guest column

Expert: Why Texas must make energy transmission a top priority in 2026

Conversations rarely focus on what keeps electricity moving: transmission infrastructure. Photo by REVTLProjects on Unsplash

Texas takes pride in running one of the most dynamic and deregulated energy markets in the world, but conversations about electricity rarely focus on what keeps it moving: transmission infrastructure.

As ERCOT projects unprecedented electricity demand growth and grid operators update their forecasts for 2026, it’s becoming increasingly clear that generation, whether renewable or fossil, is only part of the solution. Transmission buildout and sound governing policy now stand as the linchpin for reliability, cost containment, and long-term resilience in a grid under unprecedented stress.

At the heart of this urgency is one simple thing: demand. Over 2024 and 2025, ERCOT has been breaking records at a pace we haven’t seen before. From January through September of 2025 alone, electricity use jumped more than 5% over the year before, the fastest growth of any major U.S. grid. And it’s not slowing down.

The Energy Information Administration expects demand to climb another 14% in 2026, pushing total consumption to roughly 425 terawatt-hours in just the first nine months. That surge isn’t just about more people moving to Texas or running their homes differently; it’s being driven by massive industrial and technology loads that simply weren’t part of the equation ten years ago.

The most dramatic contributor to that rising demand is large-scale infrastructure such as data centers, cloud computing campuses, crypto mining facilities, and electrified industrial sectors. In the latest ERCOT planning update, more than 233 gigawatts of total “large load” interconnection requests were being tracked, an almost 300% jump over just a year earlier, with more than 70% of those requests tied to data centers.

Imagine hundreds of new power plants requesting to connect to the grid, all demanding uninterrupted power 24/7. That’s the scale of the transition Texas is facing, and it’s one of the major reasons transmission planning is no longer back-of-house policy talk but a central grid imperative.

Yet transmission is complicated, costly, and inherently long-lead. It takes three to six years to build new transmission infrastructure, compared with six to twelve months to add a new load or generation project.

This is where Texas will feel the most tension. Current infrastructure can add customers and power plants quickly, but the lines to connect them reliably take time, money, permitting, and political will.

To address these impending needs, ERCOT wrapped up its 2024 Regional Transmission Plan (RTP) at the end of last year, and the message was pretty clear: we’ve got work to do. The plan calls for 274 transmission projects and about 6,000 miles of new, rebuilt, or upgraded lines just to handle the growth coming our way and keep the lights on.

The plan also suggests upgrading to 765-kilovolt transmission lines, a big step beyond the standard 345-kV system. When you start talking about 765-kilovolt transmission lines, that’s a big leap from what Texas normally uses. Those lines are built to move a massive amount of power over long distances, but they’re expensive and complicated, so they’re only considered when planners expect demand to grow far beyond normal levels. Recommending them is a clear signal that incremental upgrades won’t be enough to keep up with where electricity demand is headed.

There’s a reason transmission is suddenly getting so much attention. ERCOT and just about every industry analyst watching Texas are projecting that electricity demand could climb as high as 218 gigawatts by 2031 if even a portion of the massive queue of large-load projects actually comes online. When you focus only on what’s likely to get built, the takeaway is the same: demand is going to stay well above anything we’ve seen before, driven largely by the steady expansion of data centers, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure across the state.

Ultimately, the decisions Texas makes on transmission investment and the policies that determine how those costs are allocated will shape whether 2026 and the years ahead bring greater stability or continued volatility to the grid. Thoughtful planning can support growth while protecting reliability and affordability, but falling short risks making volatility a lasting feature of Texas’s energy landscape.

Transmission Policy: The Other Half of the Equation

Infrastructure investment delivers results only when paired with policies that allow it to operate efficiently and at scale. Recognizing that markets alone won’t solve these challenges, Texas lawmakers and regulators have started creating guardrails.

For example, Senate Bill 6, now part of state law, aims to improve how large energy consumers are managed on the grid, including new rules for data center operations during emergencies and requirements around interconnection. Data centers may even be required to disconnect under extreme conditions to protect overall system reliability, a novel and necessary rule given their scale.

