Latest news with #Bill1007
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill to boost energy generation — and nuclear manufacturing — advances to Indiana governor
A House Republican bill that seeks to increase energy generation in Indiana is now headed to Gov. Mike Braun for final approval. (Getty Images) House Republicans gave the final go-ahead Tuesday to a caucus priority bill that seeks to incentivize new power generation in Indiana. A 63-23 party-line vote on House Bill 1007 set the measure on course for Gov. Mike Braun's desk. The bill will expedite approval processes for large-load customers like data centers and create cost recovery mechanisms for projects utilities take on to serve those big customers. It will also require a big prospective grid addition to make 'significant and meaningful financial assurances' for such projects — reimbursing at least 80% of costs and protecting other existing and future customers from the expenses. The bill, authored by Rep. Ed Soliday, Valparaiso, additionally gets tough with utilities planning to close — or convert to natural gas — any coal-fired plants of at least 125 megawatts. Current law mandates utilities that are not generating at least 85% of peak demand to report three-year projections to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). House, Senate push along bills to attract nuclear developments to Indiana Utilities will instead be required to annually report the amount of resource generating capacity they plan to take offline. If, after an investigation, the IURC doesn't think a utility can provide reliable service, it would have to block the utility's plan or order it to either acquire or build capacity. 'We're in competition with other states,' Soliday said. 'We will not be the biggest incentive-offering state. (The bill) will put us in second. We won't get a dime if they don't come here, but if we are able to incentivize them to come here, we get 80% of something, not 100% of nothing.' After strong pushback, senators removed more contentious provisions that intended to specifically boost small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) development — including a 20% sales tax credit for utilities. That tax credit remains in the bill, however, for Hoosier manufacturers that produce SMR technology which could later be used by utilities in Indiana or elsewhere across the globe. Democratic Rep. Matt Pierce, of Bloomington, said Tuesday he has concerns about the remaining tax credit, which could cost taxpayers an estimated $280 million, according to a legislative fiscal analysis. He worried, too, that the overall bill will 'force more expensive, obsolete coal plants to remain online for a longer period of time' — given that SMR development has largely been proposed on existing coal plant sites. 'Imagine what we could do with $280 million when it comes to providing people with health care, childcare, other essential services that people may rely upon the state,' Pierce said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House, Senate push along bills to attract nuclear developments to Indiana
Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, addresses the House chamber on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (Casey Smith/Indiana Capital Chronicle) Multiple Republican energy bills dealing with incentives for nuclear power inched closer to the governor's desk Tuesday following key votes in both the House and Senate. That included House Bill 1007, a priority measure that would expedite approval processes for large-load customers like data centers and create cost recovery mechanisms for projects utilities take on to serve those big customers. It also would require a big prospective grid addition to make 'significant and meaningful financial assurances' for such projects — reimbursing at least 80% of costs and protecting other existing and future customers from the expenses. The bill additionally gets tough with utilities planning to close — or convert to natural gas — any coal-fired plants of at least 125 megawatts. Current law mandates utilities that are not generating at least 85% of peak demand to report three-year projections to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). The legislation would instead require all utilities to annually report the amount of resource generating capacity they plan to take offline. If, after an investigation, the IURC doesn't think a utility can provide reliable service, it would have to block the utility's plan or order it to either acquire or build capacity. 'This bill is about three things: high-wage advanced manufacturing jobs, protecting consumers from rate shifts from large-scale loads, and protecting consumers from rate increases through premature plant closures,' said bill sponsor Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford. 