According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 383 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state of Texas. The analysis assumes that any administrative costs associated with enforcing the prohibition on interconnection of coastal wind power facilities to the ERCOT grid can be absorbed by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) using existing resources.

For local governments, the fiscal note also anticipates no significant financial impact. This suggests that the implementation and enforcement of the bill’s provisions do not require new infrastructure, regulatory mechanisms, or significant changes to existing local practices. The PUC, as the primary enforcement entity, would continue to use its current regulatory framework to deny applications for interconnection from facilities within the restricted coastal zone.

Notably, while the fiscal note highlights negligible governmental cost, it does not account for potential long-term economic effects on the private sector or local economies. These might include lost revenue opportunities from blocked wind energy development, reduced local investments, or forgone property tax growth in coastal areas. However, such impacts fall outside the scope of the fiscal note, which focuses solely on direct public sector budgetary implications.

SB 383 represents a precautionary and sovereignty-affirming approach to regulating energy infrastructure in Texas’ nearshore coastal waters. By prohibiting the interconnection of wind power facilities located within three marine leagues of the Gulf Coast to the ERCOT grid, the bill prioritizes the protection of key economic and environmental assets along the Texas coast—such as commercial fishing, shipping routes, and tourism—while also guarding against potential public safety hazards posed by offshore energy infrastructure in areas prone to hurricanes and tropical storms.

The bill also reinforces state control over ERCOT, the independent Texas grid that has long served as a symbol of Texas' energy autonomy. In doing so, it acts as a bulwark against top-down federal energy mandates and leasing decisions that may not fully consider the interests or economic priorities of coastal communities. The federal government’s recent attempts to lease offshore wind development sites off the Texas coast—despite tepid market interest, highlight the potential for federal overreach that may burden state-managed energy systems without providing corresponding local benefits.

From a liberty-oriented standpoint, SB 383 advances the principle of limited government by ensuring that infrastructure decisions made at the federal level do not impose risks or burdens on the Texas grid. At the same time, it aligns with personal responsibility and public safety by preventing infrastructure siting in locations known for natural disaster exposure. While the bill does restrict a class of renewable energy projects, it does so in a narrow and targeted geographic area, leaving open the possibility of onshore or federal-only transmission developments that do not rely on ERCOT interconnection.

Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 383 to preserve the integrity of the ERCOT grid, protect coastal industries and communities, and ensure that Texas retains a primary voice in shaping its energy future.

• Individual Liberty: The bill restricts private actors—landowners, developers, or companies—from interconnecting certain offshore wind facilities to the ERCOT grid, limiting their freedom to pursue lawful energy development within a portion of Texas waters. It removes the option to voluntarily engage in enterprise in these zones, even if done safely and sustainably. While individual liberty includes the right to engage in business, this bill narrows those avenues through a government-imposed barrier. Proponents may argue that protecting the broader liberties of coastal residents, such as safety, environmental quality, and economic livelihood, outweighs the freedom of individual developers to interconnect to a state-managed grid.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill embodies personal responsibility in the public sector by acknowledging foreseeable risks, like hurricane-prone zones, and taking steps to avoid preventable harm. Rather than waiting for infrastructure damage or environmental degradation, the state acts proactively to minimize potential costs or disasters borne by taxpayers or local communities.
• Free Enterprise: This bill is a clear constraint on free enterprise. It preemptively excludes a class of infrastructure and developers from participating in ERCOT’s grid purely based on geography, regardless of their technical merit, market viability, or environmental compliance. While Texas is generally a national leader in energy innovation, this measure may deter investment and development in a growing sector (offshore renewables). Some might argue that the policy preserves fair competition by ensuring that traditional, land-based energy producers are not disadvantaged by subsidized or federally driven offshore projects.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill does not directly seize or restrict physical property, it reduces the value and utility of leaseholds, infrastructure investments, or future developments tied to offshore wind near the Texas coast. It may impair existing agreements or expected use rights tied to transmission development, reducing the productive use of those property interests.
• Limited Government: On one hand, the bill represents regulatory expansion, as it creates a new statutory prohibition where previously the Public Utility Commission had discretion. This shifts Texas away from a case-by-case permitting model to a blanket ban, which could be viewed as overreach. On the other hand, proponents argue it supports limited government by rejecting federal energy policies and preempting federal overreach into state-managed grid infrastructure. It draws a firm boundary for ERCOT, preserving state autonomy and avoiding entanglement in federal leasing schemes.