By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Derived from an episode of American Energy Works.

What happens when a vital power line cuts across land owned by a foreign adversary, and the state’s own safeguards appear to have been bypassed?

Background: The Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act

In June 2021, Texas enacted the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act to shield critical infrastructure from entities tied to China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. Authored by Senator Donna Campbell, the law bars state agencies and private companies from contracting with such foreign interests for projects that could affect the grid, energy facilities, or other essential services. Governor Greg Abbott reinforced the statute with executive orders 48 and 49, citing FBI Director Christopher Wray’s warning that the Chinese Communist Party treats U.S. infrastructure as a strategic target.

The legislation was a direct response to growing concerns about foreign ownership of land and assets that could host power lines, pipelines, or communications networks. It mandated thorough due‑diligence on land ownership before any easements or right‑of‑way approvals were granted.

The Howard‑Solstice Line Controversy

In September 2025, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) approved a 765‑kilovolt route known as the Howard‑Solstice Line, part of a broader Permian Basin reliability plan. The approved alignment, labeled Route 4 Modified 1, traverses a seven‑mile stretch of a parcel called “Harvest, Texas,” which, according to landowner Randy Nuns, is owned by a Chinese corporation linked to billionaire Sun Wangxin.

“The utility’s routing witness said they have not investigated the citizenship of landowners they would need easements from,” Nuns said, expressing alarm that the PUC proceeded despite the law’s clear intent. He noted that the route was selected from 77 possible combinations, yet the chosen path runs directly through the Chinese‑owned land, raising a red flag for both national security and local stakeholders.

Local Impact and Community Response

Val Verde County, a sparsely populated area west of Del Rio, relies heavily on agriculture, ranching, and the pristine waters of the Devils River, which feeds Lake Amistad. Nuns, a former president of the Devils River Conservancy, highlighted how the proposed line threatens both environmental resources and the livelihoods of ranch families who have tended the land for generations.

Local activists launched the “Don’t Blow It, Texas” campaign, arguing that while they support energy development, it should not come at the expense of “inappropriate siding” that jeopardizes water quality and property rights. The campaign helped bring the issue to the attention of state legislators and the PUC.

Legal Proceedings and Re‑hearing Requests

After the PUC’s approval, interveners—including Val Verde County officials, the Sabinal and Frio River Alliance, and other community groups—filed motions requesting a rehearing, citing the Lone Star Act’s requirements. Administrative law judges, however, concluded that the record contained no concrete proof of Chinese ownership, stating that “the county records don’t show any name like Xi Jinping owning parcels in Palo Verde County.” Consequently, they deemed the utility’s route compliant.

In September 2026, a letter from Representative Eddie Morales warned PUC Chairman Gleason of potential violations, but the evidence was not entered into the official docket. The matter remains pending, with further rehearing motions slated for review.

Implications for Texas Energy Policy

The dispute underscores a tension between Texas’s aggressive push for grid reliability and its commitment to national security. If utilities can sidestep due‑diligence, the protective intent of the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act could be undermined, setting a precedent for future infrastructure projects.

Proponents of the law argue that strict enforcement is essential to keep foreign adversaries from gaining leverage over the nation’s power supply. Critics, however, caution that overly rigid restrictions might delay needed upgrades and increase costs for consumers.

As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome will likely influence how Texas balances rapid energy development with the safeguarding of its critical infrastructure against hostile foreign influence.

Ultimately, the Howard‑Solstice Line case serves as a litmus test for the state’s ability to enforce its own security statutes while preserving the economic and environmental well‑being of its rural communities.

The full episode of American Energy Works is available on OBBM Network TV.