Texas Power Lines Blog

New Beginnings!

2012-01-01T22:23:00Z

New beginnings in the new year! I've started my own law firm - Bayliff Law Firm PLLC!

I will continue representing landowners in transmission line cases at the Texas PUC. Other administrative law clients include competitive telecom companies, cable service providers, and retail electric providers (REPs).

My new office is located at 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, Texas 78701.

My email and direct dial telephone remain the same: bbayliff@RegLawFirm.com and (512) 225-0027.

Transmission Line Overview Presentation

2010-02-25T19:44:00Z

I recently travelled to Knickerbocker, Texas, outside of San Angelo, to talk with landowners who were concerned about a proposed transmission line that may affect their properties. Because of the short notice for the meeting, I did not have a PowerPoint presentation or any handouts for the meeting and wished as I travelled to the meeting that I had something that I could use during my talk.

A week later, when I was working on a tansmission lines issues presentation for the University of Texas Continuing Legal Education 2010 Land Use Conference, I decided to adapt my conference presentation so I could use it for talks to landowners like those in Knickerbocker. The idea of making the presentation available online was then a natural outgrowth of that idea. I'm making the presentation available here on the Texas Power Lines Blog for landowners and others who want to learn more about transmission line proceedings in Texas. I hope to create videos of different sections of the presentation and make them available in the future.

Click the picture below for the landowner PowerPoint presentation.

If clicking the picture above does not work for you, please try this link.

Railroad Commission Files Exceptions to PFD

2010-02-23T15:14:00Z

The Railroad Commission (RRC) filed exceptions to the ALJ's Proposal for Decision (PFD) in Docket No. 37408. The docket is Oncor's application for approval of its proposed CREZ transmission line from the Riley to Bowman stations. The ALJ issued the PFD on February 12, 2010, the RRC filed its exceptions on the 19th. No parties contest Modified Route 20, which the parties agreed to in their settlement of the case.

The RRC exceptions focus on the appropriate way to address the potential impact of the proposed transmission line on active and inactive oil and gas wells. The Riley to Bowman line is located in Archer, Wichita, and Wilbarger Counties, which have dense oil and gas development. It is possible that there are inactive unplugged wells in the proposed right-of-way that cannot be plugged when the transmission line is active.

Oncor contends that it is not necessary to include any language governing wells in the PUC's final order approving the transmission line. PUC staff agrees with the RRC that additional language is necessary, but proposes language that the RRC contends will place the burden of identification and response on the RRC. The RRC's position is that the burden of identification and response should be on the utility. The PUC staff language requires the utility to file a map of the proposed transmission line with the RRC. Oncor would not be required to identify any known unplugged wells and is not restricted from constructing a transmission line over an existing oil and gas well even if it is aware of the presence of the well.

The RRC objects that the PUC staff's language puts the burden on the RRC to plug a well, even if the best response might be a minor deviation of the route to avoid the well. The RRC also objects to the staff's language as being inconsistent with the Texas Natural Resources Code and Texas Water Code to prevent waste of oil and natural gas resources.

The PUC staff and Oncor will respond to the RRC's exceptions before the PUC makes its final decision. This issue is important because the PUC's decision in this case will affect future transmission lines in areas where there is oil and gas development. Any ordering paragraphs approved in this docket likely will become standard ordering paragraphs in those cases.

PUC Suspends Subsequent CREZ Dockets

2010-02-18T14:22:00Z

The Public Utility Commission of Texas issued an order on February 12, 2010, suspending the subsequent CREZ projects that were scheduled to be filed between March 1 and July 26.

The suspension was necessary because a District Court in Austin issued a final judgment on January 15th, reversing and remanding the Commission's decision in Docket No. 35665 to award CREZ projects to several transmission service providers. The City of Garland had appealed the decision not to award any CREZ projects to Garland or any municipally-owned utility.

The Commission has determined that the record evidence in Docket No. 35665 will be reevaluated, so another full hearing will not be necessary. The previous schedule is no longer practical, however, so the Commission suspended the schedule for filing CCN applications for the subsequent projects until the assignment CREZ projects is decided in a new docket, Docket No 37902.

