Ohio Senate unanimously approves energy and utility overhaul
Ohio state Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, addressing the Senate. (Photo by Nick Evans, Ohio Capital Journal.)
The Ohio Senate unanimously approved a measure Wednesday overhauling much of the state's energy sector. The chief goal of the proposal is to encourage investment in new, primarily gas-fired, power plants as the state's energy demands skyrocket. But as part of the bill, lawmakers made broad changes to the way to utilities bill customers.
Utility regulators would be subject to a 'shot clock' meant to speed rate cases through the process and utilities themselves won't be able to rely on the energy bill surcharges that have helped bolster their balance sheets.
Ohio Senate committee unanimously advances energy overhaul
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
But perhaps most notable, the bill eliminates the legacy generation rider — a surcharge devised to prop up two aging coal plants that are part of the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation. That controversial rider was part of 2019's Ohio House Bill 6 which was at the heart of a massive bribery scheme that landed former House Speaker Larry Householder in federal prison with a 20-year sentence.
So far, the legacy generation rider has cost ratepayers about half a billion dollars.
Senate Bill 2 draws a bright line between the companies building new power generation facilities and the ones more familiar names that show up on your monthly bill. Those energy giants control power distribution, and since 1999, they've largely been cut out of the generation business.
'We're making it clear that generation is separate from transmission,' the bill's sponsor state Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, told lawmakers Wednesday.
In addition to keeping energy giants out of the marketplace, Reineke's bill offers tax incentives for newcomers.
'There will be no (tangible personal property) tax on new generation projects,' he explained, 'and a reduction from 88% to 25% on new transmission, distribution, and pipeline infrastructure.'
In addition, Reineke bragged about cutting the turnaround time on regulatory decisions.
'We are changing that from 540 days on average to 365 days, and some siting cases will drop to 120,' Reineke said. 'It is not acceptable to be behind California and New York, so we will improve our turnaround time.'
With a wave of new power-hungry customers so-called behind the meter service has gained traction. Some distribution companies want to dip a toe in the marketplace, building bespoke power plants for data centers around Ohio. But under the bill, existing facilities would be ok, but after it's effective date, distribution companies would not be able to participate.
With unanimous approval, Reineke's efforts got a lot of praise, but even some supporters offered a grain of salt.
State Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, joked that a program helping schools get loans for rooftop solar, might be 'the only bright idea I've had in a while,' and thanked Reineke for including it in the bill. But he added, 'This isn't a perfect bill,' noting it could have done more to improve energy efficiency.
'I know the utilities didn't get everything, I know that the consumers' counsel didn't get everything, I know that the users didn't get everything,' he continued, 'which, what I was told growing up, is if everybody didn't get everything they want, then it's a good bill.'
State Sen. Louis Blessing, R-Colerain Twp., said the assumptions driving the bill might be flawed.
'So, for starters, this does move us more towards a deregulated state, away from a regulated state, and I think that is a problem,' he argued, 'because I think the regulated state is a better model for cheaper, more plentiful, and reliable energy in this state.'
'If deregulation was so wonderful,' he asked, 'Why are we talking about all of this need for energy right now, when we've been a deregulated state now for over 25 years?'
Blessing said companies building new power plants aren't incentivized to maximize output because all that supply would just reduce the value of their product. He added that customers in deregulated markets often pay more for energy than those in regulated markets — on average, $40 a month more.
'I will vote yes,' he said, 'but I wouldn't expect this to be the panacea that we think it is.'
Following session, Senate President Rob McColley called the measure a 'big piece of puzzle' when it comes to utility reform.
'This bill, really is something that I think is going to pay dividends for decades to come,' he said. 'This is a shift in energy policy that is saying that not only are we open to large energy users coming here and generating their own energy and bringing the economic development and jobs that comes with that, but also that we are open for energy users, such as the natural gas industry, to come here and set up shop easier.'
Across the aisle, Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, was thrilled to see lawmakers taking steps to repeal HB 6's OVEC coal plant subsidies. He's been working on utility issues for 11 years, and said SB 2 might be 'a strange example of the benefit of term limits.' With a bit of back of the envelope math, he landed on 49 members of the current General Assembly were in office when HB 6 passed.