'Those are three worthy goals.' The bill advanced from the Senate in a 36-13 vote, with some bipartisan opposition. All but one Democrat — Sen. David Niezgodski, a co-sponsor — voted against the proposal, along with four Republicans: Sens. Ron Alting, Vaneta Becker, Aaron Freeman and Mike Young. After strong pushback, senators removed more contentious provisions that intended to boost small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) development — including a 20% sales tax credit for SMR manufacturers. But Democratic Sen. J.D. Ford, of Indianapolis, said he still had 'serious concerns' about pieces left in the bill that could boost 'a risky, unproven technology,' referring to SMRs. 'My constituents … they don't support this,' he said. 'They don't want to be the test case for nuclear experiments that have failed in other states.' House Bill 1007 missed the opportunity to put important consumer protections in place. – Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis, expressed additional concerns 'about the message being sent to ratepayers and the entire state.' 'House Bill 1007 missed the opportunity to put important consumer protections in place,' she said. 'We know that our utilities already operate as state-sanctioned monopolies, and we have to make sure that we are empowering the IURC, but also empowering ourselves and our ratepayers, to truly, truly get a handle on the increasing rates, and make sure that we're not politicizing that in any way.' Shortly after the Senate voted to return the bill to the House for final approval, Robyn Skuya-Boss, director for the Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club, reiterated the advocacy group's concerns over what she called an 'Energy Inflation Act.' She emphasized that legislative action came just days after Gov. Mike Braun signed coal-related executive orders similar to those endorsed by President Donald Trump. 'Hoosiers should be alarmed that we're witnessing a massive transfer of wealth from hard-working families to financially healthy utilities and tech companies in the form of higher utility bills along with increased air and water pollution,' Skuya-Boss said in a statement. 'Renewable energy adds a tremendous amount of value to the grid, and it's disheartening that lawmakers, utilities, and tech companies are actively standing in the way of progress for Indiana's economy and our environment.' Across the hall, lawmakers in the House made progress on two other bills, overcoming hesitation from some members of the supermajority. The first, Senate Bill 423, forms a small modular nuclear reactor 'pilot' program intended to attract interested developers to bring nuclear to Indiana. Bill sponsor Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valpraiso, made clear though that the legislation blocks program participants from charging ratepayers for no-cost contributions by third parties. Opposition brings likely end to Indiana utility siting bill, but the issue isn't going away 'Already, partnerships are being formed. …. What this bill does is place restrictions on those partnerships that currently do not exist,' he said. 'It's important that we have some control over these partnerships.' Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said he while 'appreciate(d)' the bill's intent to require tech companies to 'pick up some of these costs for SMRs, it still has a fatal flaw.' 'At the end of the day, if the project doesn't pan out, which I think is maybe more likely than not … the ratepayers are going to be on the hook for some of those costs, which is going to be substantial,' Pierce said. The bill ultimately passed in a mixed 67-29 vote, sending it back to the Senate chamber. Also returning to the opposing chamber one last time — in a similarly divided 59-38 tally — is Senate Bill 425, which addresses transitions of coal-fired plants to natural gas or SMR sites. Soliday said the bill seeks to ensure that locals don't drag out rezoning processes needed for those transitions to move forward. Provisions in the legislation set timelines for both utilities and local zoning authorities to prevent yearslong 'back and forth delays' that defer decisions. 'In some counties, not all, instead of making a decision, they keep deferring,' Soliday said, pointing to moratoriums, for example, that 'keep investors' money tied up, and they can't move forward with a project.' The bill limits such moratoriums to just one year, then local governments 'have to decide.' CONTACT US 'A 'no' is OK,' Soliday continued, 'but do it in a timely way so the developers can move on.' Pierce had reservations about this measure, too. 'What this bill is basically saying is if someone comes into your community and they want to put a small modular reactor into a generation facility that exists, your local communities have nothing they can say about that,' he said. 'I think it's a mistake what we're doing,' Pierce added. 'We're essentially saying that we value efficiency and speed more than we value public input, because under the current system, you kind of have this back and forth with advisory planning commissions … and that does take some time, but it gives people who are interested in that zoning issue an opportunity to be involved.' Rep. Kendell Culp, R-Rensselaer, maintained that the bill still allows 'an opportunity to go back and forth with the planning commission.' 'The ultimate decision-makers are the county commissioners, the legislative body,' Culp held. 'What a lot of these communities are doing is they're using this as a stall tactic. … We're trying to tighten up this loophole a little bit. Local units will still have a whole year to make a decision, and they can still say no, but they can't delay decisions. … because this drives down development, currently.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Utility customer advocates say protections inadequate in large-load users, nuclear development bill