The suspension of the schedule for the subsequent projects does not affect the CREZ priority project applications that have been filed and for which hearings have been held or the sole remaining priority project, LCRA's McCamey D - Kendall - Gillespie project. That project is scheduled to be filed on July 6, 2010.

Dallas Attorney to Author Book on Wind Energy Law

2009-12-29T15:03:00Z

The legal issues surrounding wind energy in Texas continue to gain attention in the legal world. Dallas attorney and wind energy developer Steven DeWolf recently signed on with publisher LexisNexis-Matthew Bender to co-author an upcoming book on legal issues surrounding wind energy.

The book, currently titled "Texas Wind Law," will address the many aspects of Texas law that impact wind energy, including relevant statutes, regulations and rulings, as well as offering commentary and insight on wind energy issues from someone with firsthand experience. The book is scheduled to be available in the Spring of 2011.

DeWolf and his co-authors plan to address legal issues associated with the development, construction and operation of wind farms. Among the main topics will be wind energy leases, government incentives, transmission issues, offshore leasing, potential litigation, and compliance with Electric Reliability Council of Texas protocols and Public Utility Commission of Texas regulations.

DeWolf should have an interesting point of view and is in a position to look at several sides of this issue, through his operation of Wind Tex Energy Inc., an independent wind power development company in Dallas. Wind Tex Energy has developed four wind farms now in operation in West Texas.

Joining DeWolf as co-authors will be Ernest E. Smith, a University of Texas School of Law professor, and Roderick E. Wetsel, a Sweetwater, Texas, attorney.

SOAH ALJs Issue Initial Orders in Three Oncor CREZ CCN Application Dockets

2009-09-28T17:12:00Z

Three SOAH ALJs issued orders late last week establishing initial procedural schedules and discovery guidelines. The orders request that Staff file its recommendations as to deficiencies, notice, and procedural schedules on Oct. 7.

Docket No. 37407 Docket No. 37408 Docket No. 37409

Due to the expedited nature of the proceedings, the ALJs state that initial prehearing conferences before the deadlines for intervention are appropriate. The hearing date will be discussed at the first conferences. The second conferences will require discussions of proposed scheduling orders and hearing dates. It appears that the first prehearing conferences will be held simultaneously.

Docket No. 37407 First Prehearing Conference - Oct. 6, 10:00 a.m., Second Prehearing Conference - Oct. 27th, 10:00 a.m.

Docket No. 37408 First Prehearing Conference - Oct. 6, 10:00 a.m., Second Prehearing Conference - week of October 19th.

Docket No. 37409 First Prehearing Conference - Oct. 6, 10:00 a.m., Second Prehearing Conference - week of October 19th.

Because the case is proceeding on an expedited basis, the ALJs found that it is preferable to have discovery deadlines shortened. Responses to RFIs and Requests for Admission must be provided within 10 calendar days, objections to discovery must be made within 5 working days of receipt, motions to compel must be filed within 2 days of receipt. If a motion to compel is filed, the ALJs will require the party filing the objection to file a response, even if the dispute is settled.

The administrative law judges assigned to the dockets are:

Docket No. 37407 - Judge Steven D. Arnold
Docket No. 37408 - Judge Katherine L. Smith
Docket No. 37409 - Judge Kerrie Qualtrough

Legislature Increases TPWD Influence in CCN Cases

2009-09-28T14:00:00Z

In a recent filing in Docket No. 37260, a TPWD letter briefly notes that a written response to the TPWD recommendations may be required by law. The TPWD letter included several recommendations to protect wildlife resources. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Sec. 12.0011 has for some time identified the department’s resource protection activities :
    (1) investigating fish kills;
    (2) providing recommendations that will protect fish and wildlife resources to local, state, and federal agencies that approve, permit, license, or construct developmental projects;
    (3) providing information on fish and wildlife resources to any local, state, and federal agencies or private organizations that make decisions affecting those resources; and
    (4) providing recommendations to the Texas Department of Water Resources.

