Senate utilities committee advances HB 1007 on expedited energy projects, defeats low‑income assistance amendment

INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Senate Utilities Committee advanced House Bill 1007 on a party‑line 8‑3 vote to recommit the measure to the Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee, after more than two hours of testimony on proposals to speed approval of large electric generation projects, offer incentives for small modular nuclear reactors and impose stricter reviews before retiring coal plants.

The bill’s author, Representative Todd Solliday, told the committee the measure creates a multi‑part framework: an incentive and limited cost‑recovery mechanism for small modular reactors (SMRs), a 20 percent tax credit for in‑state SMR manufacturing, expedited review tracks for “large‑load” customers, and a process requiring the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) to find that a planned plant retirement is cost‑effective and does not reduce overall grid availability. "What Quip does allow them to pay as they go and recover the cost," Solliday said of the construction‑phase cost recovery mechanism, and he described safeguards that would limit utility recovery if a project fails: "Now what happens if the project fails? ... they can only recover under the bill 80%. The last 20% they have to get in a rate case."

Why it matters: Committee members and witnesses framed the bill around two competing priorities — rapidly growing electric demand from large industrial and data‑center customers, and protecting existing ratepayers from paying for speculative projects. Supporters said the bill positions Indiana to win economic development and respond quickly to large customers; opponents said it shifts excessive financial risk onto residential and small‑business customers and moves prematurely toward unproven reactor technology.

Key provisions and protections

- SMR cost recovery and oversight: The bill authorizes a construction‑phase cost recovery mechanism (a "tracker" sometimes called a quip‑style incentive in testimony) under IURC review; utilities would be allowed to recover up to 80% of certain development costs through rates, while the remaining 20% would be subject to a later rate case and prudence review. Solliday summarized the intent as limiting risk to consumers while helping utilities finance large projects.

- Manufacturing tax credit: The bill would create a 20% tax credit for in‑state manufacturing of SMR components to compete with incentives in other states.

- Large‑load customer obligations and expedited review: For customers seeking very large amounts of power the bill sets an 80% purchase guarantee standard (various contracting mechanisms permitted) and creates an expedited Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) pathway with a 150‑day clock for specified filings. The statute would define a "large‑load" threshold (discussed in committee at 150 megawatts) and a project‑specific expedited track.

- Coal retirements and IURC review: Utilities would need an IURC order finding a planned retirement is cost‑effective for consumers and that replacement resources provide equal or greater grid availability (using MISO dispatch metrics) before retiring a fossil plant.

Amendments and committee actions

- Amendment 5 (technical/tariff language): Adopted by unanimous consent to remove tariff language that conflicted with existing contracts.

- Amendment 6 (low‑income utility customer programs): Offered by Senator Hundley to allow energy utilities to create customer assistance programs like water/wastewater utilities already can, subject to IURC approval and rate‑case review. The committee defeated Amendment 6 in a roll call, 8‑3 (Ayes: Hundley, Spencer, Ford; Noes: Buchanan, Dorio, Zay, Burn, Dirie, Lisonbee, Donato, Chair Cook voted No). The chair announced "A motion is defeated 8 to 3."

- Final committee motion: The committee voted 8‑3 to recommit HB 1007 to Tax and Fiscal Policy (motion as amended passed). The chair and several senators emphasized the bill would be further refined in tax and fiscal, while opponents said fiscal protections remain insufficient.

Testimony and positions

Supporters

- Danielle McGrath, president of the Indiana Energy Association, said HB 1007 "positions Indiana for the future" by fostering SMR development and adding regulatory tools to meet large, rapid demand increases. She said utilities and state institutions are already studying SMRs and the bill helps remove barriers.

- Ryan Hadley, director of