Relating to the purchase and installation of climate control systems at facilities operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
HB 3006 would require the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to contract with a private entity, through competitive bidding, to purchase and install climate control systems at prison facilities that do not already have systems capable of keeping specified areas between 65 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit. The bill defines a broad set of "required temperature-controlled areas," including housing units, medical areas, kitchens, visiting areas, work stations, recreation areas, administrative spaces, chapels, libraries, and other inmate- and staff-facing spaces.
The project must be carried out in three phases, with roughly one-third of TDCJ facilities addressed in each phase and each phase capped at $100 million. Phase one must be completed by December 31, 2028; phase two by December 31, 2030; and phase three by December 31, 2032. In planning the work, TDCJ must prioritize efficient use of state resources and consider facility design, existing cooling capacity, system performance, and the use of inmate labor to reduce costs. The act expires January 1, 2035.
The bill would create a new statutory mandate for TDCJ to upgrade climate control in prison facilities, but only if federal funds are specifically allocated for that purpose or the Legislature specifically appropriates state funds. It also bars TDCJ from using state funds to implement the act unless the Legislature expressly authorizes that spending. In practical terms, the bill would affect prison operations, facility construction and maintenance planning, procurement practices, and inmate and staff living and working conditions across TDCJ facilities.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support in the House, passing second reading 89-43 and third reading 79-39, which suggests meaningful bipartisan backing but also substantial opposition. The available record does not include committee testimony, so the voting history is the main indicator of sentiment. Overall, the bill seems to have been viewed as a significant but contested correctional-facilities improvement measure.
The main points of contention likely involve cost, implementation timing, and whether the state should commit to a large prison infrastructure project. Opponents may have objected to the potential fiscal impact, the phased $100 million-per-phase structure, and the use of inmate labor as a cost-saving factor. Supporters likely emphasized safety, humane conditions, and the need to address temperature control in prisons, especially in areas where inmates, staff, and visitors spend extended periods.