This year's Legislature passed HB 3391, which added new language that requires an agency with statewide jurisdiction that receives a TPWD recommendation or informational comment to respond to TPWD in writing. The agency's response must include for each recommendation or comment provided by the department:
    (1) a description of the proposed project, fish and wildlife resource decision, or water flow schedule resulting from the recommendation or comment;
    (2) any other disposition of the recommendation or comment: and
    (3) any reason the agency disagreed with or did not act on or incorporate the recommendation or comment.

The response to TPWD must be submitted within 90 days of the agency’s decision or action related to the recommendation or comment. This response is public information under the Texas Government Code.

This statute now gives TPWD’s recommendations a greater influence in transmission line cases in Texas. In the past, TPWD reviewed the environmental assessment prepared by the utility’s consultants and suggested that certain actions be taken to protect fish and wildlife resources. The Commission was not required to acknowledge or act on those recommendations. Now, the Commission must not only acknowledge the recommendations, it must publicly identify any modifications that were made as a result of those recommendations or explain why it did not act on or incorporate the recommendations.

Commission Approves Oncor CREZ CCN in Archer, Clay and Jack Counties

2009-09-28T09:07:00Z

On Tuesday, Sept. 22nd, PUC Staff and Oncor filed comments only two days before the PUC’s Open Meeting on Thursday, asking that changes be made in the proposed Findings of Fact. The changes addressed several findings relating to ERCOT’s cost estimates. ERCOT based its initial cost estimates on preliminary information provided by Oncor. The new Findings of Fact clarify that non-CCN station work associated with the transmission line was not included in the cost estimate due to time limitations. On Wednesday, the ALJ submitted a correction memo incorporating the changes.

Commissioner Donna Nelson also submitted proposed changes to the proposed order in this docket, including revisions to a Finding of Fact and a Conclusion of Law that address the project’s status as a CREZ project.

The Commission approved the CCN application with the proposed changes at its Sept. 24th Open Meeting.

PUC Provides Less Detailed Responses to Some Commenters

2009-09-26T13:47:00Z

Many of the commenters that submitted comments this summer in PUC Docket Nos. 37049 and 37051 received personal replies from PUC Chairman Smitherman. As discussed in previous entries, Chairman Smitherman has revised his letter over the past few months, starting with a traditional “Thanks for writing, I’m filing your comments in the appropriate comments docket” letter. He later revised his letters to include personal recollection of his family’s ranch in the Hill Country and his priorities for review of CCN applications, and sent some letters referring to the benefit of wind energy in light of Washington’s expected global warming legislation. Some letters also referenced the transmission congestion and high costs being experienced in Houston and South Texas.

The Commission’s recent responses to political entities, associations, and people referred by U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office have been signed by either all three commissioners or a PUC legislative assistant, are very short, and filed by the Commission’s Governmental Relations office. The new letters thank the author for their correspondence and state that a copy of the correspondence has been filed in a comments docket. The author is directed to send all future correspondence to Central Records instead of the Commissioners and directions are provided on obtaining filings in the docket.

It appears that individual letters to Chairman Smitherman are continuing to receive a current form response from the Chairman. In a letter to Hill Country landowners, Chairman Smitherman now refers to the PUC’s approval of LCRA’s request to study additional routes and routing concepts. He says that LCRA indicated that the scope of the new review would include a study area approximately double the size so the original study area. The Chairman then states that he is hopeful that LCRA will develop new routes that will help address citizens’ concerns.

PUC Grants LCRA’s Request for More Time to Study Hill Country CREZ Routes

2009-09-25T13:34:00Z

On Thursday, Sept. 24th, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) voted to give the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) additional time to study potential routes for the proposed CREZ transmission lines that may affect the Texas Hill Country. The additional time will allow LCRA to expand its study area to review possible routes in a wider area that will consider existing rights-of-way along I-10 and highways and current transmission line routes. The scope of the new review will include a study area approximately double the size of the previous study area. The additional time to expand the study area does not remove any of the existing proposed routes from consideration by LCRA and the PUC.

