According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 75 will have no significant fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The LBB assumes that any implementation costs associated with the bill—such as those related to resilience planning, inter-agency coordination, or administrative efforts—could be absorbed using existing agency resources. This indicates that the duties assigned to entities like the Public Utility Commission, the Texas Division of Emergency Management, and the Railroad Commission are not expected to require new appropriations or large-scale budget shifts.

Similarly, the bill is not projected to impose a significant fiscal burden on local governments. Although municipalities with populations over 400,000 or with concentrations of critical infrastructure are required to develop local resilience plans, the LBB finds that the financial impact of such planning efforts would be minimal or manageable within current local government budgets. This suggests that the planning and coordination elements of the bill are designed to be carried out with existing staff and operational frameworks rather than through the creation of new programs or departments.

Overall, the bill reflects a cost-conscious approach to infrastructure security. Rather than relying on expansive state spending, it leverages existing regulatory, planning, and emergency management structures to implement its resilience objectives. This low-cost structure could help ensure bipartisan support while addressing significant public policy concerns surrounding the reliability of Texas’s electric grid.

SB 75 addresses a clear and urgent need to enhance the resilience of Texas’s electric grid in the face of both natural and man-made threats. The bill responds directly to the repeated large-scale grid failures that occurred in 2011 and 2021, which had devastating consequences for millions of Texans and exposed systemic vulnerabilities in the state's energy infrastructure. By mandating the creation of a comprehensive “all hazards” resilience plan and establishing clear expectations for municipal participation, SB 75 takes a pragmatic approach to preparing Texas for future emergencies while protecting essential public services and economic stability.

While the original bill proposed a new Texas Grid Security Commission, the committee substitute streamlines implementation by embedding resilience planning responsibilities into existing regulatory frameworks. This simplifies governance and may improve coordination, especially since no significant fiscal impact is anticipated for the state or local governments. According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill’s requirements can be met using current resources, ensuring that the legislation does not place undue financial strain on taxpayers.

The bill is also aligned with principles of individual liberty and public safety. It avoids imposing onerous mandates on individuals or the private sector while emphasizing critical infrastructure protection, especially for vulnerable populations. Although it modestly expands governmental responsibilities, this expansion is both targeted and justified given the scale of the risks involved. Taken together, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 75 given the policy rationale, practical scope, and limited fiscal footprint.

• Individual Liberty: The bill indirectly protects individual liberty by enhancing the security and continuity of essential services such as water, healthcare, communications, and emergency response systems. During past grid failures, the loss of power led to life-threatening conditions—particularly for vulnerable populations. By requiring the development of a comprehensive, all-hazards grid resilience strategy, the bill seeks to preserve the basic conditions for freedom and survival, especially during disasters. It does not infringe upon personal rights or create mandates that affect individuals directly.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill primarily places responsibility on state regulatory bodies and large municipalities, not individuals. It neither promotes nor discourages personal preparedness. That said, by bolstering government-coordinated resilience, it may reduce the perceived urgency for individuals to prepare for grid-related emergencies. The effect on personal responsibility is indirect and neutral overall.
• Free Enterprise: The bill may introduce regulatory expectations for utilities and infrastructure operators to align with state resilience goals. While these measures are aimed at protecting the broader economy and ensuring business continuity, they could be seen as an expansion of state oversight into previously market-driven areas. On the other hand, by preventing system-wide blackouts that can cripple commerce, the bill arguably supports the long-term health of the free market. The requirement for resilience standards may also create opportunities for innovation in grid technology, cybersecurity, and emergency preparedness.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not alter eminent domain law or restrict landowners' use of property. However, the implementation of resilience standards—especially those involving critical infrastructure or microgrid planning—could raise future concerns if not carefully managed. At this stage, the bill is largely planning-focused and does not infringe on property rights.
• Limited Government: The bill does expand government functions by tasking the Public Utility Commission and large municipalities with new resilience planning responsibilities. It introduces more coordination and long-term oversight of energy reliability. However, it avoids creating new bureaucracies (unlike the originally filed bill) and relies on existing entities to carry out its provisions. This design helps keep the expansion of government within pragmatic and accountable boundaries, especially given the high societal cost of grid failure.

• HB 941 (Same As)