Click here to download the full report pdf.
SB 398
Sponsor: Sen. José Menéndez
Summary: Often referred to as the “Consumer Solar Bill of Rights,” SB 3 clarified the rights of consumers putting solar or other renewable generation on their homes. It builds on existing state policy that supports personal property rights and the ability of a person to generate their own electricity on their own property. This bill allows flexibility for homeowners’ associations and electric utilities in order to address customer protection issues, including information provided to the consumers for any power purchase agreements, and to limit the scope of municipal ordinances that regulate residential solar generation systems.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The bill was widely supported by utilities, environmental groups and solar companies. There was no opposition.
Outcome: The bill passed the Senate 31-0, then passed the House 126-16. An amendment was added in the House that allowed certain food markets to self-generate with distributed generation in certain non-competitive areas of the state. The new version of the bill was approved by the Senate 31-0. The bill was signed into law by the Governor on June 14.
HB 2225
Sponsor: Rep. Tracy King
Summary: Carried in the Senate by Sen. Zaffirini, the bill gives the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) more direct authority over the Texas Water Trust. The Trust was created to hold water rights dedicated to environmental needs, including instream flows, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and bay and estuary inflows. Under current law, a water right cannot be placed in the Trust unless approved by the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) after appropriate consultation with the TPWD. However, with only three water rights, the Trust has largely been ineffective at meeting its statutory goals. What’s more, while the Trust is housed within the water bank at TWDB, the interests of the Trust may be better served by will address this issue by requiring TPWD to encourage and facilitate the dedication of water rights in the Trust through voluntary transfers and to manage rights in the Trust consistent with the trust and other applicable law. HB 2225 helped accomplish this task.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Opponents included the City of Dallas and the Texas Hemp Federation.
Outcome: The bill passed the House on a 138-10 vote, and then passed the Senate on a 30-1 vote. It was signed by the Governor into law on June 15.
SB 415
Sponsor: Sen. Kelly Hancock
Summary: SB 415 allows Texas transmission and distribution utilities (aka poles & wires companies) to lease the use of energy storage for reliability purposes and charge the cost of those services to ratepayers. Often called “non-wires alternatives,” the bill is an important step in modernizing our grid as it amends current law relating to use of electric energy storage facilities in the ERCOT power region. This bill would define energy storage devices as a generation asset, but would allow a TDU, with prior approval from the PUC, to enter into an agreement with a power generation company that owns an energy storage facility for reliability services in circumstances where construction of traditional distribution facilities is not cost effective. A TDU would be allowed to recover the costs of the lease agreement. However, as part of the “compromise” the bill is limited to 100 MW of total leasing for these types of contracts. The original bill as filed only would have allowed 40 MW, so the 100 MW was an improvement.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: While certain TDUs would have preferred outright ownership as opposed to leasing, there was no formal opposition to the bill, which had nearly passed the previous session.
Outcome: The bill passed the Senate on a vote of 31-0, and then passed the House on a vote of 131-17. It then was signed by the Governor on June 14.
HB 3973
Sponsor: Rep. Armando Walle
Summary: HB 3973 would make adjustments to the Oil and Gas Regulation and Clean-Up Fund (which in part is used to clean up oil and gas spills and plug abandoned wells). It was changed in the Senate in part due to Sierra Club lobbying. The committee substitute bill creates a joint interim committee to study matters related to abandoned oil and gas wells, including the costs associated with plugging abandoned wells and bonding requirements imposed on owners or operators of oil and gas wells, identifying potential solutions to reduce the need for general revenue spending to plug abandoned wells, conducting a review of the oil and gas regulation and cleanup fund, evaluating and identifying other sources of potential revenue, and including federal funds and other existing taxes and fees paid to the benefit of the state which could be utilized to meet the goals of the committee.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The original bill that passed the House had some opposition about using certain penalty fees and directing them to the Fund. Thus, the Senate decided to turn the bill into more of a study and to name an interim committee to study the revenues coming into the Railroad Commission and how to adequately fund well plugging. TIPRO (Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association) signed up against the Senate version because they preferred the original bill to actually increase revenues to the fund.