Similarly, House Bill 5066 changed how load forecasting occurs by requiring ERCOT to include utility-reported projections in its planning processes, ensuring transmission planning incorporates real-world expectations. These policy updates matter because grid planning isn’t just a technical checklist. It’s about making sure investment incentives, permitting decisions, and cost-sharing rules are aligned so Texas can grow its economy without putting unnecessary pressure on consumers.

Without thoughtful policy, we risk repeating past grid management mistakes. For example, if transmission projects are delayed or underfunded while new high-demand loads come online, we could see congestion worsen. If that happens, affordable electricity would be located farther from where it’s needed, limiting access to low-cost power for consumers and slowing overall economic growth. That’s especially critical in regions like Houston, where energy costs are already a hot topic for households and businesses alike.

A 2026 View: Strategy Over Shortage

As we look toward 2026, here are the transmission and policy trends that matter most:

  • Pipeline of Projects Must Stay on Track: ERCOT’s RTP is ambitious, and keeping those 274 projects, thousands of circuit miles, and next-generation 765-kV lines moving is crucial for reliability and cost containment.
  • Large Load Forecasting Must Be Nuanced: The explosion in large-load interconnection requests, whether or not every project materializes, signals demand pressure that transmission planners cannot ignore. Building lines ahead of realized demand is not wasteful planning; it’s insurance against cost and reliability breakdowns.
  • Policy Frameworks Must Evolve: Laws like SB 6 and HB 5066 are just the beginning. Texas needs transparent rules for cost allocation, interconnection standards, and emergency protocols that keep consumers protected while supporting innovation and economic growth.
  • Coordination Among Stakeholders Is Critical: Transmission doesn’t stop at one utility’s borders. Regional cooperation among utilities, ERCOT, and local stakeholders is essential to manage congestion and develop systemwide reliability solutions.

Here’s the bottom line: Generation gets the headlines, but transmission makes the grid work. Without a robust transmission buildout and thoughtful governance, even the most advanced generation mix that includes wind, solar, gas, and storage will struggle to deliver the reliability Texans expect at a price they can afford.

In 2026, Texas is not merely testing its grid’s capacity to produce power; it’s testing its ability to move that power where it’s needed most. How we rise to meet that challenge will define the next decade of energy in the Lone Star State.

———

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Exxon Mobil and Chevron made big profits in spring 2026. Photo via Chevron

American oil and gas giants raked in massive spring profits while fighting between Iran and the U.S. impeded petroleum shipments and consumers around the world paid more for fuel and confronted shortages.

The conflict, now in its sixth month, halted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that previously served as a delivery route for a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas. With global supplies constrained, prices for Brent crude, the international standard, soared from about $70 to above $100 a barrel for much of March, April and May, and at one point reached $126.

The money that oil companies accrued between the beginning of April and the end of June could receive extra scrutiny this year. Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices climbed sharply during that period, increasing costs for drivers and airline passengers. Supplies ran low in some countries, leading to sporadic fuel rationing in Australia and government office closures in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Spring, Texas-based Exxon Mobil reported that its second quarter profits doubled to $14.53 billion, boosted by record diesel production. The oil giant brought in $116.02 billion in revenue, up 42%.

Chevron, based in Houston, nearly quadrupled its profits to $12.07 billion and revenue jumped 56% to $70.06 billion.

Six of Europe’s largest oil companies posted combined first-quarter profits of $22 billion, more than 40% higher than last year.

“There are constituencies around the world who are having a very good crisis, and the oil producers are one of them,” said Patrick Galey, fossil fuels lead at Global Witness, a nonprofit organization that investigates environmental issues. “When you compare that to the hundreds of millions of people who are struggling with rolling blackouts, with electricity curbs, rationing, waiting in line for food queues, or the disruption to fertilizers and the potential impact that that has on food prices, we don’t think that it’s a justifiable price for the rest of the world to be paying.”

