THE PEOPLE VS BIG ELECTRICITY
According to an update from Dave Clark with Friends of the San Saba River (FOSS), Texas landowners racked up a big win on Thursday, as the administrative law judges handling the Bell County East-to-Big Hill and Big Hill-to-Sand Lake Projects, specifically citing a lack of due process.
“Having weighed the credible evidence and arguments of the parties, the ALJs conclude Applicants have not established that the amendment of Applicants’ CCNs is necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. The Bell County East-to-Big Hill and Big Hill-to-Sand Lake Projects should not be approved,” they wrote, “Further, the Application should be denied for Applicants’ failure to comply with the process due to approximately 1,400 landowners under Rule 22.52(a)(4) for public meeting. Should the Commission determine otherwise, then Route 894 should be selected for the 765-kV transmission line for the portion of Import Path 2 at issue in this proceeding.”
According to Clark, the PUC will make the final decision on the ALJs’ recommendation to deny Oncor/LCRA TSC CCN application at a hearing likely to be scheduled near the end of September.
Major factors contributing to the judges’ decision include:
(1) Oncor/LCRA TSC violated the public meeting requirements for 1400 landowners on newly added routes when the CCN application was filed. On page 46 of the PFD, the ALJs say: “Because the rule’s prescribed remedy can no longer cure the prejudice caused by Applicants’ failure to give the process that was due under Rule 22.52(a)(4) to approximately 1,400 landowners, denial of the Application is the only meaningful remedy remaining. The ALJs, therefore, recommend that the Application be denied.”
(2) Oncor/TSC failed to show need: On pages 98 to 99 of the PFD, the ALJ’s say: “The ALJs conclude Applicants failed to show that Import Path 2—a $4- to- $5- billion infrastructure commitment—is necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. Applicants failed to show that the Bell County East-to-Big Hill and Big Hill-to Sand Lake Projects—Import Path 2—are needed…”
(3) Route 894 is the “least bad option”: On pages 147 to 148 of the PFD, the ALJs say: “The ALJs are tasked with choosing the least bad option available based on consideration of the routing factors. Therefore, if any route must be chosen, the ALJs recommend selection of Route 894.” The ALJs focused their evaluation on routes 894 (Central), 487 (Central), 392 (North) and 296 (South). Route 894 is Oncor’s “best meets” route.
(4) Due Process Issues Highlighted: The ALJ’s say they lack the power to resolve constitutional challenges, such as Due Process. On pages 48 to 49 of the PFD, the ALJs say “Throughout this proceeding affected landowners raised due-process concerns arising from the compressed procedural schedule and the notice problems discussed above….At the intervenor parties’ urging, and to give the Commission and any reviewing court the fullest record, the ALJs summarize the concerns below and analyze how the several measures operated cumulatively.” The Due Process issues highlighted by the ALJs focused on the 180 day deadline for a decision and the impact this deadline had on Intervenors.
The PUC Commissioners is holding a meeting starting at 9:30 a.m. Friday, Aug, 21, to review and make a decision about the Dinosaur to Longshore and Longshore to Drill Hole 765kV CCN applications.
These applications are for the North 765kV transmission line from Glen Rose to the Permian Basin. The meeting is being held in the Ballroom of the AT&T Hotel and Conference Center in Austin due to the number of Intervenors that are expected to attend.
