HB 144 vs SB 1789: What Texas Utilities Need to Know About Both Pole Compliance Laws

Most Texas utilities know about House Bill 144. Fewer realize that a companion law — Senate Bill 1789 — changes their compliance obligations in ways that HB 144 alone doesn't cover. Together, these two laws create the most comprehensive pole management regulatory framework Texas has ever had. Understanding how they interact is essential for any utility preparing its January 2027 submission.

What HB 144 Requires

House Bill 144, signed into law on June 20, 2025, requires every electric cooperative, investor-owned utility, and municipally owned utility in Texas to submit a distribution pole inspection and management plan to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) by January 1, 2027.

The plan must address nine specific components under Sec. 38.103: the overall scope and objectives of the pole management program, the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved (including third-party contractors), the processes used to manage and inspect poles, the training and certification of inspection personnel, the documentation of and response to landowner complaints about pole condition, inspection deadlines for each pole, record-keeping and submission processes, timelines for remedial action on unsafe poles, and a proposed budget for electric utilities (cooperatives are exempt from the budget requirement).

The PUCT must approve, modify, or reject each submitted plan within 180 days. After approval, utilities must submit an updated plan at least once every three years. Monthly reporting on inspection progress begins once the plan is approved.

Guidehouse, a $5.7 billion global consulting firm, has been contracted by the PUCT to review every submission. This is third-party audit, not self-certification.

What SB 1789 Adds

Senate Bill 1789 took effect on September 1, 2025. Where HB 144 tells utilities what their plan must contain, SB 1789 tells the PUCT what standards to set for the infrastructure itself.

SB 1789 directs the PUCT to adopt statewide structural integrity standards for both transmission and distribution poles. These standards must include a uniform serviceability classification system — a standardized way to categorize every pole's condition — along with defined inspection timelines, maintenance requirements, and remediation schedules based on each pole's classification.

The PUCT's rulemaking process for SB 1789 is still underway. The commission is expected to align its standards closely with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) guidance, calibrated for Texas geography, weather exposure, and wildfire risk.

SB 1789 also strengthens enforcement. It authorizes the PUCT to reduce a utility's return on equity in its next rate case if the utility fails to comply with the new structural integrity standards and suffers system damage from a natural disaster. It tightens the thresholds for service quality enforcement by lowering the allowable deviation in outage metrics (SAIDI and SAIFI) from 300% to 200% above system averages.

The fiscal note for SB 1789 estimates $1.8 million in state costs over the 2026-2027 biennium, funding 4.5 new PUCT positions — attorneys for rulemaking, engineers for technical oversight, and investigators for compliance enforcement.

How the Two Laws Work Together

HB 144 is the plan. SB 1789 is the standard.

Think of it this way: HB 144 says “submit a plan that describes how you inspect your poles.” SB 1789 says “here are the specific standards your poles must meet, and here's how the PUCT will enforce them.”

A utility that submits a solid HB 144 plan but ignores SB 1789's structural integrity standards will find that plan rejected or modified when the PUCT applies the new classification system. A utility that meets every SB 1789 standard but never submits the HB 144 plan will be out of compliance with the filing requirement.

You need both.

Here's how the key requirements map across the two laws: HB 144 requires you to describe your inspection process. SB 1789 will define how often you must inspect, based on pole classification. HB 144 requires you to set remediation timelines for unsafe poles. SB 1789 will define what “unsafe” means, through the serviceability classification system. HB 144 requires you to document landowner complaints and responses. SB 1789 requires you to maintain detailed records of inspections and remediation — the documentation standard applies to everything, not just complaints. HB 144 requires a plan submission by January 2027. SB 1789's rulemaking timeline is still in progress, but the structural integrity standards will apply retroactively to poles already in service.

What This Means for Your Timeline

The practical question every utility faces: do you wait for the PUCT to finalize the SB 1789 standards before writing your HB 144 plan?

No. The January 2027 deadline does not move. The PUCT has been clear that utilities must submit plans based on the statutory requirements in Sec. 38.103. When the SB 1789 rulemaking concludes and the structural integrity standards are finalized, utilities will need to update their plans to incorporate the new classification system and remediation timelines — but the initial submission deadline remains January 1, 2027.

The smart approach: build your HB 144 plan around the nine statutory requirements now. Design your inspection and classification processes to be flexible enough to adopt the SB 1789 standards when they're published. If you're already using NESC-based inspection categories and RUS-aligned maintenance schedules, you're likely close to what the PUCT will require under SB 1789.

The Documentation Standard Both Laws Share

The common thread between HB 144 and SB 1789 is documentation. HB 144 requires documented processes for inspections, complaints, and remediation. SB 1789 requires detailed records of inspections, maintenance activities, and pole condition classifications. Both laws assume that your documentation will be reviewed — HB 144 by Guidehouse, SB 1789 by the PUCT's new enforcement staff.

The standard both laws imply is documentation that is verifiable by a third party without access to your internal systems. Spreadsheets and email chains don't meet that standard. When Guidehouse opens your HB 144 submission and asks “can I independently verify this inspection record was created on the date claimed?”, or when a PUCT investigator reviews your SB 1789 compliance and asks “can you prove this pole was classified and maintained on the required schedule?” — the answer needs to be yes.

Forensic-grade documentation — records sealed with cryptographic timestamps that prove when they were created and whether they've been modified — satisfies both laws simultaneously. One evidence standard, one documentation system, two compliance obligations met.

What to Do Now

Start with the HB 144 plan. Map your current practices to the nine Sec. 38.103 subsections. Identify gaps — particularly in landowner complaint documentation (subsection b-3-C) and per-pole inspection deadlines (subsection b-4). Take the AcreSeal readiness assessment to get a scored gap analysis in under 5 minutes.

Then prepare for SB 1789. Watch for the PUCT's rulemaking announcements. Ensure your inspection data is structured in a way that can adopt a new classification system without rebuilding from scratch. If you're using a geospatial or digital inspection platform, confirm it can export records in the format the PUCT will require.

If you're a distribution cooperative, talk to your G&T. Generation and transmission cooperatives like STEC, Golden Spread, and LCRA are coordinating compliance approaches across their member cooperatives. A single conversation with your G&T may connect you with resources that save months of planning.

The January 2027 deadline is approximately 7 months away. The Guidehouse team is staffing up. The PUCT's SB 1789 rulemaking is advancing. The time to prepare is now — not when the final standards are published.