Senate Utilities Committee Chair Sen. Eric Koch listens during a meeting on Thursday, March 27, 2025. (Leslie Bonilla Muñiz/Indiana Capital Chronicle) Legislation setting standards for new, big electricity users — plus, complicating coal-powered closures and benefiting nuclear reactor efforts — drew criticism from utility customer advocates Thursday. Proponents maintained the changes are critical to continued economic growth. Jonathan Neal, a Lafayette resident, told a Senate committee that the legislation doesn't protect customers enough. He asserted that regulators have repeatedly 'failed' Hoosier customers. 'Like many ratepayers, I don't have a lot of confidence in the (Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission) to protect the ratepayers,' he said. '… Sometimes it feels like they're really in the pocket of the utilities and just cover the costs of utility shareholders — and consumers are too busy to complain.' But Rep. Ed Soliday, the measure's author, said opponents 'want a zero-growth economy.' 'If you don't want a growth economy, then vote against the bill,' Soliday, R-Valparaiso, said. His House Bill 1007 would expedite approval processes for large-load customers like data centers and set out cost recovery mechanisms for projects utilities undertake to serve those big customers. It also would require a big prospective grid addition to make 'significant and meaningful financial assurances' for such projects— reimbursing at least 80% of costs and protecting other existing and future customers from the expenses. 'We think it's fair that they accept 80% of the responsibility. Now, if they build and keep their word, then all they're doing is buying the electricity they said they want,' Soliday. 'But we've given about 20% latitude in here, that we think is fair.' Multiple witnesses feared customers would still take the brunt of costs. 'I'm afraid that there's too many ways to get around that 80-20 split for those large-load customers, that there's no guarantee that those customers would actually be paying that,' said Robyn Skuya-Boss, leader of the Sierra Club's Indiana chapter. '(Maybe) if they could pay those costs upfront, if they could be put into long-term obligation contracts — what if the data center operator or the customer goes bankrupt?' Advocates for residential and existing industrial ratepayers said the expedited processes didn't offer them or regulators enough time to review materials and assemble responses. Citizens Action Coalition Executive Director Kerwin Olson noted that some provisions require regulators to approve a utility plan within 90 or 150 days, and afford it just seven business days or less to deem filings complete. That's although the utility may have spent months constructing the plan, and it may take stakeholders like Olson's organization 60 days to 'to put a case together, to find funding, to find experts.' 'If the commission doesn't hit that 90-day timeline or that 150-day timeline, guess what? It's approved (automatically),' Olson continued. '… Why have regulated monopolies when effectively we'll have unregulated monopolies? Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers representative Joseph Rompala said that's a 'quick turnaround.' Rompala also litigates on behalf of industrial customers before the IURC. He said transmission, distribution and storage improvement charges — seven-year plans utilities can bring for those improvements — have a 210-day 'clock.' 'While I understand the need for speed to market and … to meet customer demand, we are talking about at least comparably sized investments,' Rompala added. '… Certainly, more time is beneficial.' But, he said any IURC order — including approval, cost-recovery and any trackers — could be appealed to a higher court. Koch and Soliday emphasized that they developed the deadlines in collaboration with regulators. 'They said they could do it,' Soliday told the committee. House Bill 1007 also gets tough with utilities planning to close — or convert to natural gas — any coal-fired plants of at least 125 megawatts. Current law — adopted during the 2024 legislative session — mandates utilities that are not generating at least 85% of peak demand to report three-year projections to the IURC. The legislation would instead require all utilities to annually report the amount of resource generating capacity they plan to take offline. If, after an investigation, the IURC doesn't think a utility can provide reliable service, it would have to block the utility's plan or order it to either acquire or build capacity. 'That makes the process very empirical. You … can't just shut them down willy-nilly,' Soliday said. Indiana Energy Association President Danielle McGrath said the requirements would complement utilities' existing integrated resource plans, several other required reports and IURC-hosted reliability forums. 