'So, you have 83 new members,' he explained — Energy Committee chairman Sen. Brian Chavez, R-Marietta, among them.
'As less of the General Assembly had to defend their House Bill 6 vote,' he argued, 'some sensibility kind of began to get baked into the process, and I think that's why we got majority party support.'
During testimony on the floor, Smith held up letters from 18 constituents begging for utility reform two years ago. He's eager to write them a follow up but acknowledged Senate passage is just one step and he's nervous about how the bill might change after the House has its say.
Once it's signed by the governor, Smith said, 'You know, great — that is a great day.'
'Until that happens,' he added, 'we haven't fixed anything yet.'
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
'Big, Beautiful Bill': When Will the Senate Vote on Trump Legislation?
Based on factual reporting, incorporates the expertise of the journalist and may offer interpretations and conclusions. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump is working to push his "big, beautiful bill" through the Senate in the face of resistance from some Senate Republicans and increasing criticism from Elon Musk. Republicans hold slender majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, meaning that only a few lawmakers can rebel and vote against the bill without threatening its chances of passing: Republicans hold 220 of the 435 seats (with two vacancies) in the House and 53 of the 100 in the Senate. Some of those lawmakers have already raised serious concerns about the bill—more in the Senate than in the House, where the bill passed by just one vote—which has put its passage in doubt. While the Senate can theoretically pass the bill at any time—meaning it accepts the House version as is—it is highly unlikely to pass it any sooner than July 4th, which is already a very ambitious timeline for the chamber, as Republicans remain divided on several aspects. What Is the 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? Congress has the power of the purse, meaning funding and spending at the various agencies across the government must receive approval from both chambers. Normally, each agency and congressional committee submits separate bills that receive approval, but Trump is eager to enact his significant financial and social policy reformations. Trump urged congressional Republicans to pass one bill that includes all the funding he needs to enact his raft of various policies, including major tax reforms—including the permanent extension of his 2017 tax cuts and new deductions for tips, overtime pay, car loan interest and more. The bill will also raise the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap to $30,000 and introduce savings and investment accounts for children born during his second administration. The spending proposal also includes a major overhaul of Medicaid—including work requirements for recipients above the poverty line—and restrictions on services, such as cutting any funding for child gender-affirming care and nonprofits that provide abortion services. Changes to education and student loan funding are also included in the bill, like heightened eligibility requirements for Pell Grants and increased taxes on private university endowments. The "big, beautiful bill" features a $150 billion increase in the Department of Defense budget as well. U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks to reporters outside the White House on June 4 in Washington, D.C., while President Donald Trump, inset, is pictured in the State Dining Room at the White House... U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks to reporters outside the White House on June 4 in Washington, D.C., while President Donald Trump, inset, is pictured in the State Dining Room at the White House on June 5. More //When Did the Bill Pass the House? The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 22 by one vote, 215-214, as two Republicans—Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio—voted along with the Democrats against the bill. Representative Andy Harris of Maryland voted "present," while Representatives David Schweikert of Arizona and Andrew Garbarino of New York did not vote at all. What's the Senate's Time Frame for a Vote? Congress was meant to pass a budget bill by mid-March to avoid a government shutdown but had to settle for a "continuing resolution," giving lawmakers until the end of September to pass a budget. With the thin margins, the Senate voted and passed a measure to allow them to use reconciliation, which allows Congress to pass its budget bill with a simple majority rather than the usual two-thirds. Despite that considerable time frame, Trump has suggested that the Senate should pass the bill by July 4th, playing into the president's love of patriotic displays and tying his policy decisions into nationalism—such as calling the day he announced his reciprocal tariffs "Liberation Day." What Has Musk Said About the Bill? Musk has lashed out against the bill since he left the Department of Government Efficiency, not only lambasting the fiscal plan but those who voted in support of it. Among his various posts in the past couple of days, Musk has written on X: "False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." "In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!" "Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Massive crack in the MAGA coalition': The Trump-Musk feud threatens the GOP's future
