Senate removes SMR cost‑recovery language; consumer‑protection amendment fails

The Indiana Senate on April 10, 2025, approved an amendment deleting language that would have let utilities recover development and preconstruction costs for small modular reactors (SMRs) and rejected a separate consumer‑protection amendment that would have required third‑party affordability analysis, caps on rate increases and explicit protections for low‑income households.

Supporters of the consumer‑protection amendment, offered by Senator J.D. Yoder, said the changes were narrow, targeted and intended to ensure ratepayers would not shoulder unexpected costs. "This amendment does 3 critical things and it deals with transparency, affordability, and equity," Yoder said. He described requirements for utilities to include year‑by‑year rate‑payer impacts in project proposals, a third‑party affordability analysis, a prohibition on rate increases over 5% without a mitigation plan, and measures to protect low‑income Hoosiers. "This amendment doesn't stop development. It doesn't block innovation. It simply demands that those profiting from Indiana's energy future also share in the responsibility to protect the people who power this state," Yoder said.

Senator Eric Cook urged defeat of Yoder's amendment, saying much of the language duplicated protections already in the bill or in statute. "With respect to the affordability analysis in code already at IC 8‑1‑1.1‑6.1, the IURC already has an expert witness fund available for cases," Cook said, urging senators to rely on existing procedures at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Cook also framed the bill as an incentive to attract manufacturers and jobs: "This isn't utilities. These are manufacturers of SMRs ... those jobs have an average salary of a hundred thousand dollars a year."

The Senate approved an amendment (Amendment 6) that "deletes from the bill language concerning cost recovery for development and preconstruction costs for SMRs." That motion was presented by Senator Cook and carried by voice vote; the clerk then placed the bill on engrossment after subsequent amendment activity concluded.

On the roll call for Senator Yoder's consumer‑protection amendment, the clerk recorded 11 ayes and 35 noes; the amendment failed. Senator Hunter Hundley later offered an amendment to cap tax credits awarded under the bill at $10,000,000 per year; Senator Hundley argued for a fiscal restraint and compared the proposed open credits to a "blank check." Senator Cook and others argued a cap would undermine the incentive. The Hundley cap amendment was defeated by voice vote.

The bill's sponsors said the measure already included multiple customer protections spread across several sections and noted the IURC's statutory authority; opponents said the consumer‑protection amendment added requirements not necessary or duplicative of existing law.

The Senate ordered the bill to engrossment after the amendment process concluded.

Votes at a glance: Amendment deleting cost‑recovery language (Amendment 6) — adopted (voice vote). Amendment adding transparency/affordability/equity requirements (Amendment 5, Yoder) — failed (roll call 11 ayes, 35 noes). Amendment capping tax credits at $10,000,000 (Amendment 2, Hundley) — failed (voice vote). The underlying bill was ordered to engrossment.

The bill summary, and the points raised in debate, center on balancing economic development incentives for SMR manufacturers with protections for electricity ratepayers. Sponsors said incentives are "but‑for" (paid only if income is generated); critics pushed for clearer, enforceable consumer protections and limits on incentives.

The Senate will take up third reading and any further conference actions in subsequent days.