Industry representatives seemed to understand the political nature of the LCRA request and filed comments generally supporting the extension of time. E.ON, for example supported the extension if the length of time is reasonable and review of additional routes necessary. NextEra submitted a response that stated it recognizes the importance and concerns underlying the request, but there are urgent reliability and other needs for the priority transmission projects. NextEra urged the Commission to inquire into and determine whether the length of the requested delays is excessive. AES Wind said it “defers to the Commission for balancing all of the interests” but expressed concerns about when the lines will be energized.

LCRA originally was required to begin submitting its applications for the lines in October. The additional time will extend filing dates to Oct. 28 for the Gillespie-Newton project, Jan. 15, 2010, for the Twin Buttes-McCamey D project, and July 6, 2010, for the McCamey D-Kendall-Gillespie project. The completion of the projects likely will be delayed from 2012 to the end of 2013.

The PUC’s decision was cheered by members of the Clear View Alliance, but it is likely that any new routes in the expanded study area are likely to bring their own opposition. Mason Mayor Brent Hinkley filed comments saying the citizens of Mason have become concerned about the proposed expansion and submitting a copy of a resolution stating the city's concerns.

Three Oncor CREZ CCN Applications Referred to SOAH

2009-09-23T16:57:00Z

On Sept. 21st, the PUC referred three Oncor CREZ dockets to SOAH and requested assignment of an administrative law judge (ALJ) to conduct a hearing and issue a proposal for decision. Because these CCN applications are related to the Texas CREZ goals, the PUC is required to issue a final order in each of these dockets before the 181st day after the applications were filed at the PUC.

The referral orders include several issues that must be addressed in the docket, including adequacy of the applications, notice, whether the applications meet the Commission's filing requirements, and whether the applications meet the CREZ requirements. The most important issues to landowners are several routing questions, including which route is the best alternative and whether there are alternative routes that would have a less negative impact on landowners.

The referral orders states that compensation issues are not to be addressed, and, because the lines are CREZ projects, whether the proposed transmission lines are necessary.

Renewable energy developers in the competitive renewable energy zone served by the lines must post financial commitments within 45 days of the filing of the applications.

The affected dockets are 37407, 37408, and 37409.

Sierra Club Urges Expansion of LCRA Hill Country CREZ Study Area

2009-09-22T13:29:00Z

The Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club filed comments on the expansion of the LCRA Hill Country study area, saying “it is only logical that LCRA look at the potential of using all or parts of I-10 or existing transmission lines to run the CREZ lines.” The comments, submitted by the chapter's conservation director, Cyrus Reed, said the organization wants to be on record as supporting the delay and a fresh look at alternatives in the McCamey to Kendall area.

Oncor Files Application, Testimony in Central B-Central A-Tonkawa CREZ CCN Application

2009-09-21T22:27:00Z

On Sept. 16, 2009, Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC (Oncor), in Docket No. 37409, submitted its application for a CCN for two new transmission lines for the Central B-Central A-Tonkawa 345 kV double circuit transmission line. The line will extend from Oncor’s Central B Switching Station, located in northwest Scurry County, Texas, to Oncor’s new Central A Switching Station, located 8.5 miles southeast of Snyder, Texas. The second line extends from the Central A Switching Station to Oncor’s existing Tonkawa Switching Station in Southeastern Scurry County, Texas. The endpoints are all located in the Central CREZ area.

The Preferred Route for the entire project is approximately 43 miles long. Oncor plans to use double-circuit lattice steel towers in this project; the typical structure will be 125 feet tall. Double-circuit steel lattice towers were selected over single poles because they are “the most cost efficient structure” for areas of lower density development. Oncor expects to energize the facilities in September 2011. The estimated total cost of the project is $149,212,000.