Lawmakers propose taxing major oil producers for war windfalls

Energy companies such as Exxon and Chevron do not set the price of American oil, which ricocheted from $68 to $115 a barrel during the quarter. It’s driven by supply and demand, and what traders, refiners and other buyers are willing to pay.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress introduced bills in March to tax major oil producers for profits they show from 2026 onward and have the tax proceeds redistributed to consumers.

“It’s fair to put a windfall profits tax on inordinate windfall profits rather than cut off children’s food programs,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who introduced the Senate version of the legislation.

Whitehouse's measure and a companion bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California would amend the U.S. tax code to impose a per-barrel tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day in 2025.

“We cracked $4 again per gallon last weekend in gas stations that I drove by, and that’s a big expense, particularly for families that get their income from driving around from job to job in the work van or the work truck,” Whitehouse said.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S., which was below $3 before the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, reached $4.11 Friday, July 31, about $1 more than last year at this time.

The UK and other European countries implemented temporary windfall profits taxes on fossil fuel companies in 2022. The UK extended that to 2030, according to Tax Foundation Europe.

“Penalizing the businesses who stood by those countries and provided that product going forward is very short-sighted,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in a call with investors Friday. “We canceled investments that we had planned for Europe based on the last time they passed a windfall profits tax.”

Refineries rake in cash while consumers pay more for fuel

Outfits such as Exxon and Chevron, which also own refineries, are in the best position to profit from the current market conditions, said Tom Seng, assistant professor of energy finance at Texas Christian University.

Refineries turn oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil. Higher prices for those products meant Chevron’s quarterly refinery profit was six times as big in 2026, despite processing less crude and selling less products.

“The return on refining, on a percentage basis, has skyrocketed,” Seng said. “Oil right now is priced what it is priced because of the Iran war. But in the meantime, the refineries are making money hand over fist.”

The global refining market is under-supplied, and with countries such as Russia and China no longer exporting, companies like Exxon and Chevron have to pick it up, said Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital. “The world is going to be short jet fuel, diesel and gasoline, so we’ll probably continue to see higher profits there.”

Globally, not all refineries have been able to get the supply of crude oil they need to meet demand since the conflict began, said Timothy Fitzgerald, a University of Tennessee professor of business economics who studies the petroleum industry.

As a result, refineries that have ample oil to work with, including those in the U.S., are turning high profits, particularly when they make jet fuel and diesel, which is priced about 41% higher in the U.S. than before the Strait of Hormuz was blocked.

"If you’re a company that owns a bunch of refinery capacity, things look pretty good," Fitzgerald said.

American refineries are running at near-full capacity and poised to benefit because some refineries in the Middle East and Russia were damaged. And Asia can't get the amount of Middle East oil needed for refining.

“Ultimately, users of the energy services pay,” Fitzgerald said. “Consumers, people like you and me buying retail motor gasoline or diesel fuel or airplane tickets. But it also means that almost everything else we buy has an embedded energy content to it ... and this is where you start to worry about it driving increases in costs.”

Not all oil and gas companies benefit in the same way

In the present geopolitical environment, some companies are winners while others are losers, Fitzgerald said.

“If you’re a company like a U.S. (oil) producer, even a U.S.-based international company like an Exxon or Chevron who’s got lots of production outside the Gulf, things are good. You’re selling your product at a higher price,” he said.

But companies in the Middle East that are not able to benefit from higher prices because they are struggling to get their liquefied natural gas out of the Persian Gulf or have a lot of damaged oil fields or processing facilities have a very different take on recent events, Fitzgerald added.

“Your ability to sell anything and the volume that you may be getting out is so curtailed that your revenues are way down and you’re incurring higher transportation costs and security costs,” he said.

Exxon and Chevron weren’t as profitable in the first quarter due to the way oil is traded; the first real opportunity they had to take advantage of higher prices oil was in April. Companies that had a lot of oil stored in floating tankers and available for spot-market trading, including some European ones, were able to benefit from March’s higher oil prices, Seng said.

Trending News