Click here to download the full report pdf.
HB 2716
Sponsor: Rep. Tracy King
Summary: This bill would have allowed the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to directly intervene in providing input and in some cases opposing water rights and water discharge permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. This was actually Texas policy until it was changed in 2011 by the legislature on an amendment to a TCEQ bill on the House floor. Allowing the state agency in charge of protecting natural areas and wildlife areas would have been an important action to help protect Texas’s streams and rivers.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Opponents included the Texas Association of Manufacturers, Texas Chemical Council, and Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO).
Outcome: HB 2716 passed the House on a vote of 91 ayes and 54 nays. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs but did not receive a hearing.
HB 4146
Sponsor: Rep. Tracy King
Summary: Texas has few remaining pristine waterways and it is in the interest of the state to protect them. HB 4146 would have prevented certain waterways that met low phosphorus criteria from becoming polluted by prohibiting the direct discharge of wastewater into the waterway. Specifically, the bill would have prohibited the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from issuing certain permits, or amendments to certain permits, that authorize the direct discharge of any waste, effluent, or pollutants into certain waterways and drainage areas that showed they met low phosphorus levels with verified data over a 10-year period.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Opponents included the Camping Association for Mutual Progress.
Outcome: HB 4146 passed on third reading with 82 ayes and 61 nays. It was received in the Senate but was not referred to a committee.
HB 2225
Sponsor: Rep. Tracy King
Summary: The Texas Water 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 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (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 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.
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: HB 2225 passed on third reading with 138 ayes and 10 nays. It passed the Senate 31-0 and was signed by the Governor on June 15.
HB 3477
Sponsor: Rep. Toni Rose
Summary: HB 3477 was filed in response to numerous environmental disasters from companies that had routinely violated environmental rules, including Shingle Mountain in Dallas and the TPC in Port Neches. The bill would have required the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to establish criteria for determining whether a filing entity that was subject to an enforcement action was responsible for an environmental disaster in the state. An “environmental disaster” would mean a violation of law under TCEQ jurisdiction resulting in significant harm to human life. TCEQ would have to consider whether a violation caused an increase in fatal diseases, including cancer, in the population near the facility where the violation occurred, contaminated water or air; or a negative effect on the quality of life of the population near the facility. If determined that a filing entity was responsible, TCEQ would have to issue an order for the termination of the filing entity. The secretary of state could terminate a filing entity’s existence if it had been issued an order of termination. The order would have to include a provision for how the entity could meet requirements for reinstatement through the remediation of the environmental disaster.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Opponents included the Texas Chemical Council, Texas Oil & Gas Association, the Texas Association of Manufacturers, Associated General Contractors of Texas - Highway Heavy Utility and Industrial Branch, Texas Mining and Reclamation Association, LafargeHolcim, BASF (chemical industry), Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO), and the Association of Electric Companies of Texas (AECT).
Outcome: HB 3477 failed to pass the House on a vote of 64 ayes and 79 nays.
HB 3963
Sponsor: Rep. Ken King
Summary: Concerns have been raised that there are currently not enough charging stations for hybrid or electric vehicles on state property, and it has been suggested that allowing such charging stations to be installed could lead to increased tourism in the state. The committee substitute for HB 3963 would have allowed a state agency in charge and control of state property, including a state park, to enter into an agreement with a charging provider to place and maintain electric vehicle charging equipment on the property. Such an agreement would have required the provider to use a metering device to determine the cost of electricity transferred to another person through electric vehicle charging equipment and could include any other reasonable requirements on the use of the property.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Opponents included the Texas Food & Fuel Association.
Outcome: HB 3963 passed the House on a vote of 111 ayes and 28 nays. In the Senate it was referred to the Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs, but did not receive a hearing.
HB 2275
Sponsor: Rep. Erin Zwiener
Summary: The committee substitute for HB 2275 would have created the critical infrastructure resiliency fund and expanded the eligibility for state assistance for certain water-related projects.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: There were no groups or individuals who testified against HB 2275. However, during the debate on the House floor, more conservative members raised concern that the back-up power for nursing homes and dialysis centers should be “reliable,” raising concerns about funding renewable energy projects. Rep. Zwiener added an amendment to require that any back-up power be found to be “reliable” to meet these concerns.
Outcome: HB 2275 passed the House on a vote of 108 ayes and 37 nays. The Senate received the bill but did not refer it to a committee.
HB 2350
Sponsor: Rep. Erin Zwiener
Summary: CSHB 2350 sought to encourage nature-based infrastructure projects across the state by incentivizing political subdivisions to undertake them. These would be human-made systems that mimic natural processes to help mitigate the effects of flooding, runoff, and erosion while also producing benefits such as enhanced aquifer recharge, reduced heat island effects, and scenic beauty. The bill would have amended the Water Code to require the Texas Water Development Board to establish and administer the water resource restoration program to assist in enhancing water quality in Texas through the provision of financial assistance to political subdivisions for locally directed projects.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: There were no opponents to the bill who registered to testify in its House hearing. However, the Texas Water Development Board had some concerns about the way the bill was written, and during the debate on the House floor, Rep. Zwiener made changes to the bill to address the TWDB’s concerns and concerns to assure that the bill would only use existing federal funds.
Outcome: HB 2350 passed to third reading on a vote of 76 ayes and 64 nays. It ultimately passed the House on a vote of 92 ayes and 50 nays. In the Senate, it was referred to the Committee on Water, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs but did not receive a hearing.