The Commission previously determined a need for the project in Docket No. 33672 and identified it in Docket No. 36801 as a Priority Project that is needed to address existing transmission issues, regardless of the development of additional wind generation in Texas. The Commission found that the CCN application for this project is exempt from addressing the need criteria in Texas statutes.

Oncor retained HDR Engineering, Inc. to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and support for its application. The application describes the process routing study and public meetings for the project. There are 33 habitable structures located within 500 feet of the centerline of the Preferred Route. Oncor hosted two public meetings about the project in Synder, Texas, in April 2009.

Oncor submitted the Direct Testimony of four witnesses at the same time it submitted its application.

Kenneth Donahoo – Director of System Planning, Distribution and Transmission at Oncor. His testimony introduces the witnesses testifying on behalf of Oncor; addresses facility name changes; and discusses the differences between the proposed project and what was presented in the CREZ Transmission Optimization Study (CTO).

Jill Alvarez – Consulting Engineer in Oncor’s Transmission Project Support. Her testimony addresses the overall project; the proposed design and construction of the facilities, including the necessary right-of-way requirements; the project schedule and financing; the company’s cost estimates; compliance with notice requirements, identification of any neighboring utilities and municipalities; and any engineering issues associated with the project.

Charles Jasper – Employed by Jasper Environmental Consulting, LLC. His testimony addresses the public participation meeting process; additional permitting that could be necessary; selection of preferred and alternate routes; and the adequacy of Oncor’s geographically diverse routes.

Tom Trimble – Senior Environmental Scientist with HDR Engineering, Inc. His testimony introduces, supports, sponsors, and describes the environmental assessment (EA) and alternative route analysis for the project.

Texas Power Lines Blog Named "Blawg of the Day"

2009-09-18T16:57:00Z

Tom Mighell's Inter Alia web site named Texas Power Lines Blog its "Blawg of the Day" on Sept. 16, 2009. The Blawg of the Day selection describes Texas Power Lines Blog as "a great niche blog" and says the blog is "providing some great coverage on what is a really important topic here in Texas."

The American Bar Association estimates that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 legal blogs, what the ABA calls “blawgs.” Legal blogs often provide advice, tips, and opinions about legal issues. Mighell's site has been included on the Blawg 100 list, the 100 best web sites by lawyers, for lawyers, as chosen by the editors of the ABA Journal.

It is great to be noticed and commented on by someone of Tom Mighell's stature in the legal blogging community. Thanks for noticing my blog, Tom!

Oncor Files CREZ CCN Application for Wilbarger, Wichita and Archer Counties

2009-09-18T13:05:00Z

On Sept. 16, 2009, Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC (Oncor), in Docket No. 37408, submitted its application for a CCN for the Riley-Bowman 345 kV double circuit transmission line. Formerly known as the Oklaunion-Bowman project, the line will extend from the Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT) Riley Station, located in the southeastern portion of Wilbarger County, Texas, through the southwestern portion of Wichita County, to the existing Oncor Bowman Switching Station in the northern portion of Archer County, Texas. ERCOT originally identified the line for termination at AEP’s Oklaunion Generating Station facility, but AEP indicated that the Station was not designed to serve as a mid-point hub for wind energy transport paths. AEP identified the construction of the new Riley Station on the east of the Oklaunion Generating Station; ERCOT concurred with this alternative.

The Preferred Route for the project is approximately 49 miles long. Oncor plans to use double-circuit lattice steel towers; the typical structure will be 120 feet tall. Double-circuit steel lattice towers were selected over single poles because they are “the most cost efficient structure” for areas of lower density development. Oncor expects to energize the facilities in December 2011. The estimated total cost of the project is $49,350,000.

The Commission previously determined a need for the project in Docket No. 33672 and identified it as a Priority Project that is needed to address existing transmission issues, regardless of the development of additional wind generation in Texas. The Commission found that the CCN application for this project is exempt from addressing the need criteria in Texas statutes.

Oncor retained Haiff Associates, Inc. to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a comprehensive routing study for the project. The application describes the process routing study and public meetings for the project. A memo from Robert Holt provided as Attachment No. 5 includes specific discussion regarding evaluation and selection of the Preferred Route and alternate routes to be filed with the application.

