[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6082626,"mediaKeyId","2936750-34f66f22cc9e3607acffb51b0b50883c","parentId",2936750,"title","Panel approves energy‑production‑zones bill after heated public testimony on local control","audioSeconds",2927,"startMs",2398000,"endMs",5325000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936750-34f66f22cc9e3607acffb51b0b50883c&start=2398&end=5325","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936750-34f66f22cc9e3607acffb51b0b50883c/thumbnail_2398000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6082626/Indiana/Panel-approves-energyproductionzones-bill-after-heated-public-testimony-on-local-control","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082626-cded4e65fea9dd2edb449b12570a0df6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770814896&Signature=AnBbvXtjii-gCiwjsBsx13UzsncYBMWoGfhpobxquOSmXfJPp0QqtdIJyy3JZiqZ~U5xMy9jBgW2LouigcGVD3a3NV-9rKqY-N-osg248CJrZUg-UbThl-EY3Vr9vI9baxv6TaQGSeql1s4Oa1Lvoj0EKGpLG6iZFNhKSUXcyYNfcgvgWbGLycwBvHGV74-4EvHFBSPL5w1fijmmTypk3uJ-tN6WXgiwWMLT9kg6VDiUX88TQAEVkZ0gnY6bluLn2qUfv0IE4T2c0GsE9XAsxlDywn8kJPgvr0mIzJB77UrBH9Pra80jj-flEFrObRV1SVNSla81cbjKMmH2W~FDyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Indiana State Legislature","date","2025-04-08T00:00:00Z","article","The Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee passed Senate Bill 425 after extensive testimony and debate over whether the measure properly balances land reuse and local control.

Senator Cook, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill aims to encourage new generation to be sited on land that already hosts energy production — including former mine sites or retired plant footprints — by designating them as energy production zones. \"A zone is a premise of land where there is an existing generation facility with a generating capacity of at least 80 megawatts,\" Cook told the committee. The bill as amended excludes wind and solar from the primary zone exemption, a change that drew critical public comment.

The committee adopted Amendment 15, which the sponsor described as clarifying deadlines, force majeure‑type pauses if events outside participants’ control occur (the amendment lists examples such as pandemics and natural disasters), and limits on repeating moratoria that can be used to indefinitely delay projects.

Witnesses were divided. Danielle McGrath of the Indiana Energy Association supported the bill’s approach to streamline approvals for reuse of existing generation sites, citing speed of interconnection and existing transmission infrastructure as advantages for investment. The Indiana Manufacturers Association also testified in favor, stressing reliability and the economic benefits of stable energy supply. The Indiana County Commissioners urged clarifying language to ensure the bill does not undercut local zoning ordinances and said they supported anti‑permanent‑moratorium language but sought stronger assurances the bill would not broadly preempt local planning.

Local residents and environmental groups urged caution. Testimony from Sam Carpenter of Hoosier Environmental Council and multiple nearby residents warned that removing wind and solar from the bill and constraining local permitting risks eroding community input and could put schools and neighborhoods near heavy industrial land uses. A Porter County resident said two proposed data centers next to schools in her township underscored community worries about proximity and local review; another witness described petitions and local opposition.

Committee debate centered on two issues: technology scope and whether the bill’s amendment would unintentionally alter broader local planning and zoning processes. Representative Pierce urged that excluding wind and solar from the measure was a mistake that disadvantaged technologies able to be deployed quickly, while other members said the exclusion reflected prior Senate committee decisions and local political realities.

County and local government representatives asked for a clarifying statement that the bill would not undermine existing zoning ordinances or local permitting except as explicitly stated in the energy‑zone and moratorium sections; some witnesses said the amended language was broad and could affect planning and zoning beyond energy projects.

The committee passed the bill as amended by a roll call recorded in the transcript as 9‑4. Sponsors said the intent is to provide certainty for investors who want to redevelop previously used generation sites while preventing indefinite local bans that could block investment.

