A New 765-kV Line Is Coming to the Permian. Here’s What Pipeline Owners and Contractors Should Watch.

Key Takeaways

• Two Permian midstream companies have asked the Public Utility Commission of Texas to rehear part of its August 28 order approving Oncor’s first 765-kV transmission lines. They argue Oncor should be required to coordinate with owners of pipelines that cross the route, not just those that run parallel to it, and to allow time for mitigation before the lines are energized.
• Oncor contends the commission’s standard ordering paragraphs already protect pipelines and that the added conditions could let operators delay an approved project. The commission has extended its deadline to act on the rehearing motions to the legal maximum in early December, and its decision could shape how crossings are handled across the rest of the Permian reliability plan.
• Texas Health and Safety Code Section 756.123 requires the builder to pay for protective measures when a pipeline operator finds added risk, but it is unclear whether the statute reaches a power line near a pipeline with no construction on the right-of-way. Service companies working near these corridors should review their crossing, delay, notice, indemnity and insurance provisions and document every notice and approval.
  

Texas has approved its first 765-kV transmission lines. Two Permian pipeline companies want to know what happens where those lines meet pipe already in the ground.

On August 28, the Public Utility Commission of Texas approved Oncor’s application for a 765-kilovolt line running from Longshore Switch, about 4.5 miles west of Forsan in Howard County, to Drill Hole Switch near the Culberson-Reeves county line. Oncor filed on December 11, 2025, and plans to finish in 2029. Press reports put the approved route, Route 476, at about 182 miles.

The commission approved the companion Dinosaur-to-Longshore segment the same day. Oncor first estimated 235 to 270 miles depending on route, and press reports put the selected route at about 243. It starts at Dinosaur Switch, about three miles north of Glen Rose in Somervell County. Put the two together and you get a roughly 424-mile northern 765-kV import path into the Permian.

The plan behind them goes back to House Bill 5066 in 2023, which had the commission direct ERCOT to develop a reliability plan for the Permian Basin. ERCOT filed it on July 25, 2024, and the commission approved it at its September 26, 2024 open meeting. In April 2025, the commission directed that the import paths be built at 765 kV.

Landowner groups have challenged both the need for the lines and the process used to approve them. I’m staying out of that fight. My interest is a more practical problem for anyone with steel in the ground out there.

What the Pipeline Operators Asked For

On September 22, two Permian midstream companies filed a joint motion asking the commission to rehear part of its order. They didn’t ask it to kill the line. They want more protection for pipelines the line will cross or run beside.

As reported, the motion asks the commission to make Oncor consult and coordinate with owners of pipelines that cross the route as well as those that run parallel to it. The current order covers only the parallel ones. The companies also want coordination before the line is energized, construction managed to limit the mitigation needed, enough time to finish that mitigation before energization, and compliance with Texas Health and Safety Code Section 756.123.

Oncor responded on October 7. It says the commission’s standard ordering paragraphs already protect pipelines well enough, that the commission has turned down similar requests in lower-voltage cases, and that the added conditions could let pipeline operators delay or block construction of an approved project.

I can see both sides. The same problem will come up again anywhere Texas runs high-voltage line across ground that oil and gas infrastructure already occupies.

Why a Power Line Matters to a Pipe

A high-voltage AC line can induce voltage and current on nearby buried metal pipe, especially where the two cross or share a corridor. Operators study that exposure and put mitigation in place when they need to. The work takes planning, equipment and time. The argument usually isn’t whether mitigation can be engineered. It’s when the work happens, who coordinates it and who pays.

Section 756.123 covers part of this. It says nobody may build, repair, replace or maintain a construction on, across, over or under a pipeline easement or right-of-way unless the operator gets notice and one of four conditions is met. The first is that the operator decides the work won’t increase risk to the public or the pipeline. The second is that the operator decides it will, and the builder pays the reasonable, necessary and documented cost of protective measures before proceeding. The third is an existing written agreement that governs the work. The fourth is a regulated utility making prompt repairs after a natural disaster.

The statute sets no fixed number of days for notice, and it leaves real gaps. Does it apply when a power line sits near a pipe but nothing gets built on, across, over or under the right-of-way? Who is the builder on a given project? What counts as reasonable, necessary and properly documented? Easements, crossing agreements and construction contracts may answer some of that.

What to Watch

On October 15, commissioners voted to extend their time to act on the rehearing motions in the two 765-kV cases to the legal maximum, Texas Scorecard reported. Chairman Thomas Gleeson filed a memo the day before proposing the extension so the commission could fully consider the arguments in the motions.

The clock comes from Texas Government Code Section 2001.146. An agency generally has 55 days after it signs a decision to act on a motion for rehearing, and if it doesn’t, the motion is overruled by operation of law. The agency can extend that by written order, but it can’t go past the 100th day after the decision is signed. Counting from the date the orders were signed, that outer limit falls in early December.

So the pipeline operators’ request is still alive. The commission can let it be overruled, deny it outright, or grant rehearing and reopen parts of the order. Any of the three tells us something about what the commission expects from utilities and pipeline operators at crossings on the rest of the Permian plan.

The cost question matters just as much. If the order doesn’t say who bears the cost and responsibility for mitigation, where does that leave the parties? Section 756.123 answers part of it where it applies: if the operator finds the work adds risk, the builder pays for the protective measures. Whether it reaches a power line near a pipeline with no construction on the right-of-way may stay disputed. The rest could get sorted out in existing agreements, private negotiation or, eventually, litigation.

Why This Reaches Beyond One Line

The Permian keeps adding infrastructure that has to share space. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that Permian marketed natural gas production grew from 17.2 billion cubic feet per day in 2021 to 27.6 in 2025, a 60 percent jump. Crude went from 4.7 million barrels a day to 6.6 million over the same period. The basin’s gas-oil ratio averaged nearly 4,200 cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil in 2025, 16 percent higher than in 2021.

More gas means more gathering lines and more compression, and every new transmission corridor has to cross ground that may already hold pipe. What the commission does here could matter again as utilities build the rest of the plan. For service companies, it will show up first in schedules and in calls about delayed work, well before anyone files a lawsuit.

Practical Takeaways for Service Companies

Most oilfield service companies aren’t parties to this docket, but plenty of them work this ground every day. Frac crews, water haulers and construction contractors can end up where pipeline rights-of-way and new transmission lines meet. An hour with your contracts is worth it.

Start with right-of-way and crossing provisions. Who’s responsible for locating and protecting buried facilities? Plenty of agreements spell out excavation and physical damage in detail and say almost nothing about induced current or other electrical effects.

Delay is the next place to look. If pipeline mitigation or utility construction idles your crew, what does the contract say about standby pay, schedule relief and change orders? If one owner’s work holds up another contractor, someone has to absorb that cost, and the documents should say who.

Notice language matters too. Section 756.123 centers on notice to the pipeline operator, but your agreement may demand more: who gets notice, when, and in what form. Don’t stop your review at the statute.

Check indemnity and insurance for work near pipelines and energized lines. See whether a crossing or easement agreement separately assigns responsibility for engineering studies, protective measures or monitoring.

Then keep a paper trail. Record who got notice, what they were told, what risks or protective measures were identified and what approvals followed. Dated notices and written sign-offs can narrow a later fight over what everyone understood before the work started.

The commission’s next move on this docket may look small. It will still be an early signal on how crossings get handled when new transmission meets existing pipe.