Link K41 enters Mason County from San Saba County, crosses Black Branch, and crosses SH 71 about 3,000 feet northwest of Fly Gap Road. From there it crosses North Fork San Fernando Creek and Oak Grove Road and stops at a junction just north of Eastman Lane. The next segment, Link K42, heads west over Eastman Lane, RM 386 and Spy Rock Road. Those are the utilities' own descriptions from the route link composition for the proposed Bell County East to Big Hill 765-kV transmission line. As of October 2026, those links are still part of a live case.
If you're comparing ranch and acreage markets around the Hill Country, you may have heard that the line "doesn't go through Mason." That's true of one route. It isn't true of the case, and the difference shows up during a land purchase in ways that the ordinary paperwork won't catch.
The preferred route is one route among 122
Oncor and LCRA Transmission Services Corporation filed their joint application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas on March 26, 2026, under PUC Docket No. 59475. The application covers 122 alternative routes, each roughly 214 to 244 miles long, running from Bell County to a new Big Hill Substation in Schleicher County.
In an April 2026 update, the San Saba News & Star published a Friends of the San Saba summary reporting that the applicants' preferred Route 894 does not cross Mason County. That summary also says Route 894 crosses the San Saba River once, on link K51 in western San Saba County. The same summary says the preferred route "carries no special weight in the PUC review." LCRA's project page puts it even more plainly:
"Note that all routes and route links included in the application are available for selection and approval by the PUC."
LCRA also notes that "numerous other routes could be created by combining the filed segments into additional routes." A Mason County parcel near a filed link is in the same position it was in on the day of filing. The preferred route lowers the odds. It doesn't take the parcel off the map.
The judges said no, and the Commission didn't answer yet
The case went to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. On August 20, 2026, the administrative law judges filed a proposal for decision recommending that the application be denied. They found the evidence did not establish that the project was necessary for the public. They also found that the applicants' failure to follow the public-meeting process prejudiced approximately 1,400 landowners. The judges did name Route 894 as the best balance of routing factors, but only "should a route be selected for construction."
The Commission did not accept or reject that recommendation. On September 18, 2026, it sent the case back to SOAH because the proposal did not address two of the 21 issues the Commission had assigned. Issue 11 asks whether the facilities are needed to meet state or federal reliability standards. Issue 13 asks how much the line could save consumers in congestion costs. DailyTrib reported that the remand began with a September 9 memo from PUC Chairman Thomas Gleeson, which the Commission voted to back on September 11, and that the decision expected in September "will now likely be delayed for some time."
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| August 25, 2025 | Mason County Commissioners Court directs its county attorney to draft a resolution opposing the project |
| March 26, 2026 | Oncor and LCRA TSC file the application with the PUC |
| April 27, 2026 | Deadline for affected landowners to intervene |
| August 20, 2026 | SOAH judges recommend denial |
| September 18, 2026 | PUC remands the case on Issues 11 and 13 |
| September 30, 2026 | Senate Committee on Business and Commerce takes testimony on transmission planning and related topics |
| October 7, 2026 | Remand briefs filed by staff, the applicants and intervenors |
| October 19, 2026 | Responses to remand briefs due |
| End of 2030 | Target date to energize the line, if approved |
SOAH Order No. 35 keeps the evidentiary record closed during the remand. Docket 59475 is not among the contested cases on the PUC's October 1 or October 15 open-meeting agendas. Oncor's project page still lists a PUC decision as anticipated in September 2026, a month that has now passed. No public filing we've seen sets a new decision date. In plain terms, the line might be denied, approved on Route 894, or approved on some other combination of filed links, and none of those outcomes has a date.
Where the paperwork goes quiet
The buyers this puts in the hardest spot are the ones closing on land now. The case's notice steps were tied to dates that have already passed, and the standard residential disclosure form doesn't cover pending routes.
