The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) wants state administrative law judges to take a second look at the judges’ decision to recommend denial of an application to build out a massive transmission line project that would cut through Central Texas, which would include Burnet County. 

On Sept. 9, PUCT Chairman Thomas Gleeson issued a memo from his office ordering that the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) dive deeper on two points that he believed were not adequately addressed in the SOAH administrative law judges’ 196-page recommendation for denial of the Bell County East Switch to Big Hill Substation 765-kV Transmission Line Project. 

SOAH’s recommendation for denial was primarily based on the determination that the application did not adequately demonstrate that the project was necessary and that approximately 1,400 potentially-impacted landowners appeared to be improperly notified of the project. 

Oncor Electric Delivery and the Lower Colorado River Authority jointly filed an application in March for the project with the PUCT, hoping to construct over 200 miles of high voltage transmission lines from Bell County to Schleicher County, with all possible routes flowing through Burnet County. Following the SOAH judges’ recommendation for denial, Oncor publicly shared that it “strongly disagreed” with the decision.

The PUCT was expected to make its own decision in September on whether to approve the Bell County East Switch to Big Hill Substation 765-kV Transmission Project, but that decision will now likely be delayed for some time. 

The PUCT voted on Sept. 11 to back Gleeson’s memo, remanding SOAH’s proposal for decision until key questions were answered. Namely, Gleeson and the PUCT wanted further insight on two points:

• Are the proposed transmission facilities necessary to meet state or federal reliability standards?

• What is the estimated congestion cost savings for consumers that may result from the proposed transmission facilities considering both current and future expected congestion levels and the ability of the proposed transmission facilities to reduce those congestion levels?

These points are just two out of 21 total standard issues that SOAH was meant to address in its proposal for decision (PFD) on the Oncor/LCRA application. While SOAH recommended denial of the application, the decision is ultimately up to the PUCT. 

With the proceedings remanded, SOAH will now develop a supplemental proposal for decision that specifically addresses the two points made by Gleeson. Once that PFD is filed, parties involved will have the opportunity to file exceptions and replies to those issues only.

dakota@thepicayune.com