logo
Guest column: Stop ratepayer robbery and oppose nuclear reactor bills

Guest column: Stop ratepayer robbery and oppose nuclear reactor bills

Chicago Tribune14-02-2025

In standing-room-only NIPSCO rate case hearings this winter held by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), folks came out on blustery evenings and proved a point: Hoosiers cannot afford higher bills. From senior citizens still working full time yet bundled in sweaters and coats in their dark homes to school administrators explaining how another rate hike will eliminate teachers and necessary learning tools, the choices everyday Hoosiers are making are dire. Today, three proposed laws are winding their way through the statehouse, forfeiting what could amount to billions of tax dollars raising our utility prices even higher.
House Bill 1007 and Senate Bills 423 and 424 would use Indiana's electric customers as the majority financers of dubious, multibillion-dollar nuclear power schemes called small modular reactors (SMRs). For instance, House Bill 1007 offers tax credits to these companies, taxes that should be used to fund schools and essential services. Clearly, the needs of power-hungry data centers are being prioritized over the needs of our communities. During session hearings, I listened as lawmakers, undeterred in their loyalty to monopoly electric companies and private corporations, repeatedly declared that 'Indiana will lose out, get left behind, forfeit business' if we don't incentivize SMRs, delivered with an urgency that would make a snake oil salesman blush.
All three of these bills gut regulatory oversight, allowing utilities to begin charging customers for SMR projects before applying for approval, without ever applying for approval, or even if the project never breaks ground. No worries, though, because, according to an author of SB 423 and 424, ratepayers should rest assured that the IURC will not allow any unreasonable cost requests. This is laughably cold comfort when the IURC has consistently approved utility rate hikes, regardless of heart-wrenching public testimony from consumers begging for relief while our electric companies report significant profits.
We cannot ignore the underlying subtext of these bills: they may ultimately delay coal plant retirements and give the IURC authority to deny closures to serve data centers. The coal-burning NIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station (MCGS) is scheduled to shutter in 2028. Still, its fate and the millions of tons of toxic coal ash on the lakefront remain uncertain. Last week's settlement agreement between NIPSCO and LaPorte County commissioners included the prospect of 'a combined cycle gas turbine or gas peaker generating plant or locating battery energy storage systems or other energy technologies at the site.' This legislation could easily exploit this settlement and roll back the MCGS closure and other pending retirements, including the RM Schahfer Generating Station in Wheatfield and beyond.
Basic facts should raise common sense suspicions about these bills: there are no operating SMRs in the U.S. today. Even if proven workable, SMRs would take 8-10 years to become operational, while renewable energy options like wind, solar, battery, and geothermal are deployable today. These projects are not cost-effective. For example, NuScale's SMR project, developed for a municipal utility in Utah and Idaho, saw costs balloon to $9.3 billion by 2023, leading the utilities to exit the project. SMRs produce even more waste than a traditional nuclear plant, which is toxic, radioactive, and lasts for thousands of years. This issue could exacerbate the cumulative impact of pollution in already-burdened regions like Northwest Indiana. As we have seen in our area with BP Whiting's recent benzene leak, state agencies fail to provide adequate oversight, enforcement, and emergency communications on industrial incidents and violations.
Indiana monopoly utilities and data-driven corporations are acting like schoolyard bullies, with our lawmakers acting as henchmen, taking advantage of our communities, environment, and climate for corporate gain. It is past time to stop state-sanctioned ratepayer robbery and demand a just and equitable transition from fossil fuels. Join us in contacting your legislators and opposing these bills.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'It doesn't help Hoosiers': People gather outside of Indy airport to protest new travel ban
'It doesn't help Hoosiers': People gather outside of Indy airport to protest new travel ban

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

'It doesn't help Hoosiers': People gather outside of Indy airport to protest new travel ban

More than 100 people gathered outside the Indianapolis International Airport terminal on June 9 to protest President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which bars citizens from 12 countries. The ban went into effect on June 9 and bars nationals of Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States. The administration also placed partial restrictions on foreign nationals traveling from seven additional countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Many of those who spoke at the protest on the green space outdoors near the baggage claim area argued that immigrants who have relocated to Indiana have been a positive addition to the state, adding that this ban punishes them while serving no additional purpose. "This ban does not make us safer," said Maliha Zafar, director of the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network, speaking at the protest. "It doesn't help Hoosiers. It keeps families apart, reinforces, dangerous message that immigrants, refugees, Muslims, black and brown people do not belong. But we do belong." The event was organized by Exodus Refugee, ACLU of Indiana and the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network. Dozens of people gathered on the airport's lawn holding "no unjust travel bans" signs, affirming that migrants were welcome in Indiana. "I'm deeply concerned with all of the many actions that have been aimed against immigrants in this country," said one protester Mary Anne Rugger. "If this were happening over a hundred years ago, it would have been my great-grandparents who were being attacked. This country is great because we welcome immigrants." Organizers of the protest said that whether or not these bans ultimately affect immigrants living in Indiana, these types of policies inadvertently create a feeling of fear amongst those who have moved here from other countries. Speakers argued that people ought to be able to live in this country regardless of their legal status without fearing that they may be deported for getting a driving citation or overstaying a visa. "It's been roughly five months since Trump took office and in that time, he's brought about a theater campaign of disappearance, deportations, dehumanization, unlike anything most of us have seen in America," said Cole Varga, CEO of Exodus Refugee. Many of the refugees in Indiana have come here to escape dangerous situations in their home countries, Varga said. But beyond the travel ban, Chris Daley, Executive Director of the ACLU of Indiana, emphasized the need for leaders and Hossiers to move away from anti-immigrant rhetoric and stop vilifying those from other countries. "Every year in our Indiana State House, we see a flurry of bills that try to limit people's ability to own land, to run businesses, to have state contracts simply based on their nation of origin," Daley said. "We have to stand up and say enough, this is not who we are and this is not who we're going to be going forward." Supporters of the travel bans say these policies are not aimed at those who have entered the country legal and will serve to keep U.S. citizens safe. 'President Trump is fulfilling his promise to protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors that want to come to our country and cause us harm,' White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson wrote on X on June 4. Ultimately, organizers believed that this "president's immigration polices are moral catastrophes." Contact IndyStar reporter Noe Padilla at npadilla@ follow him on X @1NoePadilla or on Bluesky @ This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Protestors gather outside of Indy airport in disapproval of travel ban

