Texas Grid Accountability

Utility Claim vs. Community Reality

The 765kV campaign is built on big promises. Texans deserve the assumptions, tradeoffs, and impacts behind those promises.

How to read this page

We are not quoting anyone without a source.

Until exact statements are cited, each “claim” is framed as a general supporter argument or conditional response. Add citations before using direct quote marks or naming a utility, coalition, docket witness, report, or campaign.

Reliability is essential. A blank check is not.
A permanent easement deserves permanent proof.
If utilities want Texas land and ratepayer money, show the math.

Claim vs. reality

Utility Claim vs. Community Reality

Supporters want Texans to treat 765kV as inevitable. It is not. Before proposed permanent corridors are approved or expanded, the public deserves proof — not slogans.

Supporter argument

Supporters argue 765kV is necessary for reliability.

Community reality

Reliability matters. But reliability is not a magic word that ends the debate. If this exact buildout is necessary, utilities should prove it route by route, year by year, and alternative by alternative.

What the record needs to show

Specific reliability problem solved
Firm load data separated from queue-based or timing-dependent assumptions
Public modeling assumptions and sensitivity cases
Reliability-compliant alternatives comparison

Sources needed: TODO utility need study; TODO ERCOT/PUCT reliability criteria; TODO docket/testimony citation.

Supporter argument

Supporters argue 765kV will lower costs over time.

Community reality

A savings claim is not proof. Texans need the model, not just the marketing line: demand assumptions, financing costs, congestion forecasts, construction costs, alternative comparisons, and cost allocation.

What the record needs to show

Current capital cost with scope clearly defined
Financing and cost-of-capital assumptions
Sensitivity cases if costs rise or demand changes
Cost-allocation rules and overrun risk

Sources needed: TODO cost-benefit model; TODO rate impact estimate; TODO utility cost testimony.

Supporter argument

Supporters argue Texas growth and industry demand require 765kV.

Community reality

Growth does not cancel property rights. If industrial demand is driving the project, disclose who benefits, who pays, which loads are firm, and whose land may carry the burden.

What the record needs to show

Confirmed load commitments versus less-certain requests
Customer classes or sectors driving the forecast
Timing assumptions by year and region
Transparent large-beneficiary cost responsibility

Sources needed: TODO load categories from filings; TODO industrial/customer demand assumptions; TODO cost-allocation mechanism.

Supporter argument

Supporters argue 765kV is proven technology used elsewhere.

Community reality

Proven somewhere is not the same as justified here. Texas-specific land, water, wildlife, agricultural, cost, route, and load questions still have to be answered.

What the record needs to show

Why 765kV is right-sized for this project
Texas-specific engineering and terrain constraints
Alternatives comparison
Route-specific impact analysis

Sources needed: TODO technology comparison; TODO alternatives analysis; TODO Texas route impact evidence.

Supporter argument

Supporters argue fewer towers or route miles means less impact.

Community reality

Counting towers is not the same as measuring harm. ROW width, tower height, route placement, property fragmentation, access roads, construction workspace, and easement restrictions all matter.

What the record needs to show

ROW width and tower-height specs
New ROW miles versus existing-corridor use
Parcel-level fragmentation and remainder impacts
Access-road and laydown-yard requirements

Sources needed: TODO ROW/tower specs; TODO route map; TODO parcel impact data.

Supporter argument

Supporters argue landowners will be compensated.

Community reality

Compensation is not consent, and it does not answer every question about long-term restrictions, access rights, remainder impacts, operations, and family land use.

What the record needs to show

Proposed easement terms
Compensation methodology
Treatment of remainder damages and future-use restrictions
Construction access and restoration obligations

Sources needed: TODO sample easement language; TODO compensation standards; TODO landowner legal process guide.

Supporter argument

Supporters argue the process protects landowners.

Community reality

Notice is not the same as meaningful participation. A process can be official and still be unfair if landowners get readable maps and deadlines after key assumptions are baked in.

What the record needs to show

Notice dates and mailing lists
Public meeting materials
Detailed route maps
Route-scoring criteria and changes after input

Sources needed: TODO PUCT process guide; TODO notice timeline; TODO route-scoring documents.

Supporter argument

If landowner concerns are dismissed as misinformation or delay...

Community reality

Questions are not misinformation. They are accountability. If a concern is wrong, answer it with source documents, assumptions, maps, route-specific analysis, and public proof — not labels.

What the record needs to show

Specific claim being challenged
Source document proving or disproving it
Public access to underlying model/map/filing/testimony
Independent review of contested assumptions

Sources needed: TODO specific public statement to rebut if used; TODO technical review; TODO opposition filing/comment.

See All Claims That Need Proof

Source audit

Claims that need receipts before publication

Reliability

Supporters argue 765kV is necessary for reliability.

Needed: TODO utility need study; TODO ERCOT/PUCT reliability criteria; TODO docket/testimony citation.

Cost

Supporters argue 765kV will lower costs over time.

Needed: TODO cost-benefit model; TODO rate impact estimate; TODO utility cost testimony.

Growth

Supporters argue Texas growth and industry demand require 765kV.

Needed: TODO load categories from filings; TODO industrial/customer demand assumptions; TODO cost-allocation mechanism.

Technology

Supporters argue 765kV is proven technology used elsewhere.

Needed: TODO technology comparison; TODO alternatives analysis; TODO Texas route impact evidence.

Land impact

Supporters argue fewer towers or route miles means less impact.

Needed: TODO ROW/tower specs; TODO route map; TODO parcel impact data.

Compensation

Supporters argue landowners will be compensated.

Needed: TODO sample easement language; TODO compensation standards; TODO landowner legal process guide.

Process

Supporters argue the process protects landowners.

Needed: TODO PUCT process guide; TODO notice timeline; TODO route-scoring documents.

Questions

If landowner concerns are dismissed as misinformation or delay...

Needed: TODO specific public statement to rebut if used; TODO technical review; TODO opposition filing/comment.

Take action

Send Us a Claim to Check

If you see a flyer, filing, mailer, testimony excerpt, social post, or meeting claim about 765kV, send the source and we will check it against the public record. Static form placeholder only.

Static placeholder status: this form does not submit anywhere, store data, send email, or connect to any outside service. TODO final organization, contact email, privacy policy, data storage provider, opt-out language, and SMS consent language if phone alerts are used.