Twitter/X

NiyerEnergy argues the Texas STEP battle centers on grid architecture

2026-08-02 · 19:14 UTC ·@NiyerEnergy ·1 min read

Brief

NiyerEnergy frames the Texas STEP fight as a clash over transmission strategy, arguing 765 kV backbones use ~4× less land, justify upfront investment, and could deliver landowner payments 2–5× land value (versus typical ~25% eminent‑domain awards) via energy‑savings valuation. Michael E. Webber responds that expanding transmission is necessary to move existing generation, boost reliability, cut costs and enable industrial electrification.

Why it matters

NiyerEnergy argues the Texas STEP battle centers on grid architecture: moving from a proactive backbone to a reactive model would make Texas growth resemble PJM; 765 kV lines use up to 4× less land than predecessors and are a 'buy once, cry once' scale play.

Key details

  • NiyerEnergy claims landowners will be made whole under the 5th Amendment—often receiving ~25% more—and that valuing payments on a line's energy‑savings value could yield ongoing payments 2–5× their land's worth, a cost Niyer calls trivial for ratepayers; Michael E. Webber counters that expanding the grid is essential to improve reliability, lower costs, attract modern factories, and enable electrification because the shortfall is transmission, not generation.
Source evidence

The fight against the Texas STEP project is well underway.

It's probably the thing that will bail their grid model out. The Texas miracle of connect and manage was predicated on proactive backbones; a shift to a reactive model will make Texas growth look more like PJM.

The land complaint is likely misplaced in this case; 765 kVs use up to 4x less land than their predecessors for the same capacity. Buy once, cry once, is probably the right strategy for these kinds of economies of scale.

On landowners aspect, the 5th amendment guarantees they will be made whole, often getting 25% more. However, that's a breakeven calculation. If they got paid on what the line is worth (rather than their land), the energy savings alone could get them payments of 2-5x what their land is worth indefinitely. There is a lot of fiscal room to make these financially transformative to landowners, and trivial for ratepayers.

Michael E. Webber (@MichaelEWebber)

This is fundamentally wrong.

Expanding and improving the grid will improve reliability, lower costs and enable significant economic growth.

Not expanding the grid will hobble our ability to attract modern factories, electrify the oil and gas sector, and improve reliability.

We have enough power plants —what we lack is the ability to effectively move power around.

— https://nitter.net/MichaelEWebber/status/2083636357939994860#m