After drawing opposition when first proposed in southern Kansas, a massive 316-mile electrical transmission line mandated by the federal government to cross from the state into northeast Oklahoma and into Missouri and supported by the Southwest Power Pool, has drawn similar opposition in Oklahoma. It has been opposed by landowners who contend they are not being allowed to participate in hearings by state regulators while tribes are citing how the line would jeopardize their cultural practices and preservation efforts, cause bird collisions and noise pollution.
Mandated by the SPP, the regional transmission operator overseeing and monitoring the power grid across Oklahoma and 16 other states, the project in Oklahoma is formally called the Northeast Oklahoma Transmission Enhancement project. The AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company, Inc. is known as OK Transco and filed authority requests with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. It proposed the start of construction in the summer of 2028 with completion in late 2029.
The 345 kV transmission line starts at the Buffalo Flats Substation near Garden Plain, a small town west of Wichita, Kansas and is to end in Oklahoma at the Delaware Substation near Delaware. The transmission line is part of a larger Southwest Power Pool (SPP) project called the Branson 345 kV Overlay Project which will extend eventually to near Branson, Missouri. It is intended to improve the SPP Transmission system and increase the reliability and resiliency of the transmission network in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri.
OK Energy Today reported in January about the protests in Kansas, but now the protests have become a major focus of attention in Craig, Nowata, Washington and Ottawa Counties where public meetings have been held by AEP Transmission. Filings were made with the Corporation Commission in August. The Northeast Oklahoma Transmission Enhancement East project was filed as case PUD 2026-000068 .
The NEOTEP West project’s case number is PUD 2026-000047 and explained, “The Project consists of a new 345 kV transmission line extending approximately 34 miles from the Kansas–Oklahoma border to the existing Delaware Substation, traversing Washington and Nowata Counties, and will provide significant enhanced reliability and resilience for the regional grid, reduced transmission congestion, and increased capacity to support economic development and load growth in the area, while facilitating the efficient integration and delivery of diverse energy resources serving Oklahoma customers.”
Jeffrey L. Ellis, Director SPP Transmission & Distribution Planning for AEP and AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company in Tulsa said the project is part of a larger portfolio of winter weather portfolio projects developed to address numerous low-voltage issues identified in SPP’s analysis, many of which were driven by a lack of supporting extra high voltage (“EHV”) transmission and generation deliverability to the region during Winter Storm Elliott. He testified it would add significant energy delivery capability considered critical during winter weather events.
“Delaying construction of the Project by one to two years would heighten the risk of thermal overloads, voltage issues, and congestion during severe winter conditions. Such a delay would prolong periods of reduced reliability and increase the potential for load shedding, similar to the impacts experienced during Winter Storms Uri and Elliott.”
In the days since the initial filing of testimony in support of the project, dozens of filings were made by landowners in the affected counties. Following similar efforts of Inola area residents who fought a filing by Public Service Company of Oklahoma where they sought formal recognition as “Pro Se Protesters” or intervenors and not simply ratepayers with “public comments,” the landowners fighting the distribution line project made similar “Pro Se Protesters” filings. More than 40 did so in recent weeks but last week, Administrative Law Judge Carly Ortel ruled against most of them but is allowing them to make public comments in the case.
Oklahoma Transco opposed the pro-se filings and pointed out there were 203 Notices of Protest as of August 4, 2026 and 34 Pro Se Motions. The Corporation Commission’s Public Utilities Division sided with OK Transco and pointed to a state law which said pro se individuals are not persons entitled to personal notice. Judge Ortel agreed and said Corporation Commission rules and state law “do not allow for the filing of protests to applications in PUD.” She concluded in her recent decision that “all Notices of Protest in this matter be treated as public comment.”
The ALJ allowed only 5 landowners to be allowed to intervene and denied many others because they did not own land within Nowata or Washington County. Those who were allowed to intervene were subject to the terms of a Protective Order in the case. One of denials was to the Wyandotte Tribe which contended the NEOTEP project transmission lines would run directly through its 20,000-acre reservation in Ottawa County. The Judge determined the Wyandotte Nation is in Ottawa County which did not fall under the “scope of this Application.” (Washington and Nowata counties) Other letters opposing the project were filed by the Eastern Shawnee tribe, the Modoc Tribe, Ottawa Tribe, Peoria Tribe and the Quapaw Nation.