Votes at a glance: SB425 as amended passed the committee by recorded vote 9‑4. Proponents included investor‑owned utilities and manufacturing interests; opponents included environmental groups and local residents citing concerns about local control and excluded technologies.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications April 8, 2025 11:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 425, which would create \"energy production zones\" to encourage building generation on existing generation sites and limit some local moratoria, passed the committee after testimony from utilities, environmental groups and local residents raised concerns about local control and excluded technologies.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature IN, Indiana","taxId",77679,"location","Indiana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6082631,"Committee advances bill to allow utility partnerships but bars recovery from ratepayers for partner contributions",788,1588000,2376000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936750-34f66f22cc9e3607acffb51b0b50883c&start=1588&end=2376","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936750-34f66f22cc9e3607acffb51b0b50883c/thumbnail_1588000.jpg","/articles/6082631/Indiana/Committee-advances-bill-to-allow-utility-partnerships-but-bars-recovery-from-ratepayers-for-partner-contributions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082631-eacdd5aa74844af8d8749e2a509d3b67/orig.mp4?Expires=1770814896&Signature=Cmd2P7l7G3eZdc00jgnz3osfwadJnaNjl2NHSqeo3YJ-pS42TzTr80hr9T4h8WN36oy7Vh6IC-MwrvRDqX9YsCCPHSJM5ln6j-g54p2awqby6XC1vusLizaJkp33aHoN75VaxAAuTyvI3yhU8pQsS8vvf~S0m7OY6~zqDUJRYvYef1OShuaL1dLrdgZNit5ve1BkbA0hwYC8TPrt8Gd0b85X5vLWz-54UUUNInVSeTpKvkCxwX6oRCaA605EpcI6wc9YsxWMiIrlB-xhGSfpPZPzAxno7~jN3HndfHAR~xarheA9MLHWyPs4EPbwpqAt6Gc5mjQmrc~Zu14yHgYVlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee advanced an amended version of Senate Bill 423 that allows eligible utilities to form partnerships with a broader set of partners and clarifies that costs contributed by partners cannot be later passed on to ratepayers.

Senator Cook, the bill’s sponsor, said the amendment expands the original pilot concept to permit any utility that wishes to form a partnership with another utility, a customer, a capital partner, a military installation, a reuse authority, an SMR manufacturer or a state educational institution to seek IURC review and approval for that partnership. \"If you are a partner you cannot as a utility then try to recover those same costs from the ratepayers,\" Cook said during remarks on the amendment.

Committee members questioned whether removing the pilot cap (previously limited to two projects or pilots) increases the possibility that ratepayers could be asked to cover planning costs for projects that do not come to fruition. Representative Pearson and others pressed that expanding the cap could increase opportunities for utilities to pursue projects that ultimately fail and leave ratepayers to carry planning costs in later proceedings.

Senate staff and supporters said the amendment was written to reflect market activity: potential partnerships were already forming under current statute and stakeholders asked the legislature to remove an artificial cap that had been intended for pilots. The amendment further clarifies that partner contributions — such as donated land or equipment — cannot later be recovered through rate‑base charges.

Opponents on the record expressed concern about ratepayer exposure. Representative Frey said she could not support the bill because of concerns that ratepayers might have to pay for an unproven technology if a project fails. Representative Pierce expressed similar reservations about protecting ratepayers from bearing planning costs for projects that do not proceed.

During the committee vote the bill as amended was approved and recorded in the transcript with a committee outcome noted as passing; the transcript recorded a committee tally announced verbally as \"Passes 8‑4\" in the committee record.

The amendment also clarifies that qualifying infrastructure projects that receive partner contributions must not seek to recover those contributed items from ratepayers when utilities later seek cost recovery before the IURC. The committee record shows the broader policy debate centered on balancing state‑level incentives for new generation projects while maintaining protections for utility customers.

Committee testimony and discussion referenced the Quip/QIP process (as discussed by members), the IURC’s review authority, and long‑running concerns about how planning and construction costs are treated in rate cases. Lawmakers and witnesses said additional consumer‑communication and transparency measures could be examined in future sessions.

Votes at a glance: Committee advanced SB423 as amended; transcript records the committee result as \"passes 8‑4.\"","Senate Bill 423 was amended to broaden who can partner with utilities on energy projects and to clarify that costs contributed by partners cannot subsequently be recovered from utility ratepayers; the committee approved the measure after discussion about ratepayer protections.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6082636,"Committee approves amendment to speed pole-attachment process for broadband projects",1482,86000,1568000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936750-34f66f22cc9e3607acffb51b0b50883c&start=86&end=1568","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936750-34f66f22cc9e3607acffb51b0b50883c/thumbnail_86000.jpg","/articles/6082636/Indiana/Committee-approves-amendment-to-speed-pole-attachment-process-for-broadband-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082636-4e111692cd97e99a1dd3152f0b64a17b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770814896&Signature=di5UaysQaDrGJyd3xL2SAtX5dDuGwHs5N2cPOgAV0zbBzjFzBRyEO4LqAJk5gpDjUNke3wK~-DBaepfbdx9GRHc~ywnqXN2AOrj9YgQeB~SxEg4LofRZ5tGwHeFJLlB9Uu2XcS5QQGf0-Tny9nkB-2u50FD98jPeUBaWi2AGkdTlzfD2qjlx8AUbDk4M9wdbz42YcYqgHbMScnEi7bVk24y0zTEjuTHOkXvHVa4saJH3KrR3YC0ULoI0Y4UjBbHoXu-FdL9cAaI3tCDzb4qxbY7pm0XUYajuiuDl0DXYeQJFskCq9vXVZRIGPx4fPEUItEDHUBei7CooWpmALguoFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee on an informational session and vote advanced an amendment to Senate Bill 502 intended to speed pole‑attachment approvals for broadband projects, backing a mix of voluntary pre‑filing meetings, mandatory timelines and mediation options.

