According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 2145 are currently indeterminate due to a lack of comprehensive data on future state construction projects. The bill mandates that any state-owned parking lots or garages designed on or after September 1, 2025, must include a sufficient number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. While the policy direction is clear, the unknown scope of affected construction projects introduces uncertainty in estimating overall costs.

However, the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC) provided illustrative estimates based on a hypothetical implementation schedule. Assuming the completion of one parking garage every two years with 25 EV-designated spaces per facility, and using an estimated cost of $80,000 per EV space, TFC projects a cost of approximately $2 million per biennium. These estimates are contingent on actual project frequency and the evolving costs of charging technology, installation, and infrastructure.

In addition to construction costs, TFC anticipates administrative and operational expenses. The agency expects to spend $50,000 per biennium on a required study to analyze EV parking demand and to set standards. Furthermore, the bill may necessitate hiring one full-time employee (FTE) to oversee the installation, maintenance, and management of EV charging infrastructure, with projected annual personnel costs of $119,314 for salary and benefits.

Importantly, the fiscal note indicates that no significant cost impact is expected for local governments, as the bill’s requirements are limited to state-owned properties​.

HB 2145 mandates the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at all newly designed state-owned parking lots and garages, beginning September 1, 2025. While the bill is motivated by environmental and infrastructure modernization goals, it substantially expands the scope of state government, introduces a new regulatory mandate, and lacks sufficient safeguards to ensure fiscal responsibility or cost neutrality.

The bill would create ongoing taxpayer-funded obligations, with the Texas Facilities Commission estimating $2 million per biennium in infrastructure costs, along with additional costs for staffing and required studies​. It does not include any provisions for recovering these costs through user fees or private-sector partnerships, effectively placing the financial burden on all taxpayers regardless of usage or benefit.

Moreover, this bill prioritizes a narrow and relatively affluent demographic—EV owners—by using public funds to subsidize infrastructure that serves only a small percentage of Texans. This raises legitimate equity concerns, particularly for rural and working-class constituents who are unlikely to benefit from such an investment.

Finally, the proposal conflicts with foundational liberty principles: it grows government, bypasses market-driven solutions, and sets a precedent for technology-specific infrastructure mandates. For lawmakers who support limited government, fiscal restraint, and equal treatment of all taxpayers, the proper course is to oppose this bill. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 2145.

• Individual Liberty: This bill does not directly restrict individual rights or freedoms. However, it sets a precedent for expanding government involvement in specific consumer markets, which could gradually lead to more intrusive regulatory frameworks. A law that mandates infrastructure to support one type of personal transportation could, over time, influence consumer behavior through government preference rather than personal choice.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill undermines personal responsibility by socializing the cost of EV charging infrastructure. It shifts the financial burden of EV ownership—normally borne by individual users—to the general taxpayer. Rather than letting EV owners pay the full cost of fueling their vehicles (as internal combustion engine vehicle owners do), this bill uses state resources to subsidize infrastructure used by a select group, removing natural market incentives and personal cost accountability.
• Free Enterprise: Rather than allowing private companies to compete to provide EV charging infrastructure, the bill inserts the state into the role of infrastructure provider. This government-directed model risks distorting the EV charging market, potentially crowding out private investment. It also creates an uneven playing field by leveraging taxpayer dollars to fund services that could otherwise be delivered competitively.
• Private Property Rights: The bill applies only to state-owned property, so it does not interfere with private property rights. It imposes no new regulations or restrictions on individuals or businesses regarding their own land or facilities.
• Limited Government: This is the most clearly affected principle. HB 2145 expands the administrative duties of the Texas Facilities Commission, authorizes new rulemaking powers, creates a recurring regulatory function, and imposes an infrastructure mandate on all future state construction projects. It increases spending obligations without offsetting mechanisms. This type of mandate—especially without fiscal discipline or a sunset provision—runs contrary to the principle of a restrained, accountable government.