'That's why, in providing this additional information, we stand by our analysis, and we'll demonstrate how that planned retirement is going to be able to meet the requirements set forth in this bill,' she told lawmakers. Other provisions are intended to boost small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) development as electricity demand rises, including a 20% sales tax credit for SMR manufacturers. Soliday said one such company — which he'd seen represented in the audience — has Indiana 'high on the list' for an SMR. 'That factory will be at least 500 jobs, over $100,000 and I'd like to see them here. So, hence the incentive,' he told the committee. Rolls Royce, which has a major manufacturing footprint in Indiana, is exploring construction of an SMR with a capacity of up to 470 megawatts. But numerous witnesses complained SMR technology is 'experimental' and 'unproven.' The United States hosts no operational SMRs. Across the globe, only China and Russia have functional ones. Some want Indiana to lead, but nuclear development is pricey. A large part of the legislation would let public utilities ask regulators for permission to spend money on SMRs — and start recovering costs from customers — before getting certificates of public convenience and necessity. The language is identical to Koch's Senate Enrolled Act 424. Included are expenditures for design; engineering; environmental analyses and permitting; federal approvals, licensing and permitting; equipment purchases and more. A utility could recover 80% of approved costs under the resulting rate schedule within three years at most. It would defer the remaining 20% for recovery as part of its next general rate case. Indiana proposal to boost nuclear development, recover costs from customers clears committee Soliday said the 'pay-as-you-go' approach would let utilities take out the debt more cheaply — or avoid bonding at all. He added, 'It's in our favor as consumers to keep that bond rate low or zero.' Overspending would have to meet additional criteria to get passed onto customers. So would expenditures on canceled or abandoned projects — and a utility wouldn't earn returns for such failed undertakings 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. 'To have reliability, you can't have utilities going bankrupt,' Soliday said. House Bill 1007 advanced on an 8-3 vote. It's heading to the Senate's Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee. 'I'm glad that it's going to be recommitted … because what we really need to be focused on is the fiscal impact,' said Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis. Debate, she added, isn't about nuclear's merits because Indiana legalized SMRs years ago. 'What this bill is talking about is the funding structure for how we're going to fund small modular reactors. And that's what I have an issue with — is that we're doing it on the backs of ratepayers, that we're doing it in a way that is not fiscally responsible,' Hunley said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Indiana's nuclear power legislation places costs on customers, advocates say
Indiana lawmakers want the state to lead the way in developing small module nuclear reactors, but consumer advocates say proposed legislation will leave Hoosiers stuck with the bill for the new and unproven technology. A series of bills introduced this year would provide Indiana's monopoly utilities the ability to recover development costs of these small reactors. Those costs, critics say, will show up on Hoosier's monthly energy bills — even if the reactors are never built and never provide any electricity. Small module nuclear reactors are much smaller than full-scale nuclear plants, but cost estimates can run into the billions for a completed reactor. Senate bills 423, 424 and House Bill 1007 all provide utilities options to make customers pay back at least some of the costs incurred before construction even begins. Kerwin Olson, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition, said the bills shift 100% of the risk of the to Hoosier customers. 'In three different bills we have language to force ratepayers to pay these project development costs — not only before a utility gets approval, but even before they file for approval,' Olson said. 'It's simply outrageous we would allow the investor-owned utilities to put that burden on the backs of ratepayers.' Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, introduced SB 424, which allows utilities to petition the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for project development costs of SMRs and ultimately recoup those costs through ratepayer bills. Indiana lawmakers in 2022 paved the way for SMRs in the state with a policy that set rules for proposals. 'Senate Bill 424 builds upon that policy by extending recovery for preconstruction and development costs, which is very important to incentivize SMRs,' Koch said. The two senate bills have passed through that chamber and been sent to the House, while HB1007 is scheduled for another committee hearing. 