Printed with permission from Brad Baliff
Bradford W. Bayliff, Bayliff Law Firm PLLC
July 29, 2026
The Honorable Charles Schwertner, Chair
Members of the Senate Committee on Business & Commerce
Texas State Senate Austin, Texas
Re: Written Testimony for the July 29, 2026 Interim Hearing – Concerns and Recommendations Regarding the PUC’s CCN Process for 765-kV Transmission Lines
Dear Chairman Schwertner and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony in connection with the Committee’s July 29 interim hearing. We are a group of attorneys who, together, have represented hundreds of landowners in Texas transmission line proceedings. That is why we write jointly: the concerns below are not the position of any single interest or our clients, but shared observations about a process that, at present, is not working well for anyone.
Over the last six months, the Public Utility Commission’s process for approving Certificates of Convenience and Necessity (CCNs) broke down under the weight of an unprecedented volume of large 765-kV cases. The system was not prepared for the number and size of these filings, and the compressed timeline made it difficult for landowners, applicants, PUC Staff, the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), and the Commission alike to do their work well. We believe the process can be repaired, and we offer the following observations and recommendations in a constructive spirit.
What broke down.
The single most consequential change was the reduction of the review deadline from one year to 180 days. In practice, that window collapses quickly. SOAH requires roughly 60 days to prepare a Proposal for Decision, and the Commission requires roughly 35 days to consider it, leaving landowners only about 85 days from the initial CCN filing to intervene, conduct discovery, prepare for and participate in a hearing, and brief their cases. When the Commission later extends the schedule, it does so for its own benefit— not for landowners, not for PUC Staff, not for the ALJs—after all parties already have absorbed the compressed timeline. Complex, high-mileage routing cases cannot be decided fairly on that schedule.
The process also depends on institutions that were not resourced for this volume. PUC Staff and its attorneys are charged with advocating for the public interest, but like every other participant in these proceedings, they have been asked to carry a volume of large, contested cases that outpaced the resources available to them. The absence of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) from these proceedings leaves environmental and land-use questions under-examined. SOAH ALJs were, candidly, overwhelmed by cases that were too large and too numerous, even for Texas. The time pressures at the hearings and the lack of ability to adequately cross-examine witnesses are significant issues.
These pressures have produced genuine due-process concerns. Taking public comment at oral argument after the Proposal for Decision, and considering non-party, extra-record comments before a decision, has drawn objection, and constitutional challenges are being discussed. A process that cannot absorb its caseload without cutting procedural corners invites exactly this kind of risk.
Finally, the volume of unrepresented (pro se) intervenors, understandable given how deeply these lines affect homes and communities, created additional challenges for the ALJs and was itself time intensive, since in most cases those parties were confused by the procedures. For example, many unrepresented parties struggle with where and how to file, because initial filings go in the PUC Interchange, the SOAH record in Kiteworks, and the hearing record on the utilities’ fileshare, and with what counts as record evidence and the consequences of missed deadlines. That burdens the parties and the tribunals alike.
Recommendations.
Drawing on our experience across all sides of these cases, we respectfully urge the Committee to consider the following:
1. Reinstate the one-year review deadline in place of the current 180 days. If the 180-day limit is retained, adopt objective triggers that automatically extend the schedule for the largest cases, for example, more than 200 intervenors, more than 700 landowners noticed, or routes longer than 50 miles.
2. Offer Open Houses in more locations, preferably one in each impacted county, staggered over a two-week period at a minimum, with capability for Zoom or other video participation. Provide clearer information at Open Houses on the study area, including notice that links may be added or deleted during the review process.
3. Require notice at least 60 days before filing the initial CCN Application when links are added to or deleted from the study area during preparation of the final CCN Application.
4. Require potential Applicants to file a Docket Placeholder for Comments about a potential project on the PUC website, contemporaneously with the initial open houses in all potential CCN applications, so comments can be filed.
5. Pre-Hearing Conferences, where initial scheduling and other important rulings are addressed, are routinely held before the intervention deadlines in these dockets. Require instead that such pivotal hearings be held no earlier than a set number of business days after the Intervention Deadline so all parties can participate.
6. Secure active participation by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in all routing cases.
7. Improve the PUC Interchange and the Commission’s website, including consolidated filing instructions, real-time case databases (parties, witness lists, cross-examination lists, and public comments), and clearer public access to route and link detail.
8. Stagger new filings (phasing large CCNs in at roughly one per month), require route, GIS/KMZ, and cost-model data at the time of filing an application, standardize procedural schedules, increase notice distances for 765-kV projects, and provide an ombudsman and plain-language guidance for unrepresented parties such as checklists and short instructional videos.
9. Emphasize explicit restrictions on post-exception commentary, particularly direct attempts to communicate with the Commissioners, and require that the filer and other parties be notified with language such as: “The evidentiary record is closed. This filing will not be shared with the Commissioners.”
10. Improve the process to ensure parties are able to identify the links that affect intervenors’ properties.
We further suggest a short moratorium on new filings until these fixes are in place, paired with reaffirmation through ERCOT of the need for the remaining projects, so that the system is not asked to absorb new cases before it can handle them.
We offer these observations as practitioners who want a better Texas and a process that is fair to landowners, workable for the agencies, and defensible for the utilities that need to build these lines. We would welcome the opportunity to serve as a resource to the Committee, to answer questions, or to provide additional detail on any point. Thank you for your attention to these issues and for holding this important hearing.
The undersigned collectively bring over 100 years of experience representing landowners in Texas transmission line proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradford W. Bayliff, Bayliff Law Firm PLLC, Blanco
Zachary S. Brady, Brady & Hamilton LLP, Lubbock
Carly Barton, Braun & Gresham, PLLC, Dripping Springs
David F. Brown, Ewell Brown Blanke & Knight LLP, Austin
Patricia Long-Weaver, Field, Manning, Stone, Hawthorne & Aycock, P.C., Midland
Joe Will Ross, Joe William Ross, P.C., San Angelo
Paul Tough, McElroy, Sullivan, Miller & Weber, LLP, Austin
Jim Spivey and Soledad Valenciano, Spivey Valenciano PLLC, San Antonio
Anson B. Howard, Uhl Fitzsimons PLLC, San Antonio
Jason Fenton and J. Lindsey Rusler, The Underwood Law Firm, P.C., Amarillo