Overview of the Routing Process
The routing of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan projects is in the preliminary stages, with utilities and ERCOT following established regulatory and technical protocols. The process involves identifying multiple potential routes, evaluating environmental and land use impacts, and asking for public input before submitting a final route for approval to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC).
Key Routing Considerations
Corridor Paralleling: The routing process considers paralleling existing corridors where feasible, such as existing transmission lines, highways, or utility rights-of-way, to reduce new land impacts and streamline permitting.
Land Use & Environmental Impact: Routes are evaluated for their effect on agricultural land, residential areas, environmental and archeological areas, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Avoiding sensitive areas and reducing disruption is a primary objective.
Community Input: The utilities hold public meetings to present preliminary alternative routes and gather feedback from landowners and stakeholders. This input is used to refine route options and address local concerns about property values, land use, and environmental effects.
Preliminary Routing Alternatives
Before public open house meetings, the utilities identify several preliminary alternative routes. These alternatives span a broad geographic area to allow for flexibility in final route selection. They consider both direct point-to-point alignments and options that follow or parallel existing infrastructure. The alternatives are designed to balance engineering, environmental, and social factors.
Regulatory Process
The final route will be selected through the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) process, which requires submission of all proposed segments and routes and supporting studies to the PUC. Public notice and opportunity for affected parties to intervene or comment are provided. The PUC will decide based on cost, technical, environmental, and community considerations.
Summary Table: Routing Factors
| Routing Factor | Approach/Status |
| Use of existing corridors | Focused on where feasible to reduce new impacts |
| Environmental review | Ongoing; sensitive areas to be avoided/minimized |
| Landowner engagement | Multiple public meetings, feedback incorporated |
| Route alternatives | Several preliminary options under review |
| Regulatory approval | Final route determined by PUC via the CCN process |
Conclusion
While the exact routes have not been finalized, utilities like Oncor, LCRA TSC, AEP, TNMP, WETT, CPS, Lone Star, and Garland are considering multiple alternatives that may use existing corridors, reduce environmental and landowner impacts, and incorporate extensive public input. The PUC will approve the final route through a transparent regulatory process, with all alternatives and supporting data submitted to the PUC for review and approval.
Brad Bayliff is a Board Certified Administrative Law attorney in Blanco, Texas, who is experienced, respected, and tested advocate for clients before the Public Utility Commission of Texas. His clients admire the passion he has for his work and their cases.
Brad has practiced before the PUC since 1999, taking part in dozens of routing cases and representing hundreds of landowners. He exclusively represents landowners whose properties may be affected by proposed transmission lines. His clients have included individual landowners, developers, and groups from 2 to over 200 landowners. He knows the law and the process for the PUC’s approval of transmission lines. Landowners hire him to help navigate the process and present the best case for why the PUC should approve construction of the transmission line in another location.
The lawyer you choose makes a difference.™