Lab-grown meat could get temporary ban, carbon storage heads to governor despite funding dispute
Indiana's Senate on Thursday decided to shelve lab-grown meat for a year while multiple state agencies study its safety.
And House lawmakers sent a carbon sequestration measure to Gov. Mike Braun's desk without a funding compromise, while also advancing nuclear development.
Senators adopted an amendment saying no one can make, offer for sale, or sell a cultivated meat product in Indiana from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. Violators could be fined up to $10,000 a day.
Labeling requirements in House Bill 1425 prompted confusion in committee earlier this month. It sat on the second reading calendar for about two weeks, racking up amendments.
Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, said she was working to find the right language.
'I believe we have come to the right point,' said Leising, the bill's Senate sponsor. 'There's a lot of uncertainty of this product so I think this will give us time.'
The Indiana Department of Agriculture, Board of Animal Health and Department of Health would study how safe lab-grown meat is and deliver a report to lawmakers by Dec. 1.
The legislation could get a Senate vote as soon as Monday.
To produce 'cultivated' meat, manufacturers sample animal cells and multiply them in sealed vats, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency has allowed lab-grown meat sales since 2023, when it gave final approval to chicken-derived products by two California companies, Reuters reported.
Other states are also grappling with the issue.
A Montana proposal to ban lab-grown meat is moving in that state's legislature. And lawmakers in North Carolina are considering a bill mandating that a 'manufactured-protein food product' with an 'identifying meat term' be labeled with an 'appropriate qualifying term' — such as 'cell-cultured,' 'fake,' 'lab-grown,' or 'grown in a lab' — in large type.
A measure tweaking Indiana's carbon dioxide sequestration policies crossed the finish line Thursday on a 55-37 vote — but a separate measure striking a funding compromise is yet to come.
Rep. Ed Soliday told his colleagues, 'You are voting (for) who is going to pay for the administration of a corporately owned sequestration pipe and well. And the choice is simple: if you vote for the bill, the corporation does; if you vote against it, your taxpayers pay for it.'
He's the House sponsor for Senate Bill 457, which would exempt pipeline companies from needing to get certificates of authority in certain cases, create a permit for exploratory wells and well conversions; add inspection provisions; charge new fines for legal violations and tweak other fees.
Originally, fine and fee proceeds would've gone to dedicated funds to defray state spending on project administration and monitoring. But a Senate amendment directed the money to the state's General Fund instead; House lawmakers didn't consider two amendments filed to undo the changes or take a 50-50 approach.
While on the floor, Soliday said there 'may be some correction.' He previously indicated that could come as a trailer bill.
Opponents were skeptical.
Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said the redirection 'means there is no guarantee' that regulators will have the money to do the permitting, monitoring and other enforcement required by law.
And under Administrator Lee Zeldin, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has moved to give more states the power to self-regulate carbon dioxide injections and sequestration, recently approving a request from West Virginia.
If Indiana's Department of Natural Resources wants that authority, Pierce said, it may need even more personnel and resources, not less.
Worries over how companies can skip certificates of authority also went unresolved.
Senate Bill 457 says they're not required if pipelines and storage facilities stay within a property — even if they have impacts beyond those boundaries. In committee, Soliday said he 'shared' Pierce's concerns and said that would be part of the financial fix.
House Speaker Todd Huston, R-Fishers, said the legislation improves implementation of Indiana's existing sequestration policies.
Asked how confident he was that the promised changes would materialize, Huston told reporters, 'There are some things that were noted today in the debate, but I felt good about it. … Good to get that one across the finish line, get it to the governor, and we'll work through a couple of the other issues.'
A bill aiding early development work on emerging nuclear power technology also won acceptance from the House Thursday — although recent changes require Senate consent to send it to Braun's desk.
Senate Bill 424 would offer public utilities working on small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) a path to recover 80% of pre-construction costs, including anticipated spending, from customers within three years — and before they obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The other 20% would be part of a general rate case.
Included are expenditures for design; engineering; environmental analyses and permitting; federal approvals, licensing and permitting; equipment purchases and more.
Soliday, also this bill's House sponsor, said it's not a giveaway to utility companies.
'The utility doesn't just get to go out and start working on a small modular reactor and then collect the money from the ratepayers,' he told colleagues.
The legislation lays out a process.
Once the IURC gives a utility permission to start spending, the company would be able to request approval of a rate schedule to pass those costs on to customers. Regulators would have to approve if they find the costs reasonable in amount, consistent with their best spending estimate, and necessary to support SMR development.
Overspending wouldn't get passed to ratepayers unless regulators deem the spending 'reasonable, necessary, and prudent' in supporting reactor development.
Expenditures for canceled or abandoned projects wouldn't be recoverable without the same 'reasonable, necessary, and prudent' finding. Even so, a utility wouldn't profit unless regulators also find the decision was 'prudently made for good cause,' that profit is 'appropriate … to avoid harm' to the utility and its customers; and that costs will be offset or reimbursed through other, listed means.
'All we're doing here is actually helping the ratepayers,' Soliday said.
He argued that the legislation lets utilities 'pay as they go, and the worst thing that happens is they get a much lower interest bond.'
Pierce, however, opined that it 'unreasonably shifts the risk of an unproven technology' onto electricity customers. Most Hoosiers are served by one of the state's 'big five' investor-owned, regulated monopolies.
He cited one failed SMR project that would've required $1 billion in pre-construction costs.
CONTACT US
'Here's the thing that really bothers me,' Pierce continued. 'If the utility knows that they're going to bear the cost of a failed project, they're going to think long and hard about whether it's economically viable. … We're telling them no problem, because we're going to let you recover all those costs, and we're going to define those costs in a fairly broad way.'
Senate Bill 424 advanced on a 59-30 vote.
Soliday's committee deleted a Senate expiration date for the cost-recovery provisions, so the Senate must agree to the change before the legislation heads to Braun.
Identical language in House Bill 1007 is also expected to cross the finish line.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
