HB14

All five posted text versions and all four listed amendments were compared. The House accepted the Senate changes; there was no conference report. The Senate recalled/reconsidered the bill and added a further third-reading amendment on May 28 before final passage. Versions; amendment index and dispositions.

Committee rewrites were substantial. The introduced bill proposed a deployment office, grant mechanisms tied to the Texas Energy Fund and a workforce program. The House committee reorganized the office and dedicated fund and set development/construction reimbursement limits. The Senate committee removed the separate workforce program and the proposed Texas Energy Fund transfer/completion-program provisions, moving completion bonuses into the governor-office program instead. It added financial safeguards, legislative grant review, percentage ceilings, documented expenses, equal permitting assistance and disclosure of assistance activities. It also broadened projects to steam/heat and relevant research/test-reactor development. These changes should not be attributed to floor amendments.

• House amendment 1, Zwiener — adopted April 22: added detailed evaluation of operating history, technological readiness/safety, water demand, natural-resource/wildlife safeguards, and local/official support. The Senate substitute did not retain that detailed checklist. The final law retains resource access, including water, and potential benefit to Texas, but not all of the House amendment’s criteria. This does not repeal other environmental or permitting law. H21 text.
• Senate second-reading amendment F1, Schwertner — adopted May 27: changed the reactor-definition decision maker to NRC and generation III to III+; prohibited compulsory project siting; clarified the joint regulatory study and strategic-plan recipients; revised director/coordinator duties; narrowed reimbursement wording to the recipient’s own funds and repayment to money from that grant; and required an operational, actually ERCOT-interconnected reactor for a completion bonus. Those changes survived. S2F1 text.
• Senate second-reading amendment F2, Schwertner — adopted May 27: replaced the proposed 2040 expiration with Sunset review and possible abolition in 2035. S2F2 text.
• Senate third-reading amendment F1, Schwertner — adopted May 28: barred construction grants for applicants already receiving state-appropriated money for an advanced reactor and raised the Senate substitute’s construction cap from $100 million to $120 million. The earlier House cap was $200 million; neither $100 million nor $200 million is the final cap. S3F1 text.

The final law does not enact the earlier bill’s separate workforce curriculum program, automatic transfers of Texas Energy Fund investment returns/loan repayments, or the proposed June 2029 delay on that earlier completion-grant program.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Possible beneficiaries: qualifying nuclear developers, fuel-cycle and manufacturing suppliers, universities and other eligible entities can recover part of eligible costs. Permitting guidance may reduce administrative friction. Texans could benefit from additional dispatchable power and industrial investment if supported projects succeed. Jobs, construction completion, safety performance, lower bills and reliability improvements are goals or possibilities—not outcomes proved by this law.

Costs and risks: public money supports projects with licensing, financing, construction and technology risks. Recipients must first finance qualifying expenses, satisfy grant conditions and potentially repay awards. The confidentiality of application information limits public inspection of those submissions, although coordinator activity records are separately public on request. Surrounding communities may face project-specific land, water, infrastructure and environmental questions; grants do not eliminate applicable permit requirements.

Fiscal estimate versus grant funding: the Legislative Budget Board’s May 29, 2025 final linked note estimates a $5,339,439 negative impact on General Revenue-related funds for fiscal years 2026–27: $2,734,662 in 2026 and $2,604,777 in 2027. It projects 13 additional state employees—10 at the governor’s office and three at PUC—and no significant local-government fiscal impact. The note’s individual staffing-cost narrative does not fully reconcile to its headline table; this briefing reports the published table rather than inventing a correction. The estimate is not a cap on project grants. Final fiscal note.

HB14 itself makes no appropriation. HB500, Section 8.05, separately transfers and appropriates $350 million for grants and authorized staff support under 483.201(b), for the two-year period beginning with HB500’s June 22, 2025 effective date. Its HB14-enactment condition was met. The appropriation text was checked against the governor’s line-item veto, which concerns a different appropriation, not Section 8.05. The office’s current fund page, checked October 30, 2026, reports that the Legislature appropriated $350 million to the fund’s programs and that the listed application requests are closed. That implementation information is separate from the bill’s grant authority and the fiscal note’s estimate; it does not mean $350 million has been awarded or spent. Earlier fiscal notes assumed different Texas Energy Fund transfers and administrative arrangements that did not survive; they are not the final financing mechanism.