Some of the objections raised by the tribes involved environmental damage to their lands. But Kathleen Cooney, environmental consultant with WSP USA Inc., largest power delivery detail designer in the United States, defended the siting and the attention paid to the environment.
“By employing a comprehensive approach that includes environmental assessments, careful routing, public engagement, and ongoing monitoring, the Company is dedicated to addressing environmental impacts associated with the Project. These efforts reflect the Company’s commitment to sustainability and responsible community engagement throughout the Project lifecycle.”
She further testified the project is expected to have short-term minimal impacts to soil, water and ecological resources.
Judge Ortel also allowed a group called Protect Rural Oklahoma to be a legal intervenor in the case. The group was founded by landowners Ben and Natalie Bullard of Welch, who confirmed to OK Energy Today, they are helping other landowners.
“We do not want AEP running over anybody, we want to stand up for our land, we want to protect our neighbors,” said Natalie Bullard, after an early-September public meeting in Welch where KTUL TV News was also on hand.
In her ruling, Judge Ortel noted that Protect Rural Oklahoma (PRO) has about 150 members and supporters. The judge allowed PRO to intervene but also said it had to adhere to terms of a Protective Order issued in the case. The order restricts PRO from distributing materials obtained through discovery to individual members of the organization. Judge Ortel denied the application of others because the question at hand was the NEOTEP West Project and not the East Project. She determined the “overwhelming majority of Pro Se Motions listed the location of their property as counties other than Washington or Nowata.”
The judge further determined that “the Pro Se Intervenors’ interests are appropriately represented in this matter by both the Attorney General and PRO.”
Many of the protests were filed on a “fill in the blank” protest form in which the protesters raised issues of “no quantification of rate impacts on customers,” “inadequate public process,” “undisclosed interstate dependency,” and “cost discrepancy.” The protester added his or her name in a blank space.
Ben Bullard said he isn’t finished with the fight. He was denied to be an individual intervenor because his land and home are in a trust he created for his family and has since challenged the decision in a new filing with the Corporation Commission.
“I believe a trust should be treated as an individual is treated in these cases at the OCC. I am representing my own personal interest in my property, which so happens to be in a trust which is a very common structure used to protect someone’s estate plans and future wishes after they pass for children, assets, etc. Personally, my surface land is my dwelling, and we put it in a trust long before we ever considered having to represent ourselves in a case at the OCC.”
He also questions the judge’s ruling that landowners affected by the East project cannot be intervenors in the West project.
“Also, if the ALJ is going to put a box around who can intervene in NEOTEP West, will there be that same box around this matter when it comes to determining the benefit, cost, and impact of the West portion? Or will the OCC look at it from a bigger box, including statewide, out-of-state, and regional SPP benefits and impacts?”
Bullard also challenged the intervention by the Attorney General, pointing out that state law makes it clear the AG is to represent consumer’s interests “in rate-related” proceedings before the Corporation Commission. Bullard contends the AG has “no statutory obligation or authority to represent landowners in Certificate of Authority cases.”
A recent filing of support for the company was made by Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s office in support of the Judge’s ruling. The filing noted that new regulations were recently adopted by the Corporation Commission following the legislature’s passage in 2025 of House Bill 2756, known as the High Voltage Electric Transmission Facility Act, which provides details of the process for a transmission developer to seek a certificate of authority from the Commission. The Act was approved by the legislature and became law without the signature of Gov. Kevin Stitt.
AEP’s filing was made in June, prior to the new law taking effect on the first of August but the Attorney General concluded: “The Attorney General finds sufficient evidence in OK TransCo’s Application demonstrating
it met the statutory requirements. Additionally, while the Commission rules associated with the
High Voltage Transmission Act were not in effect at the time OK TransCo filed its Application,
the Attorney General observes that the Company complied with those requirements regardless.
Consequently, the Attorney General does not object to OK TranCo’s request for a certificate of
authority.”
The Corporation Commission will meet Monday to consider the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.
According to the recently released agenda, the meeting will be held at 1:30 p.m.
“Discussion of and possible vote(s) on a proposed Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Motion to Determine Status of “Pro Se Intervenors” and “Pro Se Protestors” and Granting or
Denying Other Motions to Intervene in Case No. PUD2026-000047, In the Matter of the
Application of AEP Oklahoma Transmission Company, Inc. Requesting a Certificate of
Authority from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and/or any alterations, revisions, or
amendments thereto proposed at the meeting”