Two public meetings were hosted by Oncor in April 2009, with fewer than 100 people attending the meetings. There are 8 habitable structures located within 500 feet of the centerline of the Preferred Route.

Oncor submitted the Direct Testimony of four witnesses at the same time it submitted its application.

Brenda Perkins – President of BJ Perkins Corporation. His testimony addresses the overall project; the proposed design and construction of the facilities, including the necessary right-of-way requirements; the project schedule and financing; the company’s cost estimates; compliance with notice requirements, identification of any neighboring utilities and municipalities; and any engineering issues associated with the project.

Kenneth Donahoo – Director of System Planning, Distribution and Transmission at Oncor. His testimony introduces the witnesses testifying on behalf of Oncor; addresses facility and transmission line project name changes; and discusses the differences between the proposed project and what was presented in the CREZ Transmission Optimization Study (CTO).

Russell Marusak – Environmental consultant with Haiff Associates, Inc. His testimony introduces, supports, sponsors, and describes the environmental assessment and alternative route analysis (EA) for the project.

Robert Holt – Regulatory Product Manager for Oncor. His testimony addresses the public participation process; additional permitting that could be necessary; selection of the preferred and alternative routes; the adequacy of Oncor’s geographically diverse routes; and compliance with notice requirements.

Oncor Files Sweetwater-Area CREZ CCN Application

2009-09-17T22:38:00Z

On Sept. 16, 2009, Oncor submitted its application for a CCN for a proposed transmission line in Docket No. 37407. The proposed project will consist of two new double-circuit 345 kV transmission lines. The first line will extend from Oncor’s existing Tonkawa Switching Station, located approximately 16.8 miles west/northwest of Sweetwater in Scurry County to Oncor’s proposed Sweetwater East Switching Station, located approximately 11.2 miles east of Sweetwater. The second line runs from the Sweetwater East Switching Station to Oncor’s proposed Central Bluff Switching Station, which would be located approximately 29.3 miles south/southeast of Sweetwater.

The cost to establish the Sweetwater East Switching Station is estimated to be approximately $14,780,000. The new Central Bluff Switching Station is estimated to cost approximately $32,210,000.

Combined, the two new lines are approximately 66 miles in length. They will be constructed on double-circuit lattice steel towers with both circuits in place. The height of the typical structures will be 125 feet. Oncor states that it considered and compared double-circuit lattice steel towers double-circuit single pole structures, and other structures. Oncor states that it is generally aware that some landowners prefer single poles rather than the lattice steel towers, but says for this project a balancing of several factors weighs in favor of selection of the lattice steel towers. Its analysis indicates that, for areas of lower density development, double-circuit steel lattice towers are the most cost efficient structure. The project will require a right-of-way of 160 feet. Oncor expects to energize the facilities by December 2011.

The areas affected by the proposed project are largely rural in nature with single-family residences scattered throughout the study area. The Sweetwater East-Central Bluff area has some concentrated areas of wind farms. Ranching operations are dominated by cattle, but also include goat, sheep, and lamb production.

Oncor retained HDR Engineering, Inc. to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a comprehensive routing study for each of the two segments of the project. The application describes the process routing study and public meetings for the project. The application also includes routing maps and aerial photographs of the study area. Information about habitable structures also is provided in the application. 27 habitable structures are located within 500 feet of the centerline of the Preferred Route. The application also discusses historical and archaeological sites and the environmental impact of the project.

Oncor submitted the Direct Testimony of four witnesses at the same time it submitted its application.

Tom Trimble – Senior Environmental Scientist with HDR Engineering, Inc., and engineering and environmental consulting firm. His testimony introduces, supports, sponsors, and describes the environmental assessment and alternative route analysis (EA) for the project.

Kenneth Donoho – Director of System Planning, Distribution and Transmission at Oncor. His testimony introduces the witnesses testifying on behalf of Oncor; addresses facility name changes; and discusses the differences between the proposed project and what was presented in the CREZ Transmission Optimization Study (CTO).

