Rural property owners in Texas face a paradox: they can use their own land somewhat free from many aspects of government regulation yet have far less power than they might assume to stop what gets built on (or taken from) their private land. In Texas, neither counties nor incorporated cities have meaningful authority over where high-voltage transmission lines are finally routed; that decision sits with the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas.
This is at the core of the concern over the planned wave of 765-kV transmission lines now before the PUC. This is not a single line. Multiple applications for these transmissions lines are currently pending with the PUC in the Texas power grid controlled by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and in the Southwest Power Pool (SPP).
The land impact is not trivial. A 765-kV single-circuit line requires a minimum 200-foot right-of-way under the ERCOT applications, and a minimum 250-foot right-of-way under the SPP application, with actual width running wider at many points. These transmission lines together could run 1,250 to 1,463 miles across 65 Texas counties, taking an estimated 30,851 to 36,189 acres of private land. Seven additional applications for the “Eastern Backbone” portion of the state’s transmission expansion plan would add roughly 1,120 more miles and at least another 27,142 acres. Taken together, this is a statewide buildout that will directly affect tens of thousands of Texas landowners.
What is often missed is that the state has granted certain transmission service providers (most of them private for-profit companies) the power of eminent domain, which they can use to acquire private-property easements when landowners don’t agree to their terms. The companies call this a “negotiation,” but that truly understates what’s actually happening: when one side can force a taking if talks fail, any resulting agreement is reached under that threat, not through an even exchange. And handing that condemnation power to private companies, for private financial benefit, is a concern in its own right, separate from the scale of the land being taken. The landowner may negotiate the compensation and terms of an easement, but the utility’s ability to condemn the easement if negotiations fail fundamentally changes the bargaining position of the parties.
Most transmission lines in Texas operate at 138 kV or 345 kV, with 345 kV currently the highest voltage widely used in the ERCOT system. A single 765-kV line can carry roughly two to three times the power of a comparable 345-kV circuit. That capacity is real, but while a bigger wire moves more power, it does not generate more power. Transmission doesn’t produce electricity, and of course inadequate transmission can prevent available generation from serving growing loads. Whether new transmission is necessary depends on both the amount and location of generation and the amount and location of demand. If Texas is genuinely at risk of falling short on electricity supply, transmission capacity alone does not solve that; it still depends on what’s being generated and where.
Some critics argue that House Bill 5066, enacted to address the Permian Basin’s growing electricity demand and transmission needs, has since become the basis for a much broader transmission buildout than the legislation originally contemplated. Utilities such as Oncor Electric Delivery and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA)—which develop, own, and build transmission infrastructure under the state’s regulatory framework—are among those involved in these projects. The resulting expansion raises a separate question of whether the broader network, and the private-property easements required to build it, go beyond what the Legislature originally intended.
Furthermore, the costs of these transmission lines are ultimately recovered through regulated transmission charges paid by electricity customers. That means Texans may see these costs on their electricity bills: ERCOT’s own estimate puts the cost at $33 billion before financing and maintenance, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that the roughly $33 billion capital program could result in nearly $100 billion in lifetime ratepayer costs when financing, taxes, maintenance and other regulated costs are included. Texans deserve transparency about who is driving this demand, who benefits from the infrastructure, who bears the financial risk, and how much private property must be taken to build it.
ERCOT has compared 765 kV with a 345-kV alternative, but Texans deserve to understand the assumptions behind that comparison, including land acquisition, routing, reliability benefits, generation requirements, storage and demand-response alternatives, and lifetime costs. Even if ERCOT demonstrates a genuine need for additional transmission, that does not automatically establish that every proposed route is necessary, that the 765-kV configuration is superior to every alternative, or that a particular private landowner should bear the resulting easement burden. Those are separate questions that the PUC’s routing process is supposed to examine.
At the August 19, 2026, State Affairs meeting in Austin, I met people on both sides of this issue. Where new lines are unavoidable, routing them parallel to existing rights-of-way is worth serious consideration, as it more closely limits environmental fragmentation. But it should be said plainly: this does not reduce the private property being taken. A parallel route still requires acquiring a full new easement alongside the old one. It is a real mitigation for land disturbance, not a solution to the property-rights problem.
I am a candidate for governor with a proven record of protecting private property rights and working for reasonable restraint on eminent domain power. I cannot promise perfection, but I can promise that protecting property rights is one of my core concerns.