Elon Musk just launched a war against the GOP. Now the party's hopes of holding onto power are at stake. Musk has gone from helping Republicans take total control of Washington — spending nearly $300 million to become the single biggest known donor last year — to attacking the highest-ranking leaders of the party and daring the rank and file to cross him. 'Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,' Musk said on X. The post was an unambiguous warning from the world's richest man, who has the power to single-handedly reshape elections with his wealth. It was not long ago that Republicans hoped Musk could pour cash into their efforts to help maintain control of Washington. Instead, he's becoming their public adversary. Musk spent Thursday online attacking President Donald Trump over Republicans' massive tax-and-spending bill, which Musk says does not cut enough government spending. He'd already threatened to challenge Republicans who support the megabill; on Thursday, he blasted House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, took credit for Republicans winning trifecta control in November, and floated the idea of launching a third party. 'This is a massive crack in the MAGA coalition,' said Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and a former Trump administration appointee. 'This town is historically built on Republican versus Democrat, and this seems to be crazy versus crazy. It is asymmetric and it seems, for the first time, President Trump seems to be out-crazied.' Just a few weeks ago, Republicans were still praising Musk for his financial backing in the 2024 election as they hoped he'd make a graceful return to the private sector after overseeing the administration's program to slash federal spending. Less than one week ago, Musk was in the Oval Office with Trump commemorating his time in administration as a special government employee. But that polite departure, it quickly became evident, was not going to happen. "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave," Trump wrote on Truth Social, blaming Musk's anger on the megabill's removal of electric vehicle tax credits. 'He just went CRAZY!' As Musk's drama engulfed the party Thursday, Republicans in Congress mostly tried to avoid getting caught in the crossfire. Key GOP lawmakers in both chambers worked to downplay the potential effects on both the party's domestic policy package and on the GOP's midterms posture. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), who leads the House GOP campaign arm, told reporters Thursday that he hopes the spat will 'blow over.' Before the breakup went nuclear, Hudson had said in a brief interview Wednesday evening that Musk has 'been a friend and he's just wrong about this bill.' Even fiscal hard-liners who have embraced some of Musk's talking points about the bill tried to avoid getting drawn into the fracas. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who at one point threatened to tank the megabill for not being fiscally conservative enough, said, "Elon crossed the line today ... we'll let those guys go play it out." "I don't disagree with him about our need to find more spending cuts," Roy added, but Musk needs to "keep it in the lines." Another hard-liner, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), said he believes Musk is losing sway within MAGA. Musk is 'just another shiny object,' he said, 'and we'll deal with it.' But Musk appeared intent on turning his opposition to the legislation into a civil war for the party. He amplified two Kentucky Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul, who have been thorns in the side of Trump and GOP leaders trying to pass the bill. Even though Musk brought massive financial backing, he has also at times been an electoral problem for Republicans. His popularity has fallen below Trump's, and his biggest political effort this year — the Wisconsin Supreme Court race — ended with the conservative candidate losing by almost 10 points. 'Elon couldn't buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. You really think that people are gonna be afraid of this money?' said a person close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss the dynamics. As Musk's popularity faded, Republicans wondered how long his relationship with Trump could endure. On Thursday, Musk severed ties. He took shot after shot at Trump, accusing him of lying, replying 'yes' to a post suggesting he should be impeached, and accusing him of having a cozy relationship with the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, who had been accused of sex trafficking. "What a predictable shitshow," said a person who has been in the room with both Musk and Trump. "Trump is a liar, and it was obvious Elon would not be able to go along with his incessant lying forever." A nervous Republican Party is now scrambling to figure out what the electoral fallout will look like, starting with next year's midterms. Already, two of Trump's top campaign operatives, Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio had signed up to work with Musk's Building America's Future PAC. But Musk's scorched-earth strategy could create dueling allegiances. Privately, some Republicans are arguing they had already been preparing for next year's elections without Musk's money, and complained that America PAC — the tech billionaire's super PAC — didn't spend its money effectively in House races last year. America PAC spent $19.2 million backing GOP candidates across 18 battleground House races last year, according to data from the Federal Election Commission. Republicans won 10 of those elections. But those were among the highest-profile and most expensive races in the country, and Musk's group accounted for only 12 percent of Republican outside spending in them. It wasn't even the biggest GOP spender — that was still the Congressional Leadership Fund, the primary super PAC affiliated with House Republicans. 