Outcome: After passing the House on a 108-37 vote, the bill passed the Senate on a 29-1 vote. The House then concurred with the Senate changes on a 141-0 vote and it was signed by the Governor on June 18.
HB 17
Sponsor: Rep. Joe Deshotel
Summary: Purported to assure that Texans have a choice in selecting gas or electric home systems, the bill was a blatant attempt by the gas industry to ensure that cities and other political subdivisions can’t pass policies that lead to beneficial electrification of homes and businesses, a key measure to move toward net-zero carbon by moving away from indoor gas use. The bill makes it illegal for cities and other political subdivisions to adopt ordinances, programs, policies, or permitting measures that restrict, ban, or discriminate against the use of any energy source in terms of hookups or connections. The bill was mainly about preventing future action. Sierra Club did work to get legislative intent to make it clear that the bill does not prevent cities from moving forward on policies to encourage electric vehicles, energy storage, and clean energy, as long as they do not directly restrict, ban, or discriminate against any energy source. In the Senate, the bill was carried by Chair Brian Birdwell.
Our Position: HB 17 was never about storm response. In fact, it was a bill that has cropped up in many other state legislatures across the country as part of a well funded campaign by fracked gas interests. A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: CenterPoint Energy, Texas Gas Service, Atmos Energy, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Realtors, Texas Pipeline Association, Habitat for Humanity, Safe Building Materials Association of Texas, Texas Association of Manufacturers, South Texas Electric Cooperative (STEC), Epcor, AARP, Texas Association of Builders, Texas Oil and Gas Association, Magellan Midstream Partners, NFIB, Texas Apartment Association, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Texas Association of African American Chambers of Commerce, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO), Texas Restaurant Association, Dow, Inc.
Outcome: The House passed the bill 116-29, the Senate passed the bill 28-2, and it was signed by Governor Abbott on May 18, effective immediately.
SB 7
Sponsor: Rep. Joe Deshotel
Summary: SB 7 was an overhaul of Texas election laws, designed to make it harder to vote by limiting the timing and locations for early voting, criminalizing any mistakes in voting or certain types of voter outreach, and giving poll “watchers” more specific authority to call into question votes at the polls. It is part of a national effort in many states to build on the widespread false allegations of voter “fraud” in the 2020 election. Despite pronouncements from the Abbott-appointed Secretary of State that Texas elections in 2020 were free and fair, SB 7 was the signature attempt by the dominant party to suppress future votes and make it easier to hold onto political power.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Republican groups, Texas Public Policy Foundation.
Outcome: SB 7 passed the Senate on a partisan 18-13 vote on April 1, and was then approved by the House on an 81-64 vote on May 7. Because the House and Senate versions differed, a conference committee was named and the Senate passed the Conference Committee report on an 18-13 vote on May 30. The Conference Committee Report was even worse than the original bill, as new provisions were added to further limit voting and allowing any disputed election to be brought to court with minimal requirements. After House Democrats staged a walkout, preventing a final vote on the conference committee version of the bill, SB 7 failed. Governor Abbott called the Legislature back twice to pass the bill, which they ultimately did as SB 1 in the second special session.
SB 1278
Sponsor: Sen. Kelly Hancock
Summary: SB 1278 would have assigned costs for ancillary services to wind and solar generation resources. Currently, so-called ancillary services (essentially services to keep our grid operating and reliable) are paid for by all consumers of electricity. SB 1278 would have changed that and directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas to direct ERCOT to assign the cost of ancillary services attributable to intermittent resources and procure additional ones that would “firm up” the deliverability of those resources during peak demand periods. Assigning ancillary service costs to generators would make renewable energy more expensive, and be an unfair burden on one type of generation.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position. Sierra Club called for a thorough review of all ancillary services and their costs and how to assign costs to all consumers and market participants, rather than only picking on renewable energy development.