What Are the PUC's Criteria for Approving a CCN Application?

2009-09-17T18:45:00Z

Landowners and others involved in transmission line cases before the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) often ask about the standards or criteria for approving a transmission line. The PUC has both statutory and regulatory guidelines that it must follow when it reviews proposed transmission lines.

Public Utilities Regulatory Act (PURA) Sec. 37.056(c) establishes the statutory guidelines. The Commission must consider:

Adequacy of existing service
Need for additional service
The effect of granting the CCN on any electric utility serving the proximate area
Other factors that include:
- Community values
- Recreational and park areas
- Historical and aesthetic values
- Environmental integrity
- The probably improvement of service or lowering of cost to consumers in the area

The Commission established a rule to guide its consideration of new transmission lines. PUC Subst. R. 25.101(b)(3)(B) requires an application for a new transmission line to address the criteria in PURA Sec. 37.056(c) and considering those criteria, engineering constraints, and costs, the line shall be routed to the extent reasonable to moderate the impact on the affected community and landowners unless grid reliability and security dictate otherwise.

As it is considering the selection of its preferred and alternative routes, the utility shall use the following factors unless a line is agreed to by the utility, landowners whose property is crossed by a proposed line, and owners of land that contain a habitable structure that is within 300 or 500 feet of the centerline of the transmission project:

Whether the routes utilize existing compatible rights-of-way, including the use of vacant positions on existing multiple-circuit transmission lines;
Whether the routes parallel existing compatible rights-of-way
Whether the routes parallel property lines or other natural or cultural features; and
Whether the routes conform with the policy of prudent avoidance.

The definition of prudent avoidance requires limiting exposures to electric and magnetic fields that can be avoided with reasonable investments of money and effort. PUC Subst. R. 25.101(a)(4). In practice, this often means that a 230 kV or less line should not be within 300 feet of a habitable structure and a line that is greater than 230 kV should not be within 500 feet of a habitable structure.

None of the guidelines are required to be weighted any more than another. In a recent letter to Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, Chairman Smitherman says that as a Commissioner, and more recently as Chairman of the PUC, one of the most important factors he considers when evaluating applications for transmission lines is the impact that the line would have on landowners. He then lists some of the statutory and regulatory requirements that the Commission must consider. He closes by saying that the Commission will evaluate proposed routes based on the statutory and regulatory requirements and attempt to minimize the impact of the line on landowners and to limit the cost of the line to ratepayers.

Those two issues often are difficult to balance as it usually costs ratepayers more as the Commission minimizes the impact of the transmission line on landowners.

LCRA and Staff Request Delays In Hill Country CREZ Applications

2009-09-17T16:28:00Z

On Sept. 16, 2009, LCRA Transmission Services Corporation (LCRA) and the Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas filed a motion to delay the filing dates of some CREZ Priority Projects and requested emergency relief in the form of Commission action at the earliest opportunity including, if possible, at the Open Meeting for Sept. 24, 2009.

LCRA states that, after consulting with Staff and after reviewing considerable data, routing proposals, and comments submitted by landowners, members of the public, elected representatives, and governmental officials, it has concluded that a delay in the filing dates of its Priority CREZ CCN applications is appropriate. "The additional time is necessary to expand the study area to adequately study certain additional routes and routing concepts suggested by certain landowners, governmental officials, governmental bodies, and Staff. Staff concurs in this request for additional time and for expedited, extraordinary relief.

