##### A neighbor writes:  > *Neighbors,* > > *We need every one to email LCRA and Oncor with Emails with our concerns for the proposed Routes for the 765 KV Transmission Line going through Burnet County. Below is my email to LCRA and Oncor with my review and research and concerns with their proposed routes after attending the meeting this week. Email is the only way we have to communicate and get our concerns heard. If you would reach out to them by email with your concerns here is a draft I put together to get you started, and you can add any other information you feel necessary. Note any areas that you are aware of that need to be added to their Environmental and land Use Constraint Maps. We need to provide them with as many places as we can. We need to flood their email with our concerns.* \[Ed: modified the text above slightly to match content arrangements on this site.\] ##### and follows with this email to LCRA and Oncor... > Jeremy McConnell [email protected] from Oncor and Kelly Wells [email protected] from LCRA > > > I have great concerns about the proposed routes of High Voltage Transmission Lines G2, G3, G4, G5, G6 through Burnet County. I believe that LCRA, Oncor, Halff, and Kimley-Horn have failed to do proper due diligence to meet the requirements of Texas Law and the Public Utilities Commission requirements for determining the routing of High Voltage Transmission Lines. > > 1. Your proposed routes G2, G3. G4, G5, and G6 do not utilize the existing High Voltage Transmission Line right of way that are available in this area. By my understanding of the law as stated below, these options should be included as possible routes so that the Judge appointed by the PUC can make an educated decision on the final routing. > > 2. The entire proposed routes from Temple to San Angelo does not include the Historical Markers whose locations are publicly available and from my understanding of the below information by law should be taken into consideration when determining the proposed route of these High Voltage Transmission Lines. > > 3 The proposed routes don’t fully utilize existing roadways to minimize impact on the Environment, Ecology, and undeveloped farmland and wildlife. > > Below in bold is an excerpt from the Public Utilities Commission Publication Landowners and Transmission Line Cases at the PUC. And here is the link. Link 52455_2_1158681.PDF > > The PUC’s job is to decide whether a transmission line application should be approved, and on which route the line should be constructed. The PUC values input from landowners and encourages you to participate in this process by intervening in the docket. > PUC Transmission Line Case > > Texas law provides that most utilities must file an application with the PUC to obtain or amend a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) in order to build a new transmission line in Texas. The law requires the PUC to consider a number of factors in deciding whether to approve a proposed new transmission line. The PUC may approve an application to obtain or amend a CCN for a transmission line after considering the following factors: > • Adequacy of existing service; > • Need for additional service; > • The effect of approving the application on the applicant and any utility serving the proximate area; > • Whether the route utilizes existing compatible rights-of way, including the use of vacant positions on existing multiple-circuit transmission lines; > Whether the route parallels existing compatible rights-of-way; > Whether the route parallels property lines or other natural or cultural features; > Whether the route conforms with the policy of prudent avoidance (which is defined as the limiting of exposures to electric and magnetic fields that can be avoided with reasonable investments of money and effort); and Other factors such as community values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, environmental integrity, and the probable improvement of service or lowering of cost to consumers in the area. > If the PUC decides an application should be approved, it will grant to the applicant a CCN or CCN amendment to allow for the construction and operation of the new transmission line. > > From my review of the information and discussions had to date, the three routes that are proposed between Bertram and Burnet have failed to take into account the guidelines above. The first criteria is for them to follow or parallel existing compatible right of ways. None of the three routes utilize existing right of ways. These Existing High Voltage Transmission lines are shown as a red line with a red dot on the Environmental and Land Use Constraint Maps. There are two existing high voltage Transmission lines right of ways that are available one on the south side of the map and one on the North side. The High Voltage Transmission Line on the north side starts in Belton, and tracks just south of Nolanville, then heads to Harker Heights then follows FM 2670 then crosses the Southeast corner of Lampasas County and tracks just south of Kempner and tracks just northwest of Lampasas. The existing High voltage Transmission Line on the south side follows close to hwy 195 and diverges from it at about CR 245 in Williamson County, this existing transmission line then follows the gas pipe line to the Williamson Burnet County line, then crosses CR 1174 in Burnet County just North Of Bertram and then intersects 281 just north of Burnet and Heads to Lampasas. > > When I asked this question yesterday at the meeting in Lampasas as to why the existing right of ways weren’t investigated, the answer I got was the existing right of way is 150’ and they need 200’ and so they would need to purchase an additional 50’ of right of way and someone could have built up to the right of way and they would have to deal with that building that occurred in that 50’. I believe the solution would be to just move the additional 50’ easement to the other side of the 150’ existing easement. According to the PUC they should investigate these options in dealing with the routes in Burnet County. I didn’t get a straight answer as to why they aren’t being investigated. As far as I