Texas lawmakers in the 2025 legislative session advanced a trio of controversial energy bills that critics said would harm the state’s renewables boom. All three – Senate Bills 819, 388, and 715 – passed the Senate but failed to move forward in the House before key deadlines this week, effectively killing the proposals for now. Cooler heads prevailed; in the face of massive load growth, Texas’ elected officials decided against stifling the state’s fasting growing source of supply.

SB 819: Proposed Restrictions on Wind and Solar Development

SB 819 sought to create new permit requirements and hurdles exclusively for large renewable energy projects. As introduced by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), the bill would have required any new or expanded wind or solar facility over 10 MW to obtain a special permit from the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) before connecting to the grid. This permitting process included environmental impact reviews, public notice and meeting requirements, and strict siting rules – such as minimum setbacks of 100 feet from property lines for solar panels and 3,000 feet from neighboring property lines for wind turbines. SB 819 also mandated ongoing wildlife impact monitoring and mitigation, plus payment of an “environmental impact fee” into a cleanup fund for renewable projects. Notably, no similar requirements would have applied to fossil fuel generators, making this a targeted regulation of renewables.

Proponents argued these measures were “guardrails” to protect landowners and the environment. A pro-SB 819 advocacy group claimed it would ensure “responsible siting of wind and solar projects to minimize environmental damage while safeguarding landowner rights.” Opponents, however, warned SB 819 would impose onerous costs and delays on renewables that wouldn’t apply to other energy sources. Over 100 organizations – from environmental groups to rural landowners and energy companies – registered opposition, arguing the bill would deter investment and “kill renewable energy in Texas” by unfairly tilting the playing field.

SB 388: Mandating 50% Dispatchable Generation

SB 388, led by Sen. Phil King (R-Weatherford), was designed to reshape Texas’ generation mix by mandating more “dispatchable” power (i.e. power from controllable resources like natural gas and coal). The bill would have established a state goal that at least 50% of all new generating capacity added in ERCOT after January 1, 2026 be from dispatchable sources other than batteries. To enforce this goal, SB 388 would have directed the PUCT to create a “dispatchable generation credit” trading program. Under this scheme, power companies adding wind, solar, or storage would have needed to offset those additions by procuring an equivalent amount of new dispatchable capacity or buying credits from others who do. Battery storage was pointedly excluded from counting as dispatchable under SB 388.

The impact on renewables and storage was clear – SB 388 would have slowed the rapid growth of wind, solar, and batteries (which have comprised the vast majority of recent additions to ERCOT’s grid) and propped up new gas-fired generation instead. Supporters contended this was necessary to correct a market “distorted” by federal renewable subsidies and to ensure reliable capacity for Texas’ future demand growth. Critics, on the other hand, lambasted the bill as unrealistic given the severe backlog in building new dispatchable resources like gas plants. Under such a rule, “Texas’ economy can only grow as fast as gas turbine availability”, energy expert Doug Lewin observed – a trade-off he called “insane” given the state’s enormous renewable potential.

SB 715: Requiring Backup Power for Renewable Generators

Perhaps the most sweeping was SB 715, which would have imposed a retroactive backup power mandate on all power generators – particularly impacting existing wind and solar farms. Authored by Sen. Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown) and others, SB 715 aimed to modify a 2021 law that set reliability standards for new generators starting in 2028, by making those standards apply to all generators and moving the date up to 2027. In practice, every power plant in ERCOT – old or new, renewable or not – would have been required to procure or contract for backup dispatchable capacity to be available anytime the grid is at risk. Wind and solar operators would have had to either build on-site backup (e.g. add battery storage or backup gas turbines) or buy contractual access to other dispatchable resources that could quickly ramp up if their output faltered.

SB 715 sparked fierce debate over fairness and grid stability. The Texas Public Policy Foundation (a conservative think tank) backed it, arguing a “uniform standard for all generators – not just new ones – is essential” so that traditional power plants aren’t competitively disadvantaged by ever-expanding wind and solar. “Wind and solar volatility imposes such a steep cost because it creates uncertainty in how much dispatchable capacity is needed,” TPPF’s Brent Bennett testified, blaming renewables for a “growing reliability deficit.” On the other side, renewables advocates and many grid analysts saw SB 715 as an all-out assault on clean energy. As Public Citizen’s Texas director Adrian Shelley put it, such policies would mean “higher energy prices and [slower] growth of energy sources that keep the Texas electric grid stable.”

Looking Ahead

The House’s decision to let SB 819, 388, and 715 die on the vine sends a clear message: Texas is not ready to abandon its free-market approach to electricity or to single out renewables for punitive regulation. This outcome was welcomed by renewable energy companies and many business groups, who see it as preserving the conditions for continued growth and innovation in Texas’ energy sector. The state’s competitive market – long a model of minimal regulatory barriers – remains intact, reinforcing Texas’ status as a magnet for energy investment of all kinds.

That said, the political debate is far from over. Reliability concerns, especially after the 2021 winter blackout, ensure that oversight of the grid’s resource mix will be revisited. Policymakers will be watching this summer’s and winter’s grid performance closely. Any sign of trouble (e.g. tight reserves or price spikes) could reignite calls for intervention and perhaps strengthen the hand of those who championed these failed bills. Conversely, if the grid handles extremes well thanks to ample solar, wind, storage, and demand response, it will validate those who argue that more flexible, clean resources – not constraints on them – are the key to reliability. Future investment decisions hang in the balance.

The failure of these bills means Texas’ “all-of-the-above” energy mix is here to stay, and the conversation now shifts to how best to integrate and balance intermittent resources rather than halting their progress. As one lawmaker noted, Texas is “going to need every electron” it can generate to keep up with its booming population and industry. For now, at least, every electron is welcome on the Texas grid.