Texas House Bill HJR138

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 2/14/25
• Out of House Committee: 3/31/25

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a carbon tax.

Summary

HJR 138 proposes a constitutional amendment that would bar the Texas Legislature from imposing a tax on the carbon content of fuels or on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use, production, or consumption of goods and services. In practical terms, the resolution would add a new section to Article VIII of the Texas Constitution to prohibit any future carbon tax at the state level. If approved by voters, the amendment would be submitted on the November 4, 2025 ballot as a statewide constitutional proposition. Because it is a constitutional amendment rather than ordinary legislation, it would create a lasting restriction on legislative taxing authority unless changed by another constitutional amendment.

Impact

The measure would amend the Texas Constitution to limit the Legislature’s power to levy taxes tied to carbon emissions, fuel carbon content, or greenhouse gases. This would affect future state tax policy by foreclosing a carbon tax as a revenue or regulatory tool and would apply broadly to taxes connected to the carbon content of fuels and emissions from goods and services. It would not directly regulate emissions, but it would constrain one possible fiscal mechanism for addressing them.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had meaningful support in the House, advancing through votes with 92 yeas to 49 nays on May 5 and 93 yeas to 47 nays on May 12, but it ultimately failed of adoption. The vote pattern suggests a generally favorable reception among supporters of limiting tax burdens and opposing carbon taxation, while still drawing substantial opposition from members who likely viewed the proposal as an unnecessary restriction on future policy options.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether Texas should constitutionally prohibit a carbon tax before such a tax is even proposed. Supporters likely viewed the amendment as protecting consumers, businesses, and fuel users from higher costs and preserving economic competitiveness, while opponents likely objected that it would tie the hands of future legislatures and remove a potential tool for addressing climate-related policy goals. The debate therefore centered on tax restraint and economic concerns versus preserving policy flexibility for environmental or revenue measures.