Letter to the Editor, I am writing to express deep concern about the proposed $33+ billion ERCOT transmission buildout. While framed as a “reliability” project, the costs will ultimately fall on ratepayers. My question is simple: did legislators realize the scale of this plan when approving HB 5066 in 2023—and that they would have no chance to revisit or question ERCOT’s study once completed?
From my review, HB 5066 effectively handed carte blanche authority to the PUCT to approve ERCOT’s plan with little legislative oversight. Transmission service providers, such as Oncor in Erath County, now present this as a foregone conclusion. But at $33 billion, I believe it demands far more scrutiny.
Here are key reasons I am questioning both the necessity and the authenticity of this project: Permian Basin Reliability Plan origins: The stated purpose is to move power west to support oil and gas operations, not to improve service for the most populated regions of Texas.
Policy drivers: The push came from a Biden-era initiative to electrify the Permian, which is no longer relevant.
Local capability: West Texas is capable of producing its own generation and could rely on localized microgrids, rather than massive longdistance transmission.
Past lessons: We already spent $12 billion on CREZ lines, yet those did not prevent blackouts in 2021.
Datacenters: These facilities cannot run on wind, solar, or short-duration batteries. They require gas or nuclear for true 24/7 reliability. If they want to locate in remote regions, they should build their own generation rather than shifting costs to Texans.
Security gaps: This plan does not appear to incorporate critical protections against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) risks, which could be added for a fraction of the total cost.
No local benefit: In counties like Erath or Comanche, lines will carry away dispatchable nuclear power without any meaningful offtake for rural co-ops or residents.
Cost to communities: Residents, who will spend every last dime on their land are already spending millions in legal fees fighting route placements - money drained from our counties with no real benefit in return.
Even ERCOT’s own testimony raises doubts. At the April 9, 2025 Senate hearing, ERCOT President Pablo Vegas stated there is no population growth in the forecast—only increased demand from datacenters and industry. Yet ERCOT’s production charts show almost flat oil and gas output, undermining one of the plan’s central claims.
Additionally, ERCOT and transmission providers show a 68 GW gap in future growth assumptions, which makes me question who is driving this project: The TSP’s or the priorities of wind, solar, and now datacenters, over the needsof Texans, At present ERCOT claims 170 GW of generation, but much of that is unreliable— 70 GW wind/solar and 13 GW of short-duration batteries. We have closer to 100 GW of dispatchable power against peak demands of 90 GW. More transmission will not fix this imbalance. Local generation, not longdistance transmission, is the real solution.
This project is not in the public interest and will not produce a stable, reliable, or affordable grid. Texans deserve transparency, true reliability, and protection from being forced to subsidize special interests.
I urge our politicians to question this project’s assumptions, its cost to ratepayers, and whether HB 5066 was ever intended to hand the PUCT unchecked authority over such massive expenditures.
Respectfully, Joanna Friebele