Special Interests: The bill was supported by industrial consumers through the Texas Association of Manufacturers, Dow Chemical Company, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and some utilities like the Lower River Colorado Authority, the South Texas Electric Cooperative, and Koch Companies. The bill was opposed by environmental organizations, all renewable energy industry associations, and individual companies.
Outcome: The bill was passed on a 22-9 vote on the Senate floor on April 14 but never received a hearing in the House. However, a version of the bill was incorporated into SB 3 in the Senate, but later removed from that bill. Instead, SB 3 has a provision for the PUC to review all ancillary services and their cost assignment, a position that is less unfair to renewable energy interests.
SB 14
Sponsor: Sen. Brandon Creighton
Summary: SB 14 was designed to prevent cities and political subdivisions from adopting ordinances or policies involving private employees. The bill was focused on cities like Dallas and Austin that have recently approved policies that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and cities that have passed protections for construction workers against extreme heat (eg., water breaks). This is the latest example of the state seeking to undermine local democracy by prohibiting a municipality or county from requiring certain employment benefits or policies, and preventing cities from adopting any policy that exceeds or conflicts with federal or state law relating to any form of employment leave, hiring practices, employment benefits, scheduling practices, or other terms of employment.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The bill was heavily supported by most business interests, including local Chambers of Commerce and real estate councils, the Texas Association of Retailers, the Texas Association of Business, the Texas Association of Builders, the Texas Travel Alliance, the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association, Texas Apartment Association, and conservative groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It was opposed by a wider variety of groups including the City of Austin, Fort Worth, Dallas, Every Texan, Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, Workers Defense Project, and many individual labor unions, as well as anti-discrimination groups.
Outcome: The bill passed the Senate 19-12, and then passed the House 94-52. When the Senate refused to concur with the House amendments, which made the bill slightly less bad, it went to conference committee. The Senate adopted the conference committee report on May 30, but the bill failed to pass the House, due in part to the House walk-out over SB 7. Thus, by leaving the House floor, Democrats not only defeated SB 7 but also SB 14.
SB 1261
Sponsor: Sen. Brian Birdwell
Summary: SB 1261 as filed would have prevented local political subdivisions, including cities, from directly or indirectly regulating greenhouse gases. The bill was clearly an attempt to limit the ability of cities like Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas, which have approved long-term Climate Action Plans, from taking action that could impact private industry. While the bad bill was weakened by removing the word “indirectly,” Sierra Club still opposed the bill.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The bill was supported by major industrial groups such as the Texas Pipeline Association, Texas Association of Builders, Valero, CenterPoint Energy, TIPRO, Koch Companies, and conservative think tanks like the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It was opposed by the Sierra Club, other environmental organizations, and cities like Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, as well as Harris County.
Outcome: The bill passed the Senate 20-11, then was sent to the House where it initially failed to pass out of the House Committee on Environmental Regulation,
but then was reconsidered and passed. It was set on the House floor for May 25, but was delayed by the House author, Rep. Landgraf, until consideration at 11:35pm that same day. The bill was never considered and did not become law. Apparently, there was enough opposition to have killed the bill by delay, so effectively it was defeated.
SB 1282
Sponsor: Sen. Kelly Hancock
Summary: The bill was an attempt to change policy on who pays for transmission costs by requiring wind and solar companies to pay for interconnection costs for new generation. In essence, the bill would change current law, which socializes interconnection costs within ERCOT for new generation to all electric consumers and instead have the generator pay for that cost.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The bill was supported by Dow Chemical, the Texas Association of Manufacturers, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Electric Cooperatives, Vistra Corporation, and the fossil fuel generators represented by the Texas Competitive Power Advocates. It was opposed by renewable energy associations, the Sierra Club, and other conservation organizations, and by the Texas Advance Energy Business Alliance, among others.
Outcome: The bill passed the Senate on 19-11 to third reading, and then passed ultimately 18-13. While it was carried in the House by Chair Chris Paddie, and set on the House Calendar, it was delayed by the Chair until after session, effectively killing it.
