Policy & Issues
These aren't abstract policy debates. Every rule the PUC passes, every transmission line approved, every mandate without accountability shows up on your electric bill. Here's what we're fighting and why it matters.
Texas residential electric rates jumped from 11.6¢ to 14.9¢/kWh between 2021 and 2024 — a 28% increase. The biggest driver isn't fuel costs. It's transmission and delivery: the infrastructure that ships power hundreds of miles from remote wind and solar farms to your home.
Transmission and delivery now make up 30–40% of the average Texas electric bill, up from about 30% before Uri. The PUC has approved more than $33 billion in new transmission infrastructure since then. Residential customers are absorbing nearly half of that cost — even though we use only about a third of the electricity.
Low-income Texans are hit hardest. Households already spending 7% of their income on electricity — nearly double the national average — are on pace to spend 9% by 2030. For families at the margin, that is food or medicine.
What we want instead: Build dispatchable generation — gas, coal, nuclear — close to load centers, where people actually live. Stop building thousand-mile transmission lines to move power from remote wind and solar farms. That's the fastest way to bring T&D costs down.
Texas residential rate increase from 2021 to 2024. A 28% jump in three years.
The share of the average Texas electric bill going to transmission & delivery — and climbing.
CenterPoint residential customers pay 49% of transmission costs but consume only 33% of the electricity.
Proposed PUC rule §25.58 would require Texas ratepayers to fund battery energy storage systems (BESS) — with no competitive bid process and no accountability if they underperform.
The batteries being proposed are 1–2 hour systems. That sounds useful until you consider what Texas actually faces during major weather events: Winter Storm Uri lasted five days. A 2-hour battery can't survive a 5-day storm. During Winter Storm Fern, gas, coal, and nuclear supplied more than 80% of grid energy. Wind and solar averaged just 16% availability.
These systems cost 5–10× more than natural gas capacity on a per-MWh basis. Under §25.58, if a battery underperforms or fails, the utility still collects its guaranteed return from ratepayers. There is no market competition, no performance requirement, and no accountability. That is a mandate, not a market.
What we want instead: Let competitive markets fund storage — not ratepayer mandates with guaranteed utility profit. If storage makes economic sense, investors will fund it without forcing households to subsidize it.
1–2 hour BESS costs 5–10× more per MWh than natural gas capacity. Ratepayers fund the difference — no questions asked.
Average wind & solar availability during Winter Storm Fern. Gas, coal, and nuclear supplied 80%+ of grid load.
Most proposed ERCOT batteries cover just 1–2 hours. Texas's most dangerous storms last days, not hours.
Proposed rule §25.101 would shorten the review process for approving new long-distance transmission lines — the same infrastructure that has been driving up costs for years — while limiting landowners' ability to be heard on eminent domain proceedings.
Texas has already approved over $33 billion in new transmission since Uri. Those costs flow directly to ratepayers — especially residential customers, who absorb nearly half of all transmission charges despite using only a third of the electricity. §25.101 would make it easier to approve even more of this infrastructure, faster, with less scrutiny.
The eminent domain provisions are particularly troubling. Texas landowners currently have the right to a full review before their land can be taken for transmission corridors. §25.101 would abbreviate that review to speed up approvals. That is not progress — it is shortcutting the rights of Texans to benefit utility shareholders.
What we want instead: Full review windows for all eminent domain proceedings. No shortcuts. Before approving more long-distance transmission, apply cost-benefit analysis that includes where that power actually comes from and whether building generation closer to load centers would be cheaper.
New transmission infrastructure approved since Winter Storm Uri. Every dollar lands on ratepayers' bills.
§25.101 would shorten the review window for landowners facing eminent domain — limiting their right to be heard.
Long-distance transmission ships power from remote wind & solar farms to population centers at enormous ratepayer expense. §25.101 doubles down on this model.
Since 2000, Texas has built 69 GW of wind and solar capacity — versus only 30 GW of new dispatchable generation. We've spent more than $130 billion in subsidies. Rates went up anyway.
Winter availability for wind generation averages around 4%. Gas, coal, and nuclear maintain 85–96% availability year-round — including during the extreme cold events that put the most strain on the grid.
Texas currently exempts 94 GW of intermittent wind and solar capacity from the same reliability standards applied to dispatchable generators. That creates a two-tiered system where the most reliable generators subsidize the least reliable.
Dispatchable generation — gas, coal, nuclear — built close to population centers costs less to deliver, performs more reliably, and doesn't require billions in new transmission. That's the path to lower bills and a grid that survives the next storm.
Equal reliability standards for all generators. Every generator connecting to ERCOT — wind, solar, gas, nuclear — should meet the same performance standards during weather emergencies. Reward what works. Don't socialize costs of what doesn't onto residential ratepayers.
The best thing you can do is testify. Two minutes from a real Texan carries more weight than any lobbyist. We'll tell you when, where, and what to say.