According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 3134 is projected to result in a negative fiscal impact of approximately $9.4 million to General Revenue-related funds over the 2026–2027 biennium. This includes $8.1 million in one-time startup costs, primarily incurred by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), to establish the Office of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) within its Aviation Division, implement public education campaigns, and develop the required statewide strategic plan.

The bill also requires TxDOT to coordinate with the Public Utility Commission (PUC), the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), and other stakeholders to evaluate infrastructure, energy, and educational needs related to AAM. As a result, five new full-time employees would be added, with annual personnel costs totaling $649,600 beginning in fiscal year 2026. These recurring staffing costs are projected through at least fiscal year 2030.

A key fiscal component involves the administration of a new matching grant program for public institutions of higher education seeking federal funds for AAM research. However, the precise cost of this program cannot currently be determined, as it is dependent on the number and size of federal grants awarded.

Despite these expenditures, the bill does not authorize any appropriations directly. Rather, it provides the statutory framework that could support future appropriations. Importantly, the bill is not anticipated to create significant fiscal burdens for local governments, as most new responsibilities fall on state agencies and are presumed to be manageable within existing resources.

While HB 3134 seeks to prepare Texas for the emergence of advanced air mobility (AAM) systems and electric aircraft technologies, the bill ultimately expands government involvement into a sector that has not demonstrated a present need for state intervention or oversight. Though framed as a facilitative measure, the bill imposes new fiscal and administrative burdens on the state without clear justification or measurable public benefit. For these reasons, a vote against the bill is warranted.

At its core, the bill authorizes the creation of a new Advanced Air Mobility Office within the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), adding five full-time employees and imposing nearly $9.4 million in General Revenue costs over the next biennium. These costs include public education campaigns, statewide planning exercises, and technical support functions that could and should be developed by the private sector. The long-term personnel costs and the open-ended matching grant program for university research further raise concerns about ongoing financial commitments with uncertain returns for taxpayers.

HB 3134 also raises red flags regarding government interference in free markets. By engaging in state-led planning, education, and promotion of a specific transportation sector, particularly one as speculative as AAM, the bill effectively provides government preference and soft subsidies to certain emerging technologies. This runs contrary to the principle that the private sector, not government, should drive innovation and determine the success of new industries.

Moreover, the bill lays the groundwork for future state and interagency coordination on AAM issues, including energy infrastructure, education curricula, and local zoning. While not regulatory in nature today, these mechanisms could evolve into future mandates or regulations, especially as technologies mature and pressure builds to formalize safety, environmental, or operational standards. For those concerned about regulatory creep and the slow expansion of government authority, this bill represents a problematic precedent.

Additionally, the legislation preempts local authorities by prohibiting political subdivisions, except for airport operators, from adopting ordinances related to AAM operations. While this promotes uniformity, it also strips local communities of their ability to respond to constituents' concerns about land use, safety, noise, and property rights. For lawmakers who support local governance and subsidiarity, this top-down limitation is reason enough to oppose the bill.

In summary, while the intentions behind HB 3134 may be well-meaning, the bill conflicts with key liberty-aligned policy principles by expanding state functions, incurring unjustified fiscal burdens, privileging certain technologies, and limiting local self-governance. The better approach is to allow the AAM sector to develop organically, guided by market demand and private innovation, without the weight of state planning and taxpayer-backed facilitation. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3134.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not create criminal penalties, surveillance tools, or direct constraints on individual behavior. To that extent, it does not directly infringe on individual liberty. However, by laying the foundation for future planning and coordination between state agencies and regulators, it may enable future rules or zoning restrictions that could limit where and how people use emerging aircraft technology, such as personal drones or autonomous vehicles. Any future regulatory creep from this infrastructure could indirectly infringe upon individual liberty.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill signals that the state, not private actors, is responsible for advancing, organizing, and educating the public about advanced air mobility. This undermines the principle of personal responsibility by replacing bottom-up, market-driven experimentation with top-down state facilitation. The bill also introduces a matching grant program to incentivize federally funded research, which further implies that government, rather than private industry or institutions, should carry the load in developing this sector. A better approach would let market actors assume risk, explore use cases, and educate stakeholders organically.
• Free Enterprise: Although the bill claims to support innovation, it inadvertently distorts the free market by prioritizing a specific industry (AAM) through state-level strategic planning and promotion, offering matching funds to institutions involved in AAM R&D (effectively using tax dollars to benefit select technologies or sectors), and creating a “clearinghouse” function within TxDOT that offers technical support and coordination traditionally provided by industry. These actions signal government favoritism, even if indirect, and could crowd out smaller or alternative players that lack access to the state's planning apparatus or grant programs. True free enterprise thrives in the absence of government incentives and planning, not because of them.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly threaten private property rights through eminent domain or forced land use. In fact, it limits local governments' ability to regulate AAM activity unless they operate an airport. While this may appear to protect AAM operators from burdensome local regulation, it also erodes local control over how communities govern land use and airspace, which are closely tied to property rights. In this sense, the bill undermines the right of communities and landowners to shape their own environments, particularly in cases where aircraft use may impact noise levels, safety, or neighborhood character.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill most clearly violates a core liberty principle. The bill creates a new office within TxDOT, adds new full-time state employees, authorizes long-term strategic planning, and initiates state-led education and public information campaigns. All of these functions represent a clear expansion of the state’s role in a speculative and still-developing industry. The bill also creates the legal framework for future appropriations and possible new regulatory regimes. While it does not create direct mandates now, it sets in motion the machinery of government expansion, which may be hard to reverse later. This is antithetical to the principle of limited government.

• SB 1507 (Same As)