Notice was aimed at the owner at filing. LCRA said that when the application was filed, notice would be mailed to property owners whose land a proposed route crosses or who have a habitable structure within 500 feet of the centerline. The judges later found the applicants did not comply with some of the notice requirements. The deadline to intervene in the case was April 27, 2026. If you buy a tract this fall, any notice would have been addressed to the previous owner, and the window to formally join the case closed months ago. We didn't find an official source explaining how notice or intervenor status carries over when land changes hands during a pending case. That question belongs with a Texas real estate attorney, not with a listing description.
The seller's disclosure doesn't ask. TREC's Seller's Disclosure Notice, with an effective date of May 28, 2026 on TREC's site, applies to previously occupied single-family residences. It asks about unplatted easements, conservation easements and lawsuits affecting the property. It doesn't ask whether a proposed transmission route crosses the land. On raw acreage with no house, that residential form may not be part of the deal at all.
The right-of-way is about 200 feet wide. The applicants' Environmental Assessment calls for a right-of-way of approximately 200 feet in most circumstances, usually centered on the line, and more where engineering or terrain requires it. On a smaller Hill Country tract, a strip that wide can take in a homesite, a tank or a hunting stand.
What Mason County put on the record
The Mason County Commissioners Court adopted a resolution, signed by County Judge Sheree Hardin, and Friends of the San Saba submitted it to the docket. It opposes construction through Mason County and any route across the San Saba River watershed. The resolution names Dry Prong Creek, Ranch Branch Creek and Katemcy Creek, along with the Hickory Aquifer recharge zone. It cites the historic Peter's Prairie Schoolhouse and the Katemcy site connected to the Meusebach-Comanche treaty, and it raises limits on pivot irrigation and possible effects on farming, ranching, hunting and agritourism. It also says the line would not provide Mason County with any additional electric service.
Those are the county's stated concerns, not findings by the Commission. For a buyer, the list works as a map of the features local officials see as exposed. We haven't found any verified sales data showing the proposed line changing Mason County land prices, and we won't guess at one.
If a route is approved, the process moves to the courthouse
Approval of a route doesn't settle what an easement is worth. That happens later, under the procedures in the Texas Attorney General's Landowner's Bill of Rights, updated November 2025. The condemning entity goes through written appraisal and offer steps first. A final offer has to come at least 30 days after the initial offer, and the landowner gets at least 14 days to consider it before a condemnation suit can be filed. If a suit is filed, a judge appoints three local landowners as special commissioners to decide compensation. A timely objection to their award moves the dispute into court proceedings.
If you buy a parcel near a filed link, you're stepping into that possible future along with the seller's position in it.
Questions to raise while the contract is still open
- Is the parcel crossed by a filed link, or close to one? Check the LCRA interactive mapping tool and the link composition document instead of relying on Route 894.
- Did the seller receive the March 2026 PUC notice, and did the seller intervene in Docket 59475?
- If a 200-foot right-of-way crossed the tract, what would it take out, whether that's the homesite, water, stands or fences?
- Has anything new posted to the PUC docket since the October 19, 2026 response deadline, such as a supplemental proposal for decision or a final order?
- Does your contract timeline leave room to answer these questions during the option period?
A few direct answers
Does the line cross Mason County? The preferred route doesn't, according to the April 2026 Friends of the San Saba summary. Filed links such as K41 and K42 do, and every filed link remains eligible for selection.
Is the project approved? No. As of October 11, 2026, the case is on remand at SOAH with responses due October 19, and no final decision date has been published.
When would it be built? If approved, LCRA's project page says the line is scheduled to be energized by the end of 2030.
Will the seller's disclosure flag it? The current TREC residential form has no question about proposed transmission routes, so the check has to come from the map and the docket.
If you're looking at acreage near SH 71, RM 386 or the San Saba River watershed, Reata Ranch Realty can pull up the filed links against the tract before your option period runs out, and we'll keep watching Docket 59475 with you until there's a final order. Contact Us.
This article is general information, not legal, tax or financial advice. Consult a qualified professional about your situation.