'It doesn't help Hoosiers': People gather outside of Indy airport to protest new travel ban
'It doesn't help Hoosiers': People gather outside of Indy airport to protest new travel ban

Indianapolis Star

time4 hours ago

  • Indianapolis Star

'It doesn't help Hoosiers': People gather outside of Indy airport to protest new travel ban

More than 100 people gathered outside the Indianapolis International Airport terminal on June 9 to protest President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which bars citizens from 12 countries. The ban went into effect on June 9 and bars nationals of Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the United States. The administration also placed partial restrictions on foreign nationals traveling from seven additional countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Many of those who spoke at the protest on the green space outdoors near the baggage claim area argued that immigrants who have relocated to Indiana have been a positive addition to the state, adding that this ban punishes them while serving no additional purpose. "This ban does not make us safer," said Maliha Zafar, director of the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network, speaking at the protest. "It doesn't help Hoosiers. It keeps families apart, reinforces, dangerous message that immigrants, refugees, Muslims, black and brown people do not belong. But we do belong." The event was organized by Exodus Refugee, ACLU of Indiana and the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network. Dozens of people gathered on the airport's lawn holding "no unjust travel bans" signs, affirming that migrants were welcome in Indiana. "I'm deeply concerned with all of the many actions that have been aimed against immigrants in this country," said one protester Mary Anne Rugger. "If this were happening over a hundred years ago, it would have been my great-grandparents who were being attacked. This country is great because we welcome immigrants." Organizers of the protest said that whether or not these bans ultimately affect immigrants living in Indiana, these types of policies inadvertently create a feeling of fear amongst those who have moved here from other countries. Speakers argued that people ought to be able to live in this country regardless of their legal status without fearing that they may be deported for getting a driving citation or overstaying a visa. "It's been roughly five months since Trump took office and in that time, he's brought about a theater campaign of disappearance, deportations, dehumanization, unlike anything most of us have seen in America," said Cole Varga, CEO of Exodus Refugee. Many of the refugees in Indiana have come here to escape dangerous situations in their home countries, Varga said. But beyond the travel ban, Chris Daley, Executive Director of the ACLU of Indiana, emphasized the need for leaders and Hossiers to move away from anti-immigrant rhetoric and stop vilifying those from other countries. "Every year in our Indiana State House, we see a flurry of bills that try to limit people's ability to own land, to run businesses, to have state contracts simply based on their nation of origin," Daley said. "We have to stand up and say enough, this is not who we are and this is not who we're going to be going forward." Supporters of the travel bans say these policies are not aimed at those who have entered the country legal and will serve to keep U.S. citizens safe. 'President Trump is fulfilling his promise to protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors that want to come to our country and cause us harm,' White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson wrote on X on June 4. Ultimately, organizers believed that this "president's immigration polices are moral catastrophes."

America's $75 Billion Nuclear Bet: Westinghouse vs. the Future of Energy
America's $75 Billion Nuclear Bet: Westinghouse vs. the Future of Energy

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

America's $75 Billion Nuclear Bet: Westinghouse vs. the Future of Energy

Westinghouse is going all-in on America's nuclear revival. Backed by Brookfield and Cameco, the Pennsylvania-based firm is in active talks with US officials, tech firms, and utilities to build 10 large nuclear reactors under President Trump's new energy directive. The order sets a 2030 deadline to begin construction and aims to quadruple US nuclear output by 2050. That kind of ambition could translate into a $75 billion opportunity, based on Department of Energy cost estimates. Interim CEO Dan Sumner says Westinghouse has the edgeits AP1000 design is approved, the supply chain is intact, and it's already delivered units in the US and China. We believe we can do them all, Sumner told the FT, pointing to hyperscaler interest and government loan programs as signs of momentum. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 2 Warning Sign with AMZN. But it's not a done deal yet. Nuclear still faces stiff economic headwinds in the US. While Washington may be on board, local utilities and regulators still have the final sayand memories of the Vogtle project's ballooning costs still linger. Analysts warn that the current US power market structure doesn't guarantee cost recovery for mega-projects, making investor appetite uncertain. Even so, Sumner argues that lessons from past delays have been baked into the new build model: We're the only ones who've done modular nuclear at scale. And now, the learning's embedded. Meanwhile, SMR developers aren't staying quiet. NuScale is pitching a 12-pack of its 77MW modules to rival traditional plants in capacity, while Holtec's 320MW units could be grouped to matchand beatWestinghouse on cost and complexity. We fully intend to compete with the big plants, Holtec's president said. The big question now: Will deep-pocketed buyersthink Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT)step up to fund these nuclear ambitions, or wait for the small guys to scale first? Either way, the race is on. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store