'What Elon has is money, and if he's not going to put $100 million in the [midterms], that's a hole that has to be filled,' said Chris Mottola, a GOP media consultant. "On the other hand, there was a question about how effective the money was that he spent, because he spent it the way he wanted to." Over the last few months, Musk has floated the idea of getting involved in the midterms, but he's also claimed he would step back from political spending. If Musk is going to go all-in against the party, he's going to need more than money. 'Are there enough good Republican operatives out there to go achieve this mission for Elon Musk when it means going up against the president?" said a former RNC official, granted anonymity to discuss the situation candidly. 'Everybody's got a price, but I don't think they are rushing to go help Elon further divide the Republican Party ahead of the midterms.' Lisa Kashinsky, Jessica Piper, Holly Otterbein, Dasha Burns, Nicholas Wu, Sophia Cai, Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Speaker Dustin Burrows, once tagged as 'liberal,' kept skeptics at bay by leaning into a conservative agenda
Back in December, Rep. Dustin Burrows' grasp on the speakership was, at best, tenuous. His main rival, Rep. David Cook of Mansfield, had already won the endorsement of the House Republican Caucus, a victory his backers argued should've clinched his ascent to speaker of the GOP-controlled Texas House. Instead, Burrows, surrounded by Republicans willing to defy caucus rules, claimed just minutes later that the race was over and that he had the 76 votes needed to lock up the gavel. He touted an even mix of Democratic and GOP support, though some Republicans immediately asked for their names to be removed, pushing him back under the threshold to win. The competing pronouncements deepened a bitter, months-long power struggle within a Republican Party that had churned through three speakers in four sessions, and it amplified demands by grassroots activists to sideline Democrats and lean into the party's most partisan impulses. Cook carried the banner of the hardline, so-called 'reformers,' whose allies outside the chamber maligned Burrows as a 'liberal' intent on empowering Democrats. Burrows, in fact a staunch conservative and a key player in the inner circle of House leadership, represented a continuation of the establishment that the party's rightmost faction had spent years fighting to depose. Burrows won the race, finally, on the first day of the legislative session, with a coalition made up of 49 Democrats and 36 Republicans. His reliance on the minority party prompted immediate attacks from his right flank and fueled charges that he would cater to the Democratic bloc that drove his victory. Some of the newly seated 'reformers' openly threatened retribution in next year's primaries for colleagues who had backed him. The speaker's race was over, but now Burrows would have to govern a House wracked by months of acrimony, raising questions about how much could get done with one chamber of the Legislature at war with itself. Instead, the Lubbock Republican emerged 140 days later from his first session wielding the gavel with a laundry list of new conservative laws to point to, having almost entirely avoided the turmoil his election portended. 'With 150 members, you're always going to have 150 perspectives — that's part of what makes our chamber unique,' Burrows said in a statement. 'But the speaker's job isn't to force uniformity or go to battle with the Senate on every topic, it's to protect the institution by making sure members have the tools and support they need to succeed on behalf of their districts and go home to show real accomplishments to the people they represent. I think we accomplished that.' Burrows began the session with a clear eye toward retaining the speakership and detaching himself from the tenure of his now-politically radioactive predecessor, Beaumont Rep. Dade Phelan. He aligned the House closely with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the powerful presiding officer of the Senate and frequent antagonist of past speakers, and built goodwill with Gov. Greg Abbott by prioritizing school vouchers, the governor's top priority. And he worked methodically to win over skeptical members of his caucus, giving some committee chairmanships and making sure others saw their pet issues reach the floor. A careful tactician with years of experience in House leadership, Burrows managed to deliver almost all major Republican priorities, including vouchers, tougher bail laws and a raft of socially conservative policies. Yet he did so without fully alienating the Democrats who powered him to the speaker's chair, even as they saw their party's priorities die and failed to stop most of the GOP's top items. 'We really didn't know what to expect because of how he was elected,' said Rep. Mitch Little, a Lewisville Republican and Cook devotee who once slammed Burrows' supporters for making a 'brazen attempt to circumvent the will of the voters.' 