According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2154 is expected to generate a positive fiscal impact for the State of Texas by establishing a new permitting requirement for delivery network companies (DNCs) under the oversight of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). According to the Legislative Budget Board's fiscal note, the bill would result in a net revenue gain of approximately $820,000 to the General Revenue Fund over the 2026–2027 biennium, with an ongoing annual gain of $375,000 projected for subsequent years​.

The projected revenue stems from fees imposed on DNCs for permits. Under current TDLR rules, these companies would pay $10,500 for an initial permit and $7,500 for annual renewal. Based on TDLR estimates, roughly 50 DNCs would be subject to this requirement. In the first fiscal year (2026), revenue collections are expected to reach $525,000, offset by a one-time technology cost of $80,000 to update the agency’s licensing database system. From 2027 onward, no additional costs are anticipated, and the recurring revenue from renewals would maintain a steady flow to the state.

The bill imposes no significant financial impact on local governments, and TDLR has indicated that it can manage ongoing enforcement and regulatory activities using its existing staff and infrastructure, provided the number of permitted DNCs does not exceed initial projections. If the number of applicants were to grow substantially beyond expectations, the agency may require additional resources in the future.

Overall, SB 2154 is designed to be self-funding and fiscally beneficial, with minimal upfront costs and a consistent revenue stream thereafter, creating both regulatory oversight and financial return for the state without increasing taxpayer burden.

SB 2154 proposes the inclusion of delivery network companies (DNCs) in Chapter 2402 of the Texas Occupations Code, the same chapter that governs transportation network companies. The bill aims to establish a uniform regulatory framework for DNCs across the state of Texas. It requires DNCs to obtain a permit from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR), comply with driver background checks, enforce substance and nondiscrimination policies, and pay an initial and annual fee. It preempts local governments from enacting their own regulations on DNCs, thereby creating statewide consistency in oversight.

The central purpose of SB 2154—to create a predictable and standardized regulatory environment for delivery network companies—is well-grounded and supports economic efficiency. By preempting local regulations, the bill eliminates a fragmented approach that could confuse or deter businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions. This clarity benefits consumers and delivery workers by providing a clear, stable framework within which companies must operate.

However, while uniformity is a worthy goal, the bill as written raises concerns about potential unintended consequences. The regulatory structure, including a $10,500 initial permit fee and $7,500 annual renewal, combined with detailed compliance requirements (such as background checks and recordkeeping), may discourage entry by small or innovative firms. These provisions could create a de facto barrier to new market participants, particularly startups experimenting with novel business models, such as hyper-local, bike-based, or nonprofit delivery services.

Though large delivery companies support the bill—likely due to the stability and clarity it provides—there is a risk that this support stems in part from the advantages it may confer to incumbent firms. The required compliance infrastructure could be burdensome for small competitors, inadvertently favoring well-capitalized businesses that can absorb regulatory costs with ease. In effect, the bill may unintentionally hinder innovation and competition by embedding cost and compliance thresholds that are disproportionately impactful to emerging market entrants.

To resolve this concern while maintaining the bill’s core objectives, amendments should be considered. These might include: a tiered fee structure based on company size or volume of deliveries; exemptions or temporary waivers for early-stage firms; and a built-in sunset review mechanism to evaluate the law’s impact on market competition and innovation. Such changes would help balance regulatory fairness with market openness.

SB 2154 reflects a sound policy initiative to modernize and streamline the regulation of digital delivery platforms. Its goals are consistent with principles of efficiency, public safety, and legal clarity. However, without targeted amendments, the bill may unintentionally suppress innovation and entrench incumbent advantages. 

As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2154, but also suggests they consider amendments as described above to ensure the framework remains accessible and adaptable for all players in the market, not just the largest.

• Individual Liberty: The bill does not directly restrict personal freedoms of individuals, but it does expand the regulatory framework affecting delivery drivers, many of whom are gig workers. These individuals will now be subject to background checks, disqualifying criteria, and drug/alcohol policies implemented by delivery network companies (DNCs) under state law. While these policies are justifiable from a public safety standpoint, they could limit access to work opportunities, particularly for those with non-violent criminal records or unconventional circumstances. The state's central role in defining work eligibility for this type of self-directed, independent work could be seen as an encroachment on individual choice.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces the principle that individuals, particularly delivery drivers, are personally responsible for their conduct while on the job. It mandates policies that prohibit intoxication while logged into delivery platforms and establishes expectations for safe and lawful behavior. Furthermore, by affirming the independent contractor status of delivery persons, the bill supports a system where individuals manage their own schedules, risks, and rewards, aligning with the principle that people should be accountable for their choices and performance.
• Free Enterprise: This is where the bill raises the most concern. While creating a uniform statewide regulatory environment helps businesses operate across Texas more efficiently, the high permitting fees, compliance mandates, and detailed operational requirements could disincentivize new or small entrants, thus limiting market dynamism. Large incumbents may benefit from this uniformity while also using the regulatory framework to crowd out competitors, intentionally or otherwise. Innovation could suffer if emerging companies find the regulatory barrier too steep to overcome. As such, the bill poses a risk to healthy competition and entrepreneurial opportunity, which are central to the principle of free enterprise.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not infringe on or enhance private property rights. It neither imposes zoning mandates nor affects how property owners may use their physical or digital platforms for delivery operations. However, if future interpretations of the law extend to home-based delivery dispatching or other private property-dependent operations, concerns could arise. As written, it remains neutral.
• Limited Government: Though it achieves preemption of local regulation, which can be seen as a reduction of duplicative or inconsistent local control, the bill also expands the power and reach of state government. It brings a new category of businesses (DNCs) under formal state oversight and imposes administrative requirements that the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) must enforce. The shift from local to centralized control, while streamlining regulation, also represents a growth in the scope of state government authority. It concentrates power, reduces local flexibility, and introduces new permit mandates that must be monitored and enforced, counter to the ideal of a restrained government role.

• HB 4215 (Same As)