Sen. Charles Schwertner says testimony about inadequate notice, shortened timelines and due-process concerns shows that Texas’ transmission approval process must be overhauled before the projects advance. His request appears to include the proposed Bell County East–Big Hill line, although his statement did not identify individual docket numbers.
A senior Texas senator is calling on state regulators to deny the pending applications for a new network of 765-kilovolt transmission lines, potentially placing the proposed Bell County East–Big Hill project in jeopardy months before a final regulatory decision.
State Sen. Charles Schwertner, chairman of the Senate Business and Commerce Committee, issued the request following a 15-hour committee hearing examining the Texas electricity market and proposed ultra-high-voltage lines intended to support rising power demand in West Texas.
In a July 31 statement, Schwertner said testimony from property owners and their representatives exposed serious concerns with the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity process used by the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Those concerns included inadequate notice from utilities, shortened PUC timelines and due-process issues at the State Office of Administrative Hearings.
“These concerns demonstrate the need for a complete overhaul of the CCN process before these applications can advance,” Schwertner said.
He then called on the PUC to deny the existing applications and said any utilities seeking to reapply should first address the problems raised during the hearing.
Schwertner also said the Legislature intends to reform the CCN process during its next session to make future transmission proceedings “fair and transparent.”
The statement does not identify the affected projects by name or docket number.
However, the Bell County East–Big Hill line is one of the pending 765-kV projects currently moving through the CCN process. Oncor and the Lower Colorado River Authority Transmission Services Corporation filed the application March 26 under PUC Docket No. 59475. The utilities currently anticipate a commission decision in September and project completion in summer 2030.
The proposed single-circuit line would stretch from Oncor’s Bell County East Switch southeast of Temple to a new substation near Eldorado in Schleicher County. It is designed as part of a larger transmission corridor carrying electricity toward the Permian Basin, where industrial demand is projected to grow rapidly. The broader project uses steel lattice towers and is part of the state-backed Permian Basin Reliability Plan.
The Directory has asked Schwertner’s office to confirm whether his request specifically includes Docket 59475. The Directory also contacted Oncor for comment regarding Schwertner’s statement and its potential effect on the Bell County East–Big Hill application. Oncor initially requested additional time to respond but did not provide a comment by the extended deadline.
Schwertner’s statement does not itself stop the Bell County project. The PUC remains the agency responsible for approving or denying CCN applications, and the chairman’s request is not a formal commission order.
It is nevertheless a significant political escalation.
Schwertner chairs the Senate committee responsible for overseeing the state’s electric market. His committee’s June interim charge specifically included reviewing the effect of proposed 765-kV routes on homes, businesses, communities and private-property rights.
His statement also goes further than calling for a delay.
Several lawmakers and landowner groups had previously urged regulators to pause the projects until the Legislature could review the broader transmission plan. Schwertner is now asking the PUC to deny the applications already before it and require any future applications to begin again after addressing the process concerns.
For Bell County East–Big Hill, that could mean more than a postponed September decision.
If the PUC follows Schwertner’s request, Oncor and LCRA TSC could be required to revise and refile an application for a project the utilities say must be operational by summer 2030.
Notice has become one of the central disputes surrounding the Bell County project.
Oncor and LCRA held preliminary public meetings in Salado, Lampasas and Menard in June 2025. After those meetings, the project’s study area expanded and hundreds of miles of additional preliminary route links were added.
According to the project research reviewed by The Directory, the expansion brought more than 1,300 additional property owners into proximity with proposed routes after the initial public meetings had already occurred. Opponents argued those landowners were denied the same early opportunity to speak directly with engineers and participate before the application was finalized.
The utilities maintain that they complied with all legal notice requirements when the formal application was filed.
Administrative law judges previously declined to delay the case, concluding that opponents had not identified a specific notice statute or regulation violated by Oncor or LCRA. The judges found that the formal right to intervene began with the filing of the CCN application, not with the earlier public-engagement process.
Schwertner’s statement suggests that technical compliance with existing notice rules may no longer be the only issue.
His concern appears to be whether the rules themselves provide landowners with a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate before proposed routes become part of a formal, accelerated legal proceeding.
Oncor argues the 765-kV network is urgently needed to reduce congestion, improve reliability and carry power toward rapidly growing industrial demand in West Texas.
The company says transmission congestion cost ERCOT customers approximately $10 billion from 2020 through 2024 and that a 765-kV network would produce greater long-term savings than lower-voltage alternatives.
The Bell County East–Big Hill line would form part of a central import path serving the Permian Basin. The line is not proposed primarily as a local Bell County reliability project. Its purpose is to strengthen the wider ERCOT system and transport large quantities of electricity across regions.
That statewide purpose has always been at the center of the controversy.
The physical burden would be concentrated along private property and rural communities across the selected route, while the primary reliability and economic benefits would be distributed across the state and toward industrial users hundreds of miles away.
Schwertner’s request does not necessarily dispute ERCOT’s reliability projections or conclude that the lines are unnecessary.
Instead, it argues that infrastructure need cannot excuse an approval process that lawmakers believe has denied landowners adequate notice or procedural fairness.
That distinction matters.
Texas may still determine that a 765-kV network is necessary.
The question is whether the state can reach that decision through the current applications—or whether the process must start again.
What happens next
The PUC is not legally required to follow Schwertner’s request, and the commission had not announced a denial of Docket 59475 as of publication.
Unless regulators alter the schedule, Oncor continues to list a September 2026 decision for the Bell County East–Big Hill application.
The immediate questions are now:
- Whether the PUC will proceed with the pending cases;
- Whether Schwertner’s request covers every current 765-kV application;
- Whether Oncor and LCRA will withdraw or defend Docket 59475;
- Whether denial and refiling would threaten the summer 2030 completion target; and
- What specific CCN reforms lawmakers intend to pursue in 2027.
The Directory has requested responses from Schwertner’s office regarding the effect of the statement on the Bell County project. The Directory also asked Oncor whether it intends to continue defending Docket 59475, withdraw and refile the application, or revise its timeline in response to Schwertner’s request. Oncor requested an extension to respond but did not provide a comment by the extended deadline.
This article will be updated if Oncor or Schwertner’s office provides additional information.
The first phase of the Bell County debate focused on necessity: Does Texas need this line?
The second focused on burden: Why should these particular communities and landowners absorb its physical impact?
Schwertner’s statement introduces a third—and potentially decisive—question:
Was the state’s approval process fair enough for the answer to be legitimate?
Texas is still deciding how it intends to power its next economic chapter.
Now it may also have to decide whether it must restart the process used to build it.