understand it, these existing rights of ways have already been through an environmental impact study, and met the other land constraint use guidelines stated above mandated by the PUC. They have all right of ways and easements acquired and in place. And the clearing and work necessary for 150’ of the easement and the guidelines for construction of the existing lines have already been accomplished. It seems to me that you would just need to evaluate the additional 50’ of right of way. Without adding them as options, LCRA and Oncor and Halff and Kimbley Horn are not giving the PUC the information needed to know the impact and make an educated decision on the best route to select. It also seems that some of these routes follow roadways and property lines but not all the proposed routes fully utilize existing roadways to minimize impact on the Environment, Ecology, undeveloped farmland, and wildlife. In reviewing the routing of G4 that follows the San Gabriel River, according to the requirement from PUC, it is my opinion that this route should be pushed south about 3 miles to follow the Existing High Voltage Transmission Line in that Area. the impact to the community should be a lot less along that route than the one proposed. > > Secondly the PUC says routes should consider the historical value of the property. The questionnaire states the following text in Bold. > > The Public Utility Commission of Texas requires that several factors be considered when routing an electric transmission line, including: > > • Proximity to single-family and multi-family dwellings and related structures, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, industrial structures, business structures, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools; > • Proximity to commercial radio transmitters, microwave relay stations or other electronic > • installations; • > • Proximity to parks and recreational areas; • > • Proximity to FAA-registered airports, private airstrips, and heliports; • > • Proximity to historical or archeological sites; • > • Agricultural areas irrigated by traveling irrigation systems • > • Environmentally sensitive areas, and • > • Protected or endangered species. > > Kimley-Horn and Halff have plotted these features that we know about on the Environmental and Land Use Constraints Map. To your knowledge, are those features shown on the map accurately plotted? > Yes _______ No _______ > > Are you aware of any of these features that are not presently shown or are incorrectly located on the map? Yes _______ No _______ > > If so, would you please help us identify the approximate location of any missing or incorrectly located features in the space below? > > From what I understand Halff is the civil engineering team that is responsible for determining the preliminary route and then doing due diligence on the viability of the route. In speaking with the representatives from Halff at the meeting yesterday, he confirmed that the Historical Markers are not plotted on the map. He said that the archeological sites are not shown to keep them protected. I can understand that, but the historical markers should be and seem to be required by the PUC. He agreed they should be added. When I asked representatives from Oncor and LCRA that attended the meeting about Historical Markers their answer was that they were on the map. One representative from Oncor was surprised when I showed him they weren’t and told him that the representative from Halff who put the map together confirmed they were not! From the question in the questionnaire above, you lead the public to believe that they have all items on the Constraint Map. > > Thirdly they confirmed yesterday that they are still doing an Environmental Impact Study. So, this information has not been included in planning the route. It is my opinion that without this information they haven’t done enough due diligence to plan the routing of the line. They stated yesterday that they plan to complete the environmental impact study and including that with the map when they file for an amendment in late fall. > > To me that tells me they have not done enough due diligence to present routing options to the public. I let several representatives at the meeting know that I did not think they had done proper due diligence, and the maps were not ready for public review. They confirmed that they will continue with this process and finalize the options before submitting their amendment to the PUC later in the year. I asked if the public would get a chance to review the amended maps again before the submission and they said no. I think that the public deserves a chance to review the amended maps before the submission. > > The only way to interact currently is the questionnaire, and email. The only way to interact after the submission is to “Intervene” and testify at the hearings. > Action Items. > 1. LCRA and Oncor to add both existing High Voltage Right of Ways shown on the Environmental and Land Use Constraints map into the current route planning process and add them both as possible routes. > 2. LCRA and Oncor to get all historical information onto the maps and into the route Planning process. And also review maximizing the use of existing roadways to minimize the impact on the Environment and Ecology in undeveloped areas > 3. LCRA and Oncor to get all environmental impact study’s information into the route planning process > 4. LCRA and Oncor to allow the public to review and have input on amended routes and maps. > 5. It is my opinion that if these action items aren’t addressed before submitting then the public should be prepared to intervene during the PUC review of the application and testify asking the PUC to follow their own requirement and deny the application for amendment due to the applicant not doing proper due diligence and providing the public and the Public Utility Commission adequate information to review and decide on the proposed routes. ---- Neighbor also added this: - [[2025-06-22 Announcement on Commissioners Meeting|Announcement on Upcoming Burnet County Commissioners Court Meeting]] ---- [[765kV Transmission Line to Cross Burnet County Precinct 2|Home]]