According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 18 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. The bill broadens the allowable uses of the Broadband Infrastructure Fund (BIF) to include grants, loans, and other incentives for emergency communication systems, but the funding would come from resources already appropriated to the BIF. Since no new appropriations are required, the state’s overall expenditure levels would not increase; however, any funds used for the new purposes would reduce the amount available for the Broadband Development Office’s existing programs.

The Comptroller indicated that the exact timing and amounts of future grants or loans cannot be determined, as they would depend on program demand and project readiness. This uncertainty does not change the state-level impact assessment because the funding reallocation occurs within the existing budget authority.

At the local government level, some entities could experience a revenue gain if they receive BIF-supported grants or loans for eligible emergency communications projects. The magnitude and distribution of these potential gains are unknown at this time, given the lack of detail about future awards. Therefore, while the bill could provide targeted financial benefits to certain regions, the overall local fiscal impact remains indeterminate.

HB 18 expands the authorized uses of the Broadband Infrastructure Fund (BIF) to include early warning and emergency notification systems, as well as interoperable emergency radio systems, for use in natural disasters and other emergencies. While the bill is presented as a targeted response to recent tragedies, such as the 2024 Smokehouse Creek fire and the 2025 Central Texas floods, its practical effect is to broaden the scope of a program that was already controversial for its government-driven approach to broadband infrastructure. For lawmakers and stakeholders who supported the creation of the BIF, this bill will likely be viewed as a way to address pressing public safety needs. For those who opposed the BIF’s creation, HB 18 represents an expansion of a program that should not exist in the first place.

From a limited-government perspective, HB 18 grows the scope of state activity by adding new categories of infrastructure eligible for state-funded grants, contracts, and loans. It entrenches the BIF further into Texas’ policy landscape, increasing the likelihood that the fund will be maintained or even expanded in the future. Although the bill does not require a new appropriation in this session, using existing, already-appropriated funds, it still diverts those funds from their original purpose and could prompt future calls for replenishment at taxpayer expense. The legislation does not increase regulatory burdens on individuals or businesses, but it does expand the government’s role in markets where private providers and non-profits, such as Starlink or Texas Disaster Link, already operate and innovate without ongoing state subsidies.

The timing and framing of the bill are also important to consider. HB 18 leverages legitimate public concern following highly visible disasters to justify enlarging a state program rather than exploring market-based solutions or public-private partnerships. By funding these projects through the BIF, the state assumes a role that could instead be filled by competitive service providers, philanthropic organizations, or local initiatives better able to tailor solutions to specific communities. This approach risks creating an ongoing dependency on state funding for services that could be sustainably delivered outside of government.

If one’s policy goal is to limit government involvement in infrastructure markets and to prioritize private-sector or non-profit solutions, then HB 18 moves in the wrong direction. It expands the scope of the BIF, reinforces the fund’s permanence, and sets a precedent for using emotional momentum from disasters to grow state programs. On these grounds, and consistent with prior opposition to the BIF’s creation, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 18. This position maintains philosophical consistency, resists expansion of state programs into market-driven spaces, and pushes for alternative approaches that rely on private innovation and voluntary cooperation rather than expanded state funding authority.

• House Select Committee on Disaster Preparedness & Flooding: 7Y/0N (2 Absent)