner ultimately declines the utility company's offer for the easement, utilities use eminent domain (condemnation) to take the easement.
A condemnation suit may follow.
Local courts, in our case Randall County courts, decide issues concerning easements for rights-of-way, including value. In court, the loss in value of the surrounding or remainder property is also considered; however, it appears that only certain types of losses may be recovered.
Once a legal easement has been established, utility companies move forward with construction on a timeline.
Construction involves clearing of trees and other obstructions from the 175-foot wide easement, erecting double-circuit capable lattice towers that are at least 125 feet tall, and using cranes and whatever other special equipment is necessary to complete and maintain the project.
Note: On the topic of the factors PUCT must consider before granting an application for a CCN, listed above, several issues surface in regard to the routes that affect the canyon.
- As for whether the route utilizes existing compatible rights-of-way, including the use of vacant positions on existing multiple-circuit transmission lines, the alternative routes proposed by Sharyland generally cut through the middle of properties, without regard for section or property lines and do not utilize current rights of way.
- Existing rights-of-way were not apparently identified or even considered in the proposed line routes, based on what we have observed. No attempt was even made to parallel existing rights-of-way.
- In addition, as for natural, cultural or other such areas, no attempt was obviously made to avoid such features, or respect community values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, or environmental integrity. If so, crossing the North Palo Duro Canyon would never have been considered.
- In addition, there will be no improvement of service or lowering of cost of electricity to the consumers in the area as these ERCOT lines are solely for the benefit of users in cities such as Dallas and Austin.
In the end, it appears to us that the primary consideration in designating the proposed alternative routes was to identify the shortest route possible to lessen the cost for the utility company, at the expense of the affected landowners along the line. These considerations should be taken into account by PUCT when the applications are reviewed.