HB 1501
Sponsor: Rep. Jay Dean
Summary: HB 1501 intended to make it harder for cities and political subdivisions to restrict, ban, or “discriminate” against the use of gas or propane appliances like furnaces, gas stoves, or dryers. The bill was part of a national campaign by the gas industry to build support for gas stoves and appliances as some cities and areas seek to move toward beneficial electrification. In Texas, the bill was mainly aimed at cities like Austin and Dallas which have discussed long-term efforts to electrify buildings.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Phillips 66, Atmos Energy Corp, Texas Association of Builders, Texas Apartment Association, Texas Oil & Gas Association, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO), CenterPoint Energy, and Texas Propane Gas Association.
Outcome: The House passed HB 1501 118-22. It passed, amended, in the Senate 27-3. Upon returning to the House, a point of order was called by Rep. Zwiener on the grounds that the amendments were not germane. The POO was sustained and the bill was sent back to the Senate for further action, but none was taken, as time ran out on the bill.
SB 1003
Sponsor: Sen. Drew Springer
Summary: SB 1003 would have created a defacto ban on the siting of new wind generation by requiring a setback of approximately one mile from any private property owner from the blades, unless that property owner provided a written waiver. As such, it would effectively allow a small group of nearby landowners to prevent future development of wind energy.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The bill was supported by local landowners in Sen. Springer’s district in North Texas, and by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It was opposed by the Association of Electric Companies of Texas, by all renewable energy companies, and by the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations.
Outcome: The bill passed the Senate narrowly, 17-14, showing that the bill could have been blocked from consideration. The bill appears to largely have been a favor to Sen. Springer to help in future campaigns. It never received a hearing in the House.
SB 1728
Sponsor: Sens. Schwertner & Nichols
Summary: SB 1728 would have imposed an additional fee on alternatively fueled vehicles to help pay for highways. While Sierra Club supported the intent of the bill (many Texans are choosing alternatively fueled vehicles and they should contribute to the funding of the roads which they use) the bill would have imposed a very high tax on electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, much higher than comparable petroleum-based vehicles, thus creating a disincentive for the use of electric vehicles. The bill as it passed the Senate would have imposed either a $200 or $250 fee on EVs, and a $40 or $50 fee on hybrid vehicles.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The bill was supported by the Association of General Contractors, the Conference of Urban Counties, the Texas Oil and Gas Association, several local Chambers of Commerce, AAA, and many individuals promoting highways. It was opposed by most environmental organizations, certain automobile dealers, TESLA, and the Texas Electric Transportation Resources Alliance.
Outcome: After passing the Senate 28-3, SB 1728 was sent to the House Committee on Transportation, where it was picked up by Chair Terry Canales. Canales improved the bill with a committee substitute that would have lowered the fees substantially and also created a new Texas Transportation Electrification Council. However, when the bill got to the House floor, it was killed on a Point of Order by Rep. Slayton, in large part because the bill was changed substantially by adding a new section to the bill, which violated House rules since the committee substitute was not germane to the subject of the original bill.
SB 566
Sponsor: Sen. Dawn Buckingham
Summary: SB 566 would have changed policy that would impact only one utility: Austin Energy. It would have given ratepayers in Austin, including the State of Texas, the ability to appeal the rates set by the Austin City Council to the Public Utility Commission of Texas at any time. It would have given Austin Energy ratepayers the ability to appeal the rates set by city council whenever they wanted. As such, the bill picked on only one municipality and subjected them to an expensive appeals process whenever any set of customers wanted to go to the PUC to review rates.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The bill was pushed by one company (Data Foundry) that objected to Austin Energy’s rates set through an exhaustive process in 2016. It was opposed by the City of Austin, Austin Energy, the Texas Public Power Association, the Sierra Club, and the Texas AFL-CIO.
Outcome: The bill passed the Senate 18-13 and also passed the Committee on State Affairs. After being set on the House Calendar on May 23, it was killed on a Point of Order by Rep. Vikki Goodwin.