Supporters said the change is aimed at clearing bottlenecks that have delayed federally funded rural broadband construction. \"We believe the amended bill strikes a balance in ensuring ongoing coordination and communication,\" Matt Long, with the Indiana Energy Association, told the committee.

Committee Chair Representative Soliday opened discussion by describing the amendment as a two‑part compromise: a transparency requirement for grants and a two‑track pole‑attachment process. Under the amendment, the state broadband or telecommunications office must publish grant contracts within five days of signing; prospective attachers and pole owners must hold a meeting within 60 days to discuss a project in general terms; and, for larger batches, the amendment sets explicit timelines and conflict‑resolution steps drawn from recent Federal Communications Commission guidance.

Steven Cox, Chief Broadband Officer for the state’s broadband office, told lawmakers the office views the measure as a tool to “expedite pole attachment requests being addressed in order to facilitate project completion,” and noted the state had dedicated significant federal BEED funding to connect unserved and underserved Hoosiers.

Industry witnesses described the changes as practical and urged adoption. Ryan Hadley of the Indiana Electric Cooperatives called the amendment “a fair compromise.” Comcast’s Joni Hart said her company is supporting pre‑filing meetings and detailed upfront invoices and described make‑ready costs and timing as a central practical issue; she told the committee Comcast had about \"$100 million in rural broadband projects happening in 20 counties\" and said make‑ready estimates and workforce constraints had caused delays in prior rounds.

The amendment incorporates numeric thresholds discussed at the FCC level: subprojects under a 300‑pole threshold are expected to be handled under normal business processes, a 3,000‑pole threshold imposes a 30‑day batching rule, and larger batches follow the longer mandatory timelines in the amendment. Hart and other witnesses welcomed shortening the make‑ready estimate timeline from 180 days to 120 days.

The committee moved and approved Amendment 5 by consent and recorded the measure as passed by the committee. The amendment and the bill are intended to operate in tandem with federal BEED funding and FCC timelines, according to testimony.

Proponents said the bill seeks to reduce unauthorized or ‘‘illegal’’ attachments that sometimes occur when providers attach equipment because delays make projects unworkable, though witness testimony drew a distinction between unauthorized attachments by parties with permissive agreements and truly illegal attachments where no agreement exists.

Opponents did not mount sustained formal opposition in the hearing; rather, stakeholders from utilities, electric cooperatives, cable and broadband trade associations testified in favor of the amendment after negotiations among parties produced the text now before the committee.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved Amendment 5 to SB502 and advanced the bill by a committee vote recorded in the transcript as passing the committee (final tally recorded in committee as \"passes fifteen‑zero\").

The committee record shows stakeholders including: Matt Long (Indiana Energy Association), Ryan Hadley (Indiana Electric Cooperatives), Steven Cox (Indiana Broadband Office), Daniel Miller (Indiana Broadband and Technology Association), Joseph Dant (Indiana Cable and Broadband Association), Joni Hart (Comcast), and Carolyn Wright (Indiana Municipal Power Agency) provided direct testimony and answered questions.

The committee indicated the change is intended to encourage early cooperation so projects funded with federal BEED money move from application into construction more quickly, and to provide mandatory escalation paths (mediation and a third‑party resolution option) when bilateral negotiation breaks down.

The bill now moves to subsequent legislative steps where members may offer floor amendments and additional review.","The Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee approved an amendment to Senate Bill 502 that sets timelines, pre‑filing meetings and alternative dispute paths for pole attachments to help broadband projects funded by BEED move forward.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel approves energy‑production‑zones bill after heated public testimony on local control

Committee advances bill to allow utility partnerships but bars recovery from ratepayers for partner contributions

Committee approves amendment to speed pole-attachment process for broadband projects