Indiana proposal to boost nuclear development, recover costs from customers clears committee
Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, leads an energy committee on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. (Leslie Bonilla Muñiz/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
Indiana legislation boosting early forays into nuclear power earned utility company support on Tuesday, but passionate opposition from ratepayer groups. It advanced from committee on a bipartisan 10-3 vote.
With demand on the rise, Hoosier political and energy leaders are increasingly eyeing emerging technology — small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs — as a possible solution.
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.
Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, told the House's energy committee that he hopes to 'incentivize earlier deployment by removing what I understand to be the single-biggest barrier.'
His Senate Bill 424 would offer public utilities bringing SMRs to Indiana a path to recover pre-construction costs — including anticipated spending — from their customers before they obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Included are expenditures for design; engineering; environmental analyses and permitting; federal approvals, licensing and permitting; equipment purchases and more.
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.
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 Michigan Power — one of the state's 'big five' investor-owned, regulated monopolies — featured heavily in discussion.
Two of the state's largest incoming data centers, for Amazon Web Services and Google, will be in I&M territory. President and CEO Steve Baker said tax incentives and other economic development efforts are drawing more big customers and big loads into Indiana.
'Our customers are concerned about our ability to supply these loads and do that in a sustainable sort of way,' Baker told the committee.
I&M is 'considering' an SMR at its coal-fueled Rockport power plant, he said, which is set to shutter in 2028 by federal consent decree. A state-funded Purdue University report last year found the plant is among eight Indiana coal plant sites well-suited to SMR development.
Several representatives from Spencer County, which hosts the plant, said the legislation would ensure a major property tax contributor, charitable giver and employer stays in their community.
That prompted Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, to remark later, 'I can understand why, from the perspective of the locals, they would certainly want to have that project built, particularly if the cost of the project is borne by people outside of their area.'
Ratepayer advocates maintained opposition.
'Say no, no, to subsidizing financially healthy, investor-owned utilities (and) tech behemoths who have deep, deep pockets,' Citizens Action Coalition Executive Director Kerwin Olson said.
Olson expected I&M to begin its cost recovery asks once the bill becomes law — although an SMR wouldn't come online at Rockport until at least 2036, in the utility's estimate.
'If they make a filing in 2025 or 2026, whatever they file for, this bill says they have to recover that by 2029 — for a project that may never, ever happen,' Olson said. '… Where are the provisions that require the utilities to refund customers their money?'
Koch previously said his proposal contains 'important consumer protections.'
Under Senate Bill 424, costs exceeding the IURC's best estimate 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 earn returns in such cases 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.
Olson and others weren't convinced.
'I think 'reasonable' and 'prudent' are my least favorite words in the English dictionary; (they're) written by lawyers for lawyers,' Olson said. He noted that the legislation doesn't define those terms. His other concern: 'It's the 'shall' provisions. The bill is littered with, 'The utility shall recover,' (and) 'The commission shall approve.''
Delaney Barber Kwon, the community and government affairs manager for Indiana Conservation Voters, asked the committee to consider alternative ways to support SMR development, like tax credits, public-private partnerships and more.
Joe Rompala, representing Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers Inc., similarly requested that lawmakers pursue other forms of cost recovery, like the partnership-heavy pilot program in Senate Bill 423. The trade organization includes more than 20 of the state's largest energy consumers, he said.
Sam Carpenter, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, noted that Virginia has capped SMR development cost recovery totals to just $125 million over five years and limited rider increases for the typical residential customer to $1.40 monthly.
Disagreements abounded over the legislation's timing.
Pierce, the Bloomington Democrat, said SMR is 'not quite proven' and that Indiana should wait for the technology to get better and cheaper. Advancing Koch's proposal now, he said, would make ratepayers into 'guinea pigs for this experiment called an SMR.'
But I&M's Baker previously feared that if Indiana moves too slowly, it may struggle to compete for power-needy economic development projects. Baker said I&M wants to ensure that 'we're not too far in front, but we're not so far behind that we don't have the ability to act on this.'
The legislation earned a full-throated endorsement from Energy and Natural Resources Secretary Suzanne Jaworowski, one of Gov. Mike Braun's cabinet appointees.
She said this chance to 'deploy proven technology' aligns with Braun's agenda and 'all-of-the-above approach' to energy.
'This is (such) a unique moment in time that I don't want to see Indiana miss out on the opportunity to have federal support, private-public partnership support,' Jaworowski said. 'Not only do we have a demand signal from industry that they want this technology, … they're also willing to help pay for it so that it is not all on the backs of the ratepayers.'
Identical language within another measure, House Bill 1007, has also crossed into the Senate.
That's after the committee on Tuesday stripped out the only difference: a 2035 expiration date on the cost-recovery provisions. Chair Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, said he 'convinced' Koch to remove it because 'we don't know when these are going to come online.' The Indiana General Assembly meets often enough that it can enter a date later if needed, he said.
The twinned language is necessary because lawmakers plan to push both across the finish line, Soliday told the Capital Chronicle, citing 'powers above my head.'
The committee didn't take up detailed edits filed for a carbon dioxide storage and transmission measure — or accept testimony — before a vote.
Author Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, has dubbed it a 'clean-up' effort for previous legislation. Lawmakers authorized a pilot project, led by Wabash Valley Resources, in 2019 and revisited it in 2023. In between, in 2022, they established regulations for carbon sequestration projects and exempted the pilot from those requirements.
Glick's Senate Bill 457 seeks to build on those endeavors.
Indiana Senate approves education measures, narrowly OKs carbon storage measure
It would exempt pipeline companies from needing to get certificates of authority in certain cases. The legislation would also create a permit for exploratory wells and well conversions; add inspection provisions; charge new fines for legal violations; and tweak other fee amounts.
It would direct fee and fine proceeds away from topic-specific funds toward the state's General Fund — changes made by Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Mishawaka, who leads the powerful Senate Appropriation Committee.
An exhaustive amendment filed ahead of the committee's meeting would've undone that, redirecting monies back to carbon sequestration trust and administrative funds and specifying that the funds exist to defray state spending to manage and monitor projects. It wasn't called.
'The chair will not be accepting any amendments,' Soliday said during the meeting. 'There will probably be an amendment as a trailer to another bill. The debate is who can create funds.'
'We are at the mercy of the Appropriations Committee, as you all know, and (the) Ways and Means (Committee),' Glick added later. 'So we'll live with whatever they decide we can do.'
Senate Bill 457 will head there next for a finance-focused review, after committee members advanced it in an 11-2 vote featuring bipartisan support. Rep. Tim Wesco, R-Osceola, critiqued the concept but voted in favor.
'Carbon sequestration, in my view, is likely the most expensive boondoggle of this decade. It is wasteful and pointless — but, I feel, otherwise harmless,' Wesco said. 'Companies … want to spend money to do it, so, we'll let them.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
22 minutes ago
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: Tax break for families The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump campaign promises Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. More SALT The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. Medicaid providers The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' Tax breaks for business The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Clean energy tax credits Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. Odds and ends The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
