Relating to criminal conduct involving the theft, damage, or destruction of copper or brass or involving the unauthorized possession of certain copper or brass material, to transactions of metal recycling entities involving certain copper or brass material, to training on identifying certain copper or brass material, and to studying the effect of certain regulations on incidents of theft of copper or brass material; creating criminal offenses; increasing criminal penalties; providing an administrative penalty.
SB 1646 addresses theft and trafficking of copper and brass by creating new criminal penalties and tightening rules for metal recycling transactions. The bill expands the definition of “critical infrastructure facility” and makes it a third-degree felony to damage or destroy copper or brass components, or related equipment or communication wires, when that conduct impairs or interrupts the facility’s operation. It also increases the punishment for theft of copper or brass from critical infrastructure facilities and adds a new offense for unauthorized possession of certain copper or brass material.
The bill also revises the Occupations Code rules governing metal recycling entities. It narrows the definition of “copper or brass material” for the new subchapter, limits when recyclers may buy or acquire such material from certain sellers, requires detailed transaction records, allows inspection of those records by law enforcement and local licensing authorities, and authorizes administrative penalties of up to $10,000 for violations. In addition, it directs the Public Safety Commission to adopt implementing rules, requires DPS to provide training materials to help recyclers identify copper or brass material, and mandates a periodic study on whether these regulations reduce theft.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it creates new offenses, increases felony exposure for copper- and brass-related theft from critical infrastructure, and adds a new state jail felony offense for unauthorized possession of certain copper or brass material. It also preempts local governments from imposing additional purchase, possession, or recordkeeping restrictions on covered copper or brass transactions, while preserving some existing municipal database-reporting requirements in place as of March 1, 2025. The bill affects metal recyclers, utilities, telecommunications providers, law enforcement, prosecutors, and businesses that handle construction or salvage materials.
Overall sentiment around SB 1646 appears strongly supportive and bipartisan. The bill passed the Senate and House by wide margins, with only a small number of dissenting votes, and it was ultimately enacted with immediate effect. The vote history suggests broad agreement that copper theft and damage to infrastructure are serious problems warranting stronger criminal and regulatory responses.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s new criminal liability and regulatory burdens on metal recycling entities, including recordkeeping, inspection, and due-diligence requirements. The preemption of local ordinances may also be a concern for local governments that have adopted stricter anti-theft measures. At the same time, the bill includes exceptions for legitimate business activity and attempts to balance enforcement with ordinary commercial handling of copper and brass materials.
SB 1646 amends the Penal Code and Occupations Code to create new offenses, increase penalties for copper- and brass-related theft and damage, and regulate transactions involving certain copper or brass material by metal recycling entities. It also preempts local governments from adding restrictions or recordkeeping requirements for covered transactions, while authorizing administrative penalties and requiring DPS rulemaking, training materials, and a periodic study of the law’s effectiveness.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and little opposition. It passed both chambers by large margins, including a near-unanimous House vote, indicating a general consensus that stronger protections against copper theft and infrastructure damage were needed. The limited number of nays suggests only modest resistance to the bill’s criminal and regulatory expansions.
The likely areas of contention are the new felony and misdemeanor offenses, the expanded definition of critical infrastructure, and the compliance obligations imposed on metal recycling entities. Recyclers may view the recordkeeping, inspection, and due-diligence requirements as burdensome, while local governments may object to state preemption of stricter local rules. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have prioritized deterrence, infrastructure protection, and improved law-enforcement coordination.