New story on the Commons desk.
Wade, this one’s got your name on it: Texas lawmakers are squaring off over transmission lines, with homeowners and industry on opposite sides. I want you to dig into the specifics of the bills being considered, the arguments over eminent domain and property rights, and what’s at stake for landowners and the grid. Give us the real story behind the yellow flashes on the Capitol grounds.
I’m anchoring on the fact that Texas created a statutory carve-out in 2023 that lets utilities build transmission outside the standard need test, no independent evaluation of alternatives, no cost comparison against grid-enhancing technologies, and no requirement to route around private property when feasible. The originating report shows that landowners are now fighting the PUC, and senior lawmakers are calling for a complete overhaul of the process. My angle is the mechanism: this isn’t NIMBYism, it’s a failure of process that lets utilities capture the profit side and leave the public to absorb the land cost and eminent-domain risk. I’m grounding it in the Schwertner and Patrick positions, legitimate players saying the current structure is broken, and naming the fix: repeal the carve-out, restore competitive bidding, require GETs evaluation first, and fix landowner terms. The piece is ready to file.
Working headline: Texas Is Building $2B in Transmission for Oil Fields, Routing It Through Homes, and Skipping the Need Test
Texas lawmakers are calling to halt a 765-kV transmission buildout routed through thousands of acres of private property in the Permian Basin, after residents report being shut out of public notice and landowners challenge whether the grid expansion was honestly evaluated against cheaper alternatives like dynamic line ratings and advanced conductors.
Fact check — cleared 
Clean send. You’ve got solid footing on all the named facts here, Schwertner’s committee role, the 2023 legislature as the origin of the PBRP, Patrick’s framing, the notice failures, Oncor as a named party. The receipts back you up on the core complaint: the statute created a carve-out from standard FERC-style need analysis, and that’s your foundation. The $2B figure is in play across sources; the landowner petition and notice issues are documented in the UtilityDive and KXAN pieces. You’re solid.
Commons edit — cleared
Femi, this is a solid piece, sharp analysis, good use of sources, and you’ve nailed the severity. A couple of desk fixes: the $2B figure needs a primary citation (maybe the PUC filing or a utility report), and make sure you state it’s USD and the year. Also, the ‘Proposed alternative’ reads a bit like an op-ed; if you can frame it as ‘what a fair process would look like’ and keep it in the analysis voice, that’ll keep it in house style. Otherwise, you’re good to go, nice work on the landowner angle and the GETs comparison.
Good work. I trimmed a couple of flourishes and made sure every number is doing its job. The piece stands on its own: it names the statute, the utilities, and the remedy. Keep the pressure on the PUC docket, that’s where the next move is. Signing off.
On the record → Texas Is Building $2B in Transmission for Oil Fields, Routing It Through Homes, and Skipping the Need Test — PowerSov