2022 law: A bill would pave the way for nuclear power in Indiana -- at a cost to consumers Mark Nichol with the Nuclear Energy Institute told lawmakers demand and interest in SMRs is quickly accelerating. Large energy customers, like data centers, are moving into Indiana and in some cases will double the power demand from regional utilities. While data centers are built rather quickly, SMRs are projected to be much slower to come online. It could take 10 years to get an SMR built once a project kicks off, Nichol said, but policy conditions aren't right to enable these projects to begin. 'I do think it is a bit slower if you don't pass the legislation,' Nichol said. 'The biggest challenge is you may find yourself acting too slowly and getting left behind.' Building reactors means developing a workforce and acquiring supplies, which are real constraints for projects, and Nichol said those who aren't at the front of the queue may have to wait to deploy the reactors. Steve Baker, president and CEO of Indiana Michigan Power, told lawmakers his company is on the verge of explosive load growth in its service territory with the construction of data centers and is determining how to best serve those large customers. It took I&M 120 years to gradually build out its current energy portfolio, which reaches a peak demand of about 4 gigawatts, Baker said. The new data centers and other projects being built will require 4.5 gigawatts of new energy in the next five years. The utility has done some things to address this demand, Baker said, but there is a real opportunity with SMRs. 'We think new nuclear technology," he said, "has a role to serve.' Consumer and environmental advocates oppose the new Indiana bills. Some say Indiana should wait until the technology is tested and proven effective. The legislation would create a path to socializing the risks while privatizing the profits utilities stand to gain, said Shannon Anderson from Earth Charter Indiana. 'It's an interesting choice for (lawmakers) to bank state money and consumer money on unproven pieces of technology,' Anderson said. There are only a handful of fully operational SMRs in the world today, and none of them are in the U.S., though some companies are trying to put them in the ground. Duke Energy, based in North Carolina, is developing a SMR that originally had a proposed $75 million price tag on its development costs. That number has since ballooned to $365 million. These are the kind of development costs Hoosier ratepayers may be on the hook to cover, and include evaluation and design costs, federal approvals, environmental analysis, site permits and other expenditures. The bills lawmakers are putting forward are evidence of the financial risks of SMRs, Olson said. Utilities would be able to recoup the pre-planning costs before even applying for approval of a project. 'Utilities are just simply unwilling to bear that risk because the markets aren't willing to bear the risk' Olson said. Investors, bond holders and the company should be providing the capital to run the utility, but, in large part, bills like these create unaffordable utility bills for Hoosiers, Olson said. Sam Carpenter with the Hoosier Environmental Council echoed concerns about the financial burden Hoosiers could face. 'It is not appropriate to put somebody who is trying to cover their basic expenses and have them take the risk to pay for development planning on unproven technology," Carpenter said. Delaney Barber Kwon with Indiana Conservation Voters said the legislation in Indiana is concerning because it mirrors the legislation passed in South Carolina in 2008 that allowed a utility there to charge its customers for a failed full-scale nuclear project. Those South Carolina residents are still paying for a reactor the utility provider never built. The bills homeowners pay there were increased by 5.6% to pay for the failed project, according to the South Caroline Daily Gazette. This fee is meant to pay off the utility's $2.3 billion debt from the project. That plan was for a full-scale nuclear plant, but Barber Kwon said a small module nuclear reactor project in Utah also was abandoned last year after cost estimates tripled. It was going to be the first SMR built in the U.S., but the project was abandoned after costs grew too high. 'SMRs as a whole is not something that Indiana Conservation Voters is opposed to, but this is still experimental technology and it's going to take a long time to actually implement and get it to a place where it could really work in Indiana,' Barber Kwon said. Opposing the bills is not an indictment of nuclear power in the state, critics said, but about how new projects are funded. 'The opposition is about customers,' Olson said. 'The risk is enormous, that's why they have that language in three bills.' IndyStar's environmental reporting project is made possible through the generous support of the nonprofit Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust. Karl Schneider is an IndyStar environment reporter. You can reach him at Follow him on BlueSky @ This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana's nuclear energy bills dump costs on customers, advocates say
