Cities Keep Changing the Rules. The Speaker Just Built a Committee to Stop It.

HB 2127, the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act, was authored by Speaker Burrows during the 88th session. It passed the House 92-56, was signed by the Governor on June 13, 2023, and took effect September 1, 2023. The statute's legislative findings name the problem directly: a "patchwork of regulations that apply inconsistently across the state."

The Act preempts local ordinances, orders, or rules that regulate conduct in a field of law occupied by eight state codes: Agriculture, Business and Commerce, Finance, Insurance, Labor, Natural Resources, Occupations, and Property. If a local government wants to enforce a regulation in one of these areas, the burden is on the city or county to show that another state statute expressly authorizes the local rule. The developer doesn't have to prove the ordinance is preempted. The local government has to prove it's authorized.

Four of those codes matter most for data center developers. Business and Commerce covers local business regulations that counties sometimes invent during the siting process. Natural Resources is where environmental moratoria fall (the Attorney General issued guidance in August 2023 suggesting that county-wide solar moratoria are unlikely to survive a challenge under HB 2127). Property covers property use restrictions that local governments sometimes layer on top of existing zoning. And Labor covers construction labor requirements like the Austin and Dallas living-wage ordinances that were challenged after the Act took effect.

The Act also includes a private right of action. If a local ordinance violates the preemption framework, an affected person can give the local government 90 days' written notice to repeal or amend the ordinance. If the local government doesn't act, a lawsuit follows. That enforcement mechanism matters, and we'll get to the litigation landscape below.

Here's where honesty matters: the Act doesn't preempt everything. Transportation, Utilities, and Water Codes were deliberately excluded. That means local authority over some infrastructure planning, utility regulation, and water permitting remains intact. For a developer negotiating water supply agreements or working through local utility interconnection, the TRCA doesn't resolve every question. It resolves the ones it covers, and the committee review will determine whether the lines need to move. For how interim charges address the water and grid questions directly, see our analysis of State Affairs Charge #9 and Natural Resources Charge #5.

This isn't a litigation playbook. Developers don't want to sue, and they shouldn't have to. But the legal backdrop tells you where the state stands, and that context matters when a county is waffling on your project.

The City of Houston filed a constitutional challenge almost immediately after HB 2127 was signed. In August 2023, Judge Maya Gamble's trial court struck the Act down as unconstitutional. That ruling was reversed by the Third Court of Appeals in July 2025 (Case No. 03-23-00531-CV), but the appellate court ruled on standing, not merits. The court found Houston hadn't shown the concrete injury needed to challenge the law. The constitutional question remains formally open, but the law has been in effect throughout the entire process and continues to operate.

The standing issue creates a catch-22 for cities. To challenge HB 2127, a city needs to identify a concrete ordinance that the Act preempts. But identifying that ordinance effectively concedes that the ordinance conflicts with state law, which exposes the city to a private enforcement action. It's a structural barrier that makes a successful facial challenge difficult.

On the enforcement side, the Texas Public Policy Foundation filed suit against Dallas in October 2025, challenging 83 local ordinances under the private right of action. KERA News reporting revealed that Dallas had an internal memo from April 2023 acknowledging that many of its ordinances would be preempted. The city repealed only 6 of 133 ordinances identified in the 90-day notice period. That case is the first major test of the private enforcement mechanism, and its progress will shape how aggressively other local governments defend their ordinances.

What this means for the developer's capital partner or buyer: the legal environment favors preemption. The constitutional challenge stalled on procedural grounds without reaching the merits. Private enforcement is being tested. Counties know HB 2127 exists. The existence of these enforcement mechanisms is part of the environment counties are operating in. They don't need to be invoked to shape behavior. And the committee review, discussed below, will make it harder for local governments to claim ignorance of where state policy stands. For regulatory strategy on how to position your project in this environment, that's where JD Key works.

Burrows wrote HB 2127 in the 88th session. Now he's created a 13-member Select Committee on Governmental Oversight specifically charged with reviewing the law he authored. This wasn't assigned to an existing committee. It's purpose-built. Select committees are the Speaker saying a topic needs dedicated attention outside the standing committee structure.

The committee's role breaks into three stages. First, research: map the current landscape, identify where TRCA is working as intended, and find where the lines are still unclear or where local governments are operating in ambiguity. Second, clarify: through hearings and testimony, build a factual record of what's actually happening on the ground. Third, propose: recommend legislative changes to the 90th session (convening January 2027) that sharpen the boundaries or move them.

The committee's specific charges include reviewing the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act, identifying where local ordinances conflict with state preemption, recommending areas where the state should clarify or expand preemption, reviewing local government contracting with nonprofits (which connects to organized opposition structures some developers have encountered), and examining the Texas Public Information Act for transparency improvements.

The implicit signal to counties is worth stating plainly. If local governments continue to overstep during the interim, that pattern becomes part of the committee's factual record. The recommendations to the 90th session will reflect that frustration. The preemption lines won't just get clearer. They could move further toward state authority. Restraint now is in counties' interest. For how this fits into the broader legislative intelligence picture, see our interim charges hub page.

Committee composition tells you where the findings will land. This one's worth reading carefully.

Chair: Cody Vasut (R-District 25, Brazoria County). Oil and gas attorney who practiced at BakerHostetler for over ten years before the Legislature. Freedom Caucus vice-chair, ranked 2nd to 3rd most conservative in the House by the Rice University Baker Institute. Authored HB 165, which would eliminate property taxes by 2035. Pro-development voting record going back to his time on the Angleton City Council, where he changed development codes to attract investment. Supports banning taxpayer-funded lobbying by local governments. The chair believes local governments should have less regulatory discretion, not more.

Members from active data center siting districts. Carl Tepper (R-Lubbock) has a commercial real estate background and has publicly stated "the data centers are coming," engaging on water and electricity vetting including awareness of closed-loop water systems. Ellen Troxclair (R-Hill Country/Austin) is a former Austin City Council member who represents one of the state's major data center controversy zones. Erin Zwiener (D-Hays County) represents the district where San Marcos blocked a data center project in February 2026, and serves as Vice-Chair of Intergovernmental Affairs. Shelby Slawson (R-Hood County area) represents a rural district where moratorium discussions have occurred.

Energy and infrastructure members. Brooks Landgraf (R-Permian Basin) chairs Environmental Regulation and is an oil and gas attorney with five generations of West Texas ranching in his background. Christian Manuel (D-Port Arthur) represents the state's industrial and energy hub, including Port Arthur LNG and Valero operations. Eddie Morales (D-border) serves as Vice-Chair of the Energy Resources Committee.

The bipartisan signal matters. Vice-chair Armando Walle (D-Houston) has a 17-year tenure in the House and authored Rider 6 requiring the PUC to study data center water use. The committee includes members who will push on water impact and community concerns. That makes the committee's eventual findings more credible, not less. A committee of only pro-development members would produce a report nobody trusts. This committee has members from districts where the siting fights are happening, members who hear from both developers and opponents. The committee's findings will carry weight precisely because dissenting voices were in the room, whatever direction those findings go. For how government affairs engagement works during committee proceedings, that's a conversation we have with clients every interim cycle.

The law exists. The committee is staffed. The hearings are coming. The question isn't whether the state will clarify the lines between local and state authority. It's whether your experience is part of the record when they do.