Kerr County court presses for more information after AEP/CPS Energy notice on proposed 765 kV line
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners discussed a joint AEP Texas/CPS Energy filing to the PUC seeking a certificate amendment for a Howard–Solstice 765 kV transmission line that would clip a remote corner of Kerr County; officials said the notice lacked detail and vowed to seek more information for affected landowners.
Judge Kelly convened an informational discussion Tuesday after the county received a statutory notice that AEP Texas Inc. and the City of San Antonio had asked the Public Utility Commission of Texas to amend certificates of convenience and necessity for a Howard–Solstice 765-kilovolt transmission line.
The judge said the filing arrived with a short statutory notice and little explanatory material and warned the court that the line "goes across a very remote corner of the county" but was a "huge item in other counties." He urged caution and recommended the court seek further information rather than vote on any authorization at this meeting.
County Attorney Heather Stebbins told commissioners the notice includes contact names and phone numbers for AEP's regulatory case manager (Chad Tomanec) and CPS Energy's project manager (Antonio de Mandonca), and explained how citizens may participate in the PUC docket. Commissioner comments echoed concern that routine mailed notices did not give affected landowners adequate opportunity to engage.
Commissioners and speakers described a broader Hill Country opposition campaign and noted that certificate amendments can be a step toward assembling rights-of-way that, in other cases, led to eminent-domain proceedings. "The burden of proof should be on the people that wanna put the line across," Judge Kelly said, arguing that applicants should engage local officials and landowners rather than rely on minimal legal notice.
Several commissioners said the direct effect on most of Kerr County appears limited, but they warned that the application is part of a larger regional build-out that many landowners oppose. Commissioners asked staff to place the topic back on a future agenda with fuller paperwork and invited Austin and PUC staff or project managers to brief the court so commissioners could determine whether to authorize a county response or to join regional coordination efforts.
The court did not take formal action on the filing at the meeting and agreed to seek more information before the April 1 docket deadline.