'But to be quite honest,' Little said at the end of the session, 'if he had been elected by all Republicans, I don't know how this session would have really gone any differently.' Complaining about the few unfinished items, he added, would be 'picking nits more than anything.' Not everyone came away from the session happy. Some far-right lawmakers and activists continued to bemoan that the Legislature didn't provide enough property tax relief and that other legislation was left on the table, including a sweeping bill to restrict the flow of abortion medication into the state and legislation to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. 'I cannot go back in good conscience to my constituents and tell them that out of $24 billion in surplus money that belongs to them, I supported a budget that only is going to return $6.5 billion,' Rep. Mike Olcott, R-Fort Worth, said on the floor in opposing the House's budget proposal for not devoting enough to tax cuts. Some Democrats walked away feeling like they got little for their vote to secure Burrows' speakership, having expected more conservative legislation to get bottled up by the speaker's appointed committee chairs. Democrats were particularly incensed about a bill banning K-12 student clubs focused on sexuality and gender identity, which they argued would endanger children and strip them of their dignity. Rep. Rafael Anchía, a Dallas Democrat whose daughter was vice president of a school pride club, told the Tribune in the final days of session that he 'didn't sign up for five anti-LGBT bills this session.' It was an allusion to other measures Burrows greenlit through the House, including one that strictly defines man and woman in state records based on reproductive organs — a change that could have far-reaching implications for transgender Texans. Still, barring an unexpected challenger or upheaval in the 2026 elections, Burrows is primed to maintain control of the chamber with greater Republican support, while avoiding the level of scorched-earth infighting that defined the end of Phelan's speakership. And despite the session's conservative bent, Democrats have not shown any makings of a revolt that could imperil Burrows' position. 'He knows that we have a voice, and he knows we represent a whole lot of Texans, so he did give us some opportunities to be heard, at least,' Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., D-Fort Worth, said. 'He's a good listener. Because of that, I welcomed the opportunity to minimize as much damage as I could.' Burrows' elevation by Democrats to speaker was met with immediate skepticism from many Republicans, and, importantly, from Patrick, who tightly controls the Senate. 'If he can pull it off — if he is the Houdini of the House, and he can pass all the conservative bills that we want — then I'll pat him on the back and say job well done,' Patrick said in an interview with The Texan News, while also emphasizing that he was willing to give Burrows a chance. 'But man, he's put himself in a tough spot.' In his acceptance speech after winning the gavel, Burrows promised to protect the House as an independent institution, where lawmakers could disagree with each other without fear of repercussions and get a fair shake, even if they'd opposed him. 'This is the people's House,' he said. 'I commit to you today: Every member will have a voice.' To many members, he followed through. His goal from the start, several lawmakers of both parties said, was to ensure all members felt like they were able to contribute to the work of the House, and to establish a solid footing with the Senate and governor's office. 'Whether someone supported me for speaker or not,' Burrows said, 'my message was the same to every member: If you're serious about governing and ready to do the work, you'll have a voice at the table.' Hardline Republicans won their main demand of barring Democrats from chairing committees, ending a House tradition in place since the 1970s that preserved a smidgen of power for the minority party. Still, Burrows worked to ensure that Democrats would continue to have a role to play, granting them a vice chair position on each panel that some later said helped foster a sense of cooperation. And he held regular, substantive meetings throughout the session with both chairs and vice chairs, according to lawmakers in both parties. Burrows' committee assignments also signaled a desire to move beyond the infighting, lawmakers said. He appointed four Republicans who opposed his speakership to lead various panels, and he named Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston, to chair the Public Health Committee — a move that VanDeaver said he took as a vote of confidence, despite his opposition to school vouchers, a major GOP priority of the session. 'He forgave the people who had come after him,' the rural Republican said. 