Oncor schedules Albany meeting after deadline passes
Local concerns prompt April 2 event, but intervention window already closed
Oncor has announced a new public meeting in Albany regarding the proposed Dinosaur–Longshore 765-kilovolt transmission line, following concerns raised by Shackelford County landowners, local officials and recent reporting on the project.
However, the meeting comes after the March 23 deadline to formally intervene in the Public Utility Commission case has already passed, meaning the opportunity for affected landowners to participate as formal intervenors in the regulatory process is no longer available.
The Technical Conference and Informational Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 2 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. at Albany Junior/Senior High School.
According to a press release issued March 26, the meeting is intended to give landowners and community members an opportunity to learn more about the project, ask questions and speak directly with Oncor representatives.
The event will include a technical conference in the school auditorium and an informational session in the gymnasium with interactive stations covering route development, engineering, environmental considerations and regulatory milestones.
Oncor stated the meeting is being held “in response to feedback from landowners, elected officials, and regulators,” and will focus on residents in Jones, Shackelford and Stephens counties.
The company also confirmed that these counties were not part of the original round of public meetings held in mid-2025.
“These counties were added to the project during the course of the project route study, following the public meetings in mid-2025,” the release states.
Timeline difference remains central concern
While the meeting provides an opportunity for residents to ask questions, it does not reopen or extend the March 23 deadline to intervene in the case.
That deadline passed on March 23, about 10 days before the scheduled meeting.
Intervenor status is the primary way landowners can present evidence, question witnesses and directly participate in the Public Utility Commission process that will determine the final route.
Residents in Shackelford County first received notice of the project in February 2026, when Oncor mailed packets outlining the proposed routes.
That left local landowners with approximately 30 days to review the project, understand the process and secure legal representation before the deadline.
By comparison, residents in counties involved in public meetings held in May and June 2025 became aware of the project roughly 306 days before the same deadline.
During that time, landowners in those areas had the opportunity to review preliminary routes, attend public meetings and, in many cases, retain attorneys experienced in Public Utility Commission cases.
The difference in timing has been a central concern raised by local landowners and county officials.
Background on project, local response
The proposed transmission line would connect a planned substation near Glen Rose to an existing facility near Big Spring, spanning a large portion of Central and West Texas.
Shackelford County was not included in early public participation meetings held in 2025, when residents in other areas were given the opportunity to review preliminary routes and provide feedback.
Local landowners have said that the shortened timeline made it difficult to evaluate the project and secure legal representation, as many attorneys who specialize in Public Utility Commission transmission cases had already been retained in counties where the project had been discussed for months.
The issue has now drawn attention at the state level.
State Representative David Spiller recently sent a formal letter to Public Utility Commission Chairman Thomas J. Gleeson and the commissioners, raising concerns about the timing of notice provided to Shackelford County landowners.
In the letter, Spiller noted that portions of Shackelford County were added to the proposed routing options after earlier public outreach had already taken place in other counties, resulting in significantly later notice to affected landowners.
He wrote that the situation creates concerns about whether landowners in Shackelford County had a fair opportunity to review the project, evaluate potential impacts and participate meaningfully in the regulatory process.
Spiller emphasized that his letter was not intended to advocate for or against any specific route, but rather to ensure that the process is applied consistently and fairly to all affected Texans.
He requested that the Public Utility Commission take the timeline difference into consideration as the case moves forward.
Next steps
The Public Utility Commission will review the project and consider testimony, public input and technical data before selecting a final route.
The April 2 meeting will give residents an opportunity to ask questions and hear directly from Oncor representatives, though it comes after the deadline for formal participation in the case has already passed. With the intervention window closed, it remains unclear what role the input from the meeting will play as the Public Utility Commission moves forward in selecting a final route.
