Oncor & LCRA Exceptions to Bell County East 765kV Proposal for Decision

The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) issued their Proposal for Decision (PFD) for the Bell County East to Big Hill (Bell County) 765kV Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) application on August 20, 2026. The SOAH ALJs consolidated the issue of need for Bell County and Big Hill to Sand Lake (Sand Lake) because both CCN applications compose the middle Permian Basin 765kV transmission line known as Import Path 2.

The ALJs recommend the PUC should deny the Bell County and Sand Lake 765kV CCN applications because ERCOT's Permian Basin Reliability Plan (PBRP) does not support the need for Import Path 2.

Oncor and LCRA TSC submitted their exceptions to the PFD (Exceptions Brief) on Wednesday, September 2, 2026. The applicants argue that '...the PBRP alone is sufficient to establish the need for the recommended 765kV transmission infrastructure.' The applicants further argue that ERCOT's recommendation provided in the PBRP is entitled to 'great weight' under the PUC's rules.

Friends of the San Saba (FOSS) completed anAI-assisted line-by-line comparison of the Oncor/LCRA TSC Exceptions Brief to the PFD. Our comparison found 101 exceptions that could be compared to the PFD. Of the 101 exceptions:

• 33 Oncor/LCRATSC exceptions misstate the ALJs' findings because the exceptions say something that is not said in the PFD

• 40 Oncor/LCRATSC exceptions are incomplete because the exceptions omit facts in the PFD, which changes the meaning of the ALJ's findings

• 25 exceptions accurately state findings in the PFD, but this does not mean that Oncor's or LCRA TSC's argument is accurate As a result of our comparison, FOSS concludes the Oncor & LCRA TSC Exceptions Brief materially misstates the ALJs' findings and conclusions in the PFD. Following are three important examples: (1) 'Great Weight' Misstates PUC Rule: The Oncor/ LCRA TSC Exceptions Brief argues many times that ERCOT's recommendation provided by the PBRP is entitled to 'great weight' under Rule 25.101(b)(3) (A)(ii)(II). The Oncor and LCRA TSC Exceptions Brief misstates this PUC Rule because the rule also says, 'The forecasted load growth and additional load currently seeking interconnection must be substantiated by quantifiable evidence of projected load growth' before ERCOT's recommendation is given 'great weight.'

(2) S&P 2022 Oil & Gas Forecast: Significant oil and gas producers engaged S&P Global to prepare a 2022 study on the electrification of the Permian Basin. The ALJs found that Oncor provided the S&P 2022 study to ERCOT and it was the only study used by ERCOT for oil & gas forecasted load in the PBRP. The ALJs found that ERCOT did not verify or independently evaluate the S&P 2022 Study, and the ALJs found evidence that exposes flaws in the S&P 2022 study. The Oncor/LCRA TSC Exceptions Brief does not disclose or explain the ALJs findings about the S&P 2022 study in the PFD.

(3) Non-Oil & Gas Forecast: ERCOT relied on letters provided by officers of Oncor and other transmission service providers (TSPs) for 55% of the non-oil & gas forecasted load in the PBRP. The ALJs found that Oncor/ LCRA TSC did not verify the forecasts in the officer's letters, and the non-oil & gas forecasted load was overstated and unsubstantiated. The ALJs also found that ERCOT changed their loadforecasting methodology after the PBRP was issued and these changes materially reduce the forecasted load in the PBRP. The Oncor/LCRA TSC Exceptions Brief does not disclose that 55% of the non-oil & gas forecasted load is based on letters provided by officers of the TSPs or that Oncor/LCRA TSC did not verify the forecasts in the officer letters.

The ALJs acknowledge the PUC should give 'great weight' to an ERCOT recommendation if the projected load growth is 'substantiated by quantifiable evidence of projected load growth.' But the ALJs found the non-oil & gas forecast, mostly provided by the TSPs, was overstated and unsubstantiated, and ERCOT did not verify or independently evaluate the S&P 2022 Study. The ALJs found the projected load growth was not substantiated by quantifiable evidence. Therefore, the ALJs found ERCOT's PBRP recommendation should not be given 'great weight' by virtue of the PUC Rule and that '...the greater weight of the credible evidence is against [ERCOT's] recommendation.'

How can the PUC rely on the Oncor & LCRA TSC Exceptions Brief that materially misstates the ALJ's findings and conclusions in the PFD?

The deadline for parties to file replies to Exceptions (i.e. rebuttals) is Wednesday, September 9, 2026. Then the SOAH ALJs will file their Exceptions Letter by Tuesday, September 15, 2026, to document their arguments against the parties' exceptions.

PUC September 11th Open Meeting The PUC's next Open Meeting is scheduled at 9:30am, on Friday, September 11, 2026. The agenda includes discussion and possible action for the Bell County, Sand Lake, and Howard Solstice 765kV applications. The Howard Solstice 765kV CCN application is the south Permian Basin 765kV transmission line known as Import Path 3.

Oral arguments for Howard Solstice were completed at the PUC's Open Meeting on Friday, August 28, 2026, which is the meeting where the Dinosaur to Longshore (Dinosaur) and Longshore to Drill Hole (Drill Hole) 765kV CCN applications were approved by the PUC. Dinosaur and Drill Hole comprise the north Permian Basin 765kV transmission line known as Import Path 1.

Ron Olson, Commission Counsel, filed a memo on Thursday, September 3, 2026, in the Howard Solstice application docket that indicates the PUC could announce their decision on Howard Solstice at the September 11th meeting. Olson's memo modifies and adds findings of fact that support PUC approval of the Howard Solstice 765kV CCN application.

The PUC has not filed any memos in the Bell County or Sand Lake dockets that explain why these 765kV CCN applications have been included on the September 11th Agenda. The Exceptions to the PFD will not be finished until September 15th. Oral arguments have not been completed for Bell County or Sand Lake, and it is unlikely oral arguments will be completed on September 11th.