Back to Services
One Friday, we received a call from a local (Austin, TX) attorney looking for an expert to study routing alternatives
for a new transmission line proposed for the North Texas corridors linking the wind farms in West Texas to the population
centers of DFW, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.
This transmission line was part of Texas’ $7B project known as the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) initiative,
approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in 2008. The overall project, when completed, will include nearly
3,600 miles of high-voltage transmission lines that are able to send 18,500 megawatts of wind power across the state. It is a massive project.
These lines were to be comprised of large lattice, H-tower, or monopole structures carrying three-phase extra-high-voltage lines,
some of which may carry only one circuit while some may carry two or more independent circuits. The structures are very large and
require a wide cleared easement underneath and beyond. They are not pretty and they are not concealable. While nearly all of us can
agree that they are needed, none of us want it in our backyard, or even visible from our backyard. When your ‘backyard’ may be hundreds
or even thousands of acres, the line may be quite literally in your backyard, cutting across your fields or pastures and creating problems
for your farm or ranch operations; or, at best, ruining your view of the Texas Hill County.
Land owners, especially wealthy and powerful landowners, will go to great lengths to prevent these transmission line routes from
crossing their lands or polluting their views. The routes were to be painstakingly mapped out in detailed discussions in the Public
Utility Commission’s (PUC) hearing rooms. Many of the routes were controversial and hotly contested.
In preparation for these discussions and debates, the transmission line operating companies proposed several possible routes for each
line and surveyed each route, or hired contractors to do so. These surveys mapped out and collected data on each route and tabulated
many relevant factors in accordance with PUC requirements. These data included as many as 50 parameters such as:
The overall route length,
Estimated construction cost,
Length of route parallel to existing transmission lines,
Length of route parallel to existing public roads or highways,
Length of route parallel to pipelines,
Length of route parallel to apparent property boundaries,
Number of habitable structures within 500 feet of the route centerline,
Number of parks or recreational areas within 1,000 feet of the route centerline,
Length of the route across parks/recreational areas,
Length of route through commercial/industrial areas,
Length across rangeland pasture,
Length of route across riparian woodlands,
Number of stream crossings by the route,
Length across lakes or ponds (open waters),
Number of known rare/unique plant locations within the right-of-way,
Length of route through known habitat of endangered or threatened species,
Number of recorded cultural resource sites crossed by the route,
Number of private airstrips within 10,000 feet of the route centerline,
Number of U.S. or State Highway crossings by the route,
Estimated length of right-of-way within foreground visual zone of park/recreational areas,
and many others.
Clearly, these surveys were massive undertakings and generated an overwhelming amount of data and considerations
for each possible route. The operating company, in each case, analyzed the data and proposed a preferred route.
Naturally, that choice would be disputed by the landowners whose property, homes, or operations would be impacted.
The PUC was charged with the very difficult task of hearing the objections, comments, and ideas from the interested
parties and their ‘hired guns’, weighing the possible alternatives, and choosing the least-objectionable route.
We were hired to help them make that decision and to help sway that decision in favor of our clients.
In consultations with our legal team and our Environmental Consultant, we formulated an analysis of the data. We
grouped the data into nine categories; that is, environmental, historical, crossing lengths, etc. A difference-of-means
calculation was done to standardize the values of each metric, then the components of each category were assigned a
weighting factor. Similarly, each category was then weighted. A final value was then given to each possible route and
a preferred route was then objectively selected.
The testimony before the Administrative Judge and under examination by the legal teams of other property owners,
special-interest groups, and coalitions consisted mostly of an explanation of the methods used for the analysis.
Particular scrutiny, of course, fell on the ‘objective’ weighting used for the various components. A tentative agreement
was reached on the weightings and we ran the analysis again and later testified to the findings of that analysis.
The Judges were pleased by our objective reasoning and our analysis methodology and, in the end, our preferred route
was chosen. For subsequent route hearings, we fully automated the process and our ‘objectively selected’ route was
repeatedly chosen as the preferred route. When our legal team was not chosen to represent parties in subsequent hearings,
we went on to use our methods for two other legal teams and in those cases, as well, our route choice again prevailed. In nearly every case, the chosen route either benefited our client completely, or served to minimize the damage. Every client was pleased and, I think, that is the ultimate objective.
We can do the same for you, whether your case is a utility routing, product litigation, or a patent dispute.
Back to Services