'It was clear that he wanted to let bygones be bygones and bring the House together and work for the future. And I think it paid off.' Burrows also worked to develop his relationship with Patrick and advance Abbott's priorities, all seven of which made it across the finish line. It was a stark departure from Phelan's last term, when his bitter feud with Patrick boiled over into multiple special sessions on property taxes, border security and vouchers — issues that were each wrapped up by the time lawmakers adjourned this week. The speaker's interest in wiping the slate clean was evident when, in early March, he handed over two boxes of 'detailed expenditures' outlining how much the House spent on Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment in 2023. That fulfilled Patrick's longstanding insistence on auditing each chamber's impeachment spending and symbolically closed the chapter on an issue that divided the chambers above all else. Throughout the session, the 'Big Three' also met weekly for breakfast, and Patrick refrained from publicly criticizing Burrows, even when it seemed the House was moving slowly. 'The alignment of interests between the three this time, and the assessment that each made about getting along to some extent with the other, also helped Burrows,' said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. 'That was clearly purposeful.' Burrows also made early moves to consolidate his support among Republicans, the majority of whom had opposed his bid for speaker. The House took up and passed the voucher program early in the session, clearing away a top priority of Abbott and Patrick's that had torn Republicans apart in the past. The vote also earned Burrows and every other pro-voucher Republican a pledge of support from President Donald Trump, whose endorsement is significant with GOP primary voters. And Burrows freed members to pursue their priorities, regardless of their seniority or whether they initially supported him, lawmakers said. Little, the anti-Burrows Republican who was serving his first term, was thrust into the middle of high-stakes negotiations over bail policy, a top priority of Abbott and Patrick's, and over legislation to curb personal injury payouts. Rep. Shelley Luther of Tom Bean, another freshman Republican who had vowed to oppose the Burrows-Phelan leadership contingent, carried a conservative priority through the House to hold vaccine manufacturers liable for injuries caused by their vaccines. 'The members that wanted to show up for work every day and represent their districts and roll up their sleeves and go to work found a speaker that was ready and eager to lock arms with them and put them to work,' GOP Rep. Jeff Leach of Allen, a close Burrows ally, said. Those who came to the Capitol intent on playing politics or elevating themselves, he added, were 'probably leaving Austin feeling pretty frustrated right now, and that's a good thing.' Any flashes of right-wing opposition throughout the session were quickly dispatched. In April, Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian and chief House agitator, raised a motion to oust Burrows from the speakership. The motion was swatted down, with all but one other member rejecting it and House lawmakers jeering during Harrison's speech. Burrows 'used that as a tool to draw the caucus together,' Little said. Harrison, who sought to be the voice of the resistance, ultimately alienated many of his natural ideological allies, Henson said. He posted frequently on social media accusing the House of not working — even as members were grinding through all-day committee hearings — and was openly accused by his colleagues of using theatrics to raise his own political profile. Harrison's 'particular profile and people's impression of him,' Henson said, 'disrupted any chance of a real, sustained, active opposition to Burrows from inside the caucus.' In a statement, Harrison said that the 'only thing the caucus was united in was passing big government liberalism,' pointing to what he cast as insufficient property tax relief and a bloated budget, among other issues. 'Texans deserve leaders willing to stand up to the swamp, even if it means standing alone,' Harrison said. 'My motion to vacate speech was the most enduring truth spoken on the floor all session, and I was speaking for every freedom-loving Texan who was betrayed.' By the last month of session, Republican priorities — including socially conservative items like a requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in public school classrooms, bills targeting transgender Texans, and a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion in K-12 schools — were winning approval in the House at a steady clip. Burrows, whose record as a member focused more on property tax relief and limiting the powers of progressive city leaders, was quiet on many of the red-meat issues that featured prominently on Patrick's priority list. Instead, Republican lawmakers said, he let the members decide. 'My role as speaker is to call balls and strikes, managing the legislative process so the priorities of the chamber move forward when they have the support to pass,' Burrows said. 'And the truth is, the House and Senate found alignment on a number of long-debated issues. That's not about falling in line — it's about recognizing when the timing, support and momentum are there to act.' Any one of those items failing could have triggered a fight with the Senate. Their passage reflected not only the speaker's firm conservative views, lawmakers said, but also a chamber remade by last year's cutthroat primaries. Burrows accepted the House's appetite for a more ambitious conservative agenda, rather than fighting to preserve the role it once played in moderating Patrick's hardline impulses. 'The House is lurching toward more conservative representation,' Little said. 