The affected projects are the Gillespie-Newton, Twin Buttes-McCamey D, and the McCamey D-Kendall-Gillespie CREZ transmission line CCN projects. The motion requests a delay until Oct. 28, 2009, for the Gillespie-Newton 345 kV project, Jan. 15, 2010, for the Twin Buttes-McCamey D 345 kV project, and July 6, 2010, for the McCamey D-Kendall-Gillespie project. LCRA held open houses about the proposed projects in May 2009 and has reviewed and considered public comments, alternative routing proposals submitted by members of the public and elected officials, correspondence, and resolutions passed by county governments affected by the preliminary route segments. During that time, LCRA also has consulted with Staff to ensure that its CREZ applications are complete and contain a "robust number of geographically diverse proposed routes." Additionally, LCRA has taken to heart the comments expressed by the PUC commissioners in recent Open Meetings that LCRA should include in its CREZ applications enough routes to ensure the Commission has a sufficient number of routes from which to choose.

LCRA has communicated to Staff the need to request additional time to investigate and study two particular routes in the McCamey D-Kendall project, the "I-10 Route" and the "Mason-Menard Route." Staff also has communicated its desire that LCRA explore a routing concept that would combine certain preliminary links shown in its Open House exhibits into one or more routes that would merge portions of both of LCRA's currently-proposed CREZ CCN projects into a single corridor as they approach the Kendall Substation.

LCRA states that it had not planned to include these concepts in its applications. In an effort to address the public's concerns, Staff's suggestions, and the Commission's desire to have a sufficient number of routing options, LCRA is willing to explore these routing concepts. It will not have sufficient time to do so, however, without the requested delay.

In its showing of good cause for the delays, LCRA notes that its four CREZ Priority projects have generated tremendous interest in the areas affected by the proposed transmission projects. More interest than any other CCN application on which LCRA has previously worked, citing the recently controversial Clear Springs to Hutto 345 kV transmission line. The initial meetings have generated approximately forty to fifty additional meetings, 1,000 questionnaires, and hundreds of telephone calls.

The most-affected project by the consideration of the new routes is the McCamey D-Kendall-Gillespie route. The other rwo applications will not be greatly affected but LCRA expects to expend a lot of work to separate those projects from the McCamey D project. LCRA must rewrite its applications, environmental analyses, supporting testimony, and public notices. Staff must have additional time to review the notices and make comments on them as necessary.

The motion would delay two of the nine CREZ Priority Projects and delay the McCamey D-Kendall-Gillespie filing until July 6, 2010. LCRA and Staff believe that the delay in the estimated in-service date is reasonable given the scope of the projects that would traverse the Hill Country and the need to properly and fairly balance the competing needs of all affected parties.

The political pressure about the LCRA Hill Country CREZ lines is continuing to build. This request should give hope to those who are proposing the consideration of the I-10 Route and the Mason-Menard Route. It also allows for more time for opposition to build to the McCamey D line and will add another large group of potential intervenors if the additional routes are included in the application.

Oncor Files 3 West Texas CREZ CCN Applications

2009-09-17T16:12:00Z

On Sept. 16, 2009, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (Oncor) filed three CCN applications for transmission lines associated with the Texas CREZ projects.

Docket No. 37407 - Application for the Tonkawa-Sweetwater East-Central Bluff 345 kV CREZ Transmission Line in Scurry, Mitchell, Fisher, Nolan, and Taylor Counties

Docket No. 37408 - Application for the Riley-Bowman 345 kV CREZ Transmission Line in Archer, Wichita, and Wilbarger Counties

Docket No. 37409 - Application for the Central B-Central A-Tonkawa 345 kV CREZ Transmission Line in Scurry and Mitchell Counties

Oncor submitted Direct Testimony for each application. The time frame for approval is short and the Commission's review of the applications must be completed within six months.

ALJ Finds Oncor's Collin Co. Application and Notice Deficient

2009-09-13T02:05:00Z

On Sept. 10, in Order No. 2, the ALJ assigned to Oncor's Collin County application in Docket No. 37232 found Oncor's application and notice deficient. Oncor previously responded that it would supplement its application and notice.

The intervention deadline is extended for 45 days after the supplemental notice is sent to directly affected landowners, municipalities, county governments, and neighboring utilities. Oncor is required to file a supplemental affidavit of notice, then Commission Staff will file its supplemental recommendation regarding the sufficiency of the application and notice. Commission Staff also is to recommend a procedural schedule for processing the docket.