The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH)Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for the Bell County East to Big Hill 765kV Transmission Line (Bell County) issued SOAH Order No. 35 on September 22, 2026, which directed Oncor and LCRA TSC (the Applicants) to submit a brief on remanded Issues 11 and 13 by Wednesday, October 7, 2026. The Applicants filed their brief on October 7th, and the arguments in the Applicants' brief are reviewed below.
The Bell County SOAH ALJs issued their proposal for decision (PFD) for the Bell County and Big Hill to Sand Lake (Sand Lake) 765kV applications on August 20, 2026. Bell County and Sand Lake comprise the middle Permian Basin 765kV transmission line, known as Import Path 2. TheALJs recommended the PUC should deny the Bell County and Sand Lake applications because the Applicants did not establish that Import Path 2 was necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public.
Oncor and LCRA TSC argue in their brief that Import Path 2 is necessary to meet state and federal reliability standards. The Bell County SOAH ALJs disagreed with the Applicants' arguments in their PFD.
PUC Remands Issues 11 and 13
The PUC remanded (i.e. returned) the Bell County and Sand Lake 765kV applications to the SOAH ALJs at its open meeting on September 11, 2026. The PUC said the Bell County ALJs did not adequately address two of the issues in the PUC's referral and preliminary order issued to SOAH on March 30, 2026.
The preliminary order listed 21 different issues the PUC requested SOAH to resolve, including issues dealing with: (1) need for the 765kV transmission line, and (2) the best alternative route. The PUC said the Bell County ALJs did not adequately address issues 11 and 13. Issue 11 asks if the 765kV transmission line is necessary to meet state or federal reliability standards. Issue 13 asks for the estimated congestion cost savings that may result from the 765kV transmission line.
Issue 11: Is Import Path 2 Necessary to Meet State or Federal Reliability Standards?
Oncor and LCRA TSC argue the Import Path 2 765kV transmission line is necessary to meet state and federal reliability standards. The Applicants' brief includes arguments to support their conclusion, which are summarized below. The Bell County ALJs disagreed with the Applicants' arguments in their PFD.
(1) Reliability Criteria Violations: ERCOT said in the Permian Basin Reliability Plan (PBRP) that thermal overloads and voltage instability would occur in 2030 and 2038 without transmission upgrades, based on forecasted loads. The PBRP says a substantial amount of local transmission upgrades will be needed in the Permian Basin to serve all forecasted loads in 2030 and 2038, and regional transmission upgrades, including the Import Path 2 765kV transmission line, are needed to transfer power across the ERCOT system.
The PBRP reliability violations are based on future load forecasts and not historical or current load. The Bell County SOAH ALJs determined ERCOT's load forecasts in the PBRP are overstated, unsubstantiated and contain material errors. The ALJs found that forecasted loads that were the basis for the PBRP are now less than originally projected and the types of large load demand in Texas have significantly changed since the PBRP was adopted.
The ALJs concluded the Applicants failed to show the PBRP's projected loads establish a need for Import Path 2. Rather the record proves the projected loads do not support Import Path 2 and the projected loads should be re-evaluated.
(2) Far West Texas Import Generic Transmission Constraints (GTCs): GTCs are used to manage power flows between geographic areas. Oncor and LCRA TSC argue exceeding these limits can cause system instability or loss of load due to cascading outages or voltage collapse. The GTCs were not identified in the PBRP. Rather an Oncor witness introduced the GTCs in rebuttal testimony on May 28, 2026, two weeks before the Hearing on the Merits, although the Far West Texas GTCs were implemented by ERCOT in September 2025. Oncor argued the Permian Basin 765kV transmission lines are one of seven transmission upgrades that could resolve the GTCs and this validated the necessity of Import Path 2.
The ALJs disagreed with Oncor in their PFD. The ALJs concluded the GTC evidence does not cure the deficiencies in the forecasted loads discussed above. The ALJs concluded the rebuttal evidence of the GTCs did not validate the PBRP's load forecast or the necessity for Import Path 2.
(3) Import Path 2 Necessary for Reliability: ERCOT recommended three proposed 765kV transmission lines in the PBRP. ERCOT did not determine the need for each of the three 765kV transmission lines individually. Oncor argues that Import Path 2 is needed because it is part of a single comprehensive project consisting of the three Permian Basin 765kV transmission lines.
The ALJs determined that need for the Import Path 2 applications must be determined independently from the other Permian Basin 765kV transmission lines. Further, the ALJs concluded the evidence doesn't establish an independent need for Import Path 2.
(4) PUC found PBRP Establishes Reliability Need: Oncor and LCRA TSC note the PUC approved the Dinosaur to Longshore and Longshore to Drill Hole 765kV applications that comprise the north Permian Basin 765kV transmission line known as Import Path 1. The applicants also note the PUC approved the Howard to Solstice 765kV application for the south Permian Basin 765kV transmission line known as Import Path 3. The applicants argue the PUC approvals are based on the same PBRP that supports Import Path 2 and there is no valid reason to reach a different conclusion about Import Path 2.
However, there is an important difference between the three Permian Basin 765kV applications: The other SOAH ALJs recommended approval for Import Paths 1 and 3, the north and south Permian Basin 765kV transmission lines, and the PUC approved these 765kV applications. However, the Bell County SOAH ALJs recommended the PUC deny Import Path 2, the middle Permian Basin 765kV transmission line.
The material deficiencies in the PBRP forecast load found by the Bell County ALJs calls into question the other SOAH ALJs recommendations to approve the north and south 765kV Permian Basin transmission lines.
(5) ERCOT Recommendation Entitled to "Great Weight": Oncor and LCRA TSC argue that ERCOT's recommendation provided by the PBRP is entitled to "great weight" under Rule 25.101(b)(3)(A)(ii)(II). Oncor and LCRA TSC misstate 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."
The Bell County ALJs concluded ERCOT's PBRP 765kV import paths recommendation should not be given great weight by virtue of the rule, and the ALJs said "...the greater weight of the credible evidence is against the recommendation. As such, ERCOT's PBRP 765kV recommendation should not be accepted by the Commission for Import Path 2."
Issue 11 Summary: The Bell County ALJs determined the Applicants failed to show Import Path 2 was necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety of the public.
The correct answer to issue 11 is Import Path 2 is not Necessary to Meet State or Federal Reliability Standards.
Issue 13: Estimated Congestion Cost Savings
The Applicants say the Import Path 2 765kV projects are reliability projects and congestion cost savings analysis is not required for reliability projects. So the answer to Issue 13 is that estimated congestion cost savings is not required for Import Path 2.
Next Steps
The October 7th deadline for submitting briefs has passed. Now all parties may file responses to the briefs by Monday, October 19, 2026. The ALJs will issue a supplemental PFD after October 19th that only addresses Issues 11 and 13. Then all parties will have an opportunity to file exceptions and replies to exceptions for the supplemental PFD that are limited to Issues 11 and 13. Finally, the ALJs will issue their final exceptions letter addressing all the exceptions and replies from both the original August PFD and the supplemental PFD.
The Bell County and Sand Lake 765kV applications will return from SOAH to the PUC after the SOAH ALJs issue their final exceptions letter. Then the PUC is expected to schedule an open meeting for oral arguments and then announce their decision on the Bell County and Sand Lake 765kV applications at a subsequent open meeting.
The steps identified above will take time to complete and it is highly unlikely the PUC will decide the Bell County and Sand Lake 765kV applications before the midterm elections on November 3, 2026.