'Burrows appreciates that, and is using that moment to his advantage to move the policy initiatives that he has to move.' The House's close alignment with Patrick, however, raised the question of whether Burrows had stood up for his chamber enough against the Senate. Though some argued that the ideological alignment between the bodies meant Burrows didn't have to fight back as much as previous speakers, critics of the dynamic argued that the speaker let the House and its members get run over by the Senate on a few key issues. Some lawmakers argued that Burrows made a critical tactical error in passing school vouchers so early in the session without an ironclad agreement that the Senate would move in tandem to approve the House's public school funding package. Burrows had branded the two bills as the 'Texas Two-Step,' in an effort to help soothe lawmakers who were open to supporting the voucher program but worried about its effect on public schools. Instead, the school funding package got caught in negotiations that became colored by an unrelated Patrick priority: a ban on all THC products. Though Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian and chair of the influential State Affairs Committee, developed a sweeping regulatory framework that would have preserved some THC products, the House reverted his legislation to a ban, with supporters pointing to a promised expansion of Texas' medical marijuana program as a counterbalance. At first, the expansion Patrick agreed to did not go as far as some House lawmakers who supported the THC ban believed. That gave some the impression that the House had been played. Still, Patrick later agreed to the core elements of the House's proposed expansion of the Texas Compassionate Use Program, and on school funding, lawmakers arrived at a compromise both sides could endorse, with Burrows playing a central role in the negotiation. Burrows argued that the voucher program always had the votes this session, and was never a 'trade-off or a bargaining chip.' 'It was never a matter of trading this for that, or the House would have moved them in one bill or made them contingent on the other,' he said. The school finance bill was a massive and complex package that couldn't be rushed, he said, adding, 'It was never a matter of 'if.'' Leach, who spearheaded negotiations with the Senate on a number of high-priority bills, added that the openness between Burrows and Patrick 'helps all of us do our jobs.' 'I was in those rooms, and the relationship between the chambers is strong,' Leach said. 'You've got House members and senators working together like we haven't in a really long time.' In a statement last month, Patrick disputed the notion that either chamber 'gets its way over the other' and noted that, without cooperation from both, 'nothing gets to the governor's desk to be signed into law.' 'The Speaker and I don't keep track of what's a Senate bill or a House bill,' Patrick said. While some Democrats found meaningful roles behind the scenes and a willing audience in Burrows, others left the session feeling betrayed. One Democratic lawmaker, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said their 'biggest regret' of the session was supporting Burrows for speaker. 'He couldn't have won without us, and we've gotten run over on almost all of our major issue areas,' the lawmaker said. 'He ran on protecting the House from the lieutenant governor and the governor. That was his pitch to Democrats. That has certainly not happened. If anything, the governor and the lieutenant governor have way more influence and control of the House than they ever have.' Other Democrats maintained their support for Burrows, arguing that he protected the institution, recognized that he was speaker of the entire House and provided space for Democrats to express their preferences and dilute some conservative legislation they largely did not support. Burrows especially developed a relationship with Democratic members of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, lawmakers said. To demonstrate the House's resolve, lawmakers of both parties pointed to the bail package, which the House amended to win the requisite bipartisan support while rejecting two other proposals demanded by Abbott. Members also spotlighted the school finance bill, which included Democratic priorities such as pre-K funding and more flexibility for school districts than the Senate had initially proposed. The changes those bills underwent, the lawmakers said, reflected the ability of House Democrats and Republicans alike to make their mark on priority legislation. 'The fact that Dustin is a rock solid conservative should surprise no one,' Leach said. Still, he added, if lawmakers 'wanted to work and fight for their values, even if it's stuff that he disagreed on, they were able to do so. Maybe not successfully — but the House was the people's House, and that's largely due to his leadership.' The alternative, as promised by Cook and the insurgent movement, was to prevent any Democratic bills from receiving a vote before all conservative priorities passed, and to cut Democrats — who make up more than 40 percent of the House — out of dealmaking entirely. As he gaveled out the session on Monday, Burrows noted how much the chamber had evolved since January. 'We started the session as a House in a bit of uncertainty,' he said as lawmakers embraced and readied themselves to leave Austin. 'I believe that we ended in a much more unified and solid place.' Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