HB 4472
Sponsor: Rep. Brooks Landgraf
Summary: HB 4472 expands programs that can be funded through the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP), a series of programs designed to lower air pollution through voluntary grants from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Launched in 2001, TERP has helped reduce air pollution by hundreds of thousands of tons largely by replacing older polluting vehicles and engines with newer ones. The House-passed version of HB 4472 assured that all money collected from various fees and surcharges would flow to the special TERP trust fund outside the TCEQ budget and added some important new programs, such as a program designed to reduce air emissions and flaring in oil and gas fields, and create a revolving loan program for energy efficiency for homeowners. Important amendments on the House floor also added some additional electric vehicle rebate programs for pick-up trucks, new technologies to reduce emissions from ships that dock along the Texas coast, and increasing funding for the Energy Systems Laboratory for their work on energy codes. While Sierra Club was a big supporter of the bill as it passed the House, many of the good provisions were stripped in the Senate, and a minimum amount of money (35%) of the total funding was dedicated to congestion mitigation projects through TXDoT in the Senate.
Our Position: A vote for the bill was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: There were no opponents to the bill who registered to testify in its House hearing. However, the Association of General Contractors signed up on the bill and were suggesting that 40 percent of the money should go to state highways through congestion mitigation projects in non-attainment areas.
Outcome: HB 4472 passed the House on a vote of 117 ayes and 27 nays. In the Senate, it was amended to guarantee 35% of TERP funds could be used for road projects, however, turning it into a worse bill that was opposed by more groups. It passed the Senate on a vote of 31-0. The House concurred with the Senate version on a vote of 103 ayes and 32 nays. It was sent to the Governor on June 1 and it is now law.
SB 3 - Amendment 9
Sponsor: Rep. Donna Howard
Summary: SB 3 was the large bill designed to fix the problems associated with Winter Storm Uri and the failure of the grid to operate. The bill was intended to be comprehensive, designed to require weatherization of both power plants and, to a degree, the underlying gas supply network to prevent future issues. During debate on the House floor, Rep. Howard offered an amendment that would have increased enforcement and penalties against gas suppliers that failed to meet new weatherization standards by raising a maximum penalty of $5,000 to a minimum penalty of $20,000. Assuring adequate enforcement and deterrence so wellheads, compressor stations, gas processing facilities, and pipelines can withstand climate extreme was one of our key suggestions for improving the bill.
Our Position: A vote for the amendment was a vote for the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: The provision to increase enforcement and penalties was opposed by Chair Paddie, but also by the major oil and gas companies and associations, as they worked hard to lessen the requirements of SB 3 on the gas industry.
Outcome: The amendment failed to be adopted on a vote of 60 ayes and 83 nays. SB 3 ultimately passed both chambers, was signed by the Governor on June 8, and went into effect immediately.
HB 17
Sponsor: Rep. Joe Deshotel
Summary: HB 17 was a wolf in lamb’s clothing. Purported to assure that Texans have a choice in selecting gas or electric home systems, HB 17 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. HB 17 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 worked 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.
Our Position: HB 17 was never about storm response, but it got added to the group of bills the Texas House ushered through that were intended to be the chambers storm response legislation. 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 on a vote of 116 ayes and 29 nays, and it was signed by Governor Abbott on May 18, effective immediately.
SB 7
Sponsor: Sen. Bryan Hughes
Summary: SB 7 was a comprehensive overhaul of Texas election laws, which was 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. 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 2020 Texas elections 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: The House voted in favor of the bill on passage to third reading on a vote of 81 ayes and 64 nays. 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.
HB 1501
Sponsor: Rep. Jay Dean
Summary: Similar to HB 17, 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 (TXOGA), Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO), CenterPoint Energy, Texas Propane Gas Association
Outcome: The House passed HB 1501 on a vote of 118 ayes and 22 nays. 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 3 - Amendment 8
Sponsor: Rep. Tony Tinderholt
Summary: Amendment 8 was an attempt to add language to SB 3 that would have required renewable energy resources to pay for the transmission costs of interconnecting with the grid, when currently all electric customers (rather than generators) pay for interconnection costs. The language was similar to a separate bill (SB 1282 - opposed by the Sierra Club) carried by Sen. Hancock. That language was supported by large manufacturers, certain parts of the fossil fuel industry and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, heavily funded by fossil fuel interests.
Our Position: A vote for the amendment was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Fossil fuel interests, manufacturers, and TPPF were supportive of the separate bill. It is unclear whether they were supporting the amendment itself.
Outcome: The amendment failed to be adopted by a vote of 34 ayes and 102 nays.
SB 3 - Amendment 13
Sponsor: Rep. Eddie Lucio III
Summary: Amendment 13 was a slimmed down version of a bill promoted by Berkshire Hathaway that would have required the state to contract up to 10,000 MW of fracked gas power plants as a back-up reserve operating outside the normal competitive market structure, and paid for by customers. The amendment would have required a future commission to look at the proposal and consider adopting it, meaning Texas would be investing in ratepayer-funded gas plants at a time when we are moving toward the transition to clean energy and energy storage through market forces.
Our Position: A vote for the amendment was a vote against the Sierra Club position.
Special Interests: Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett were behind the separate bill, the concept of a Texas reserve, and the amendment. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists and lobby visits.
Outcome: The amendment failed to be adopted by a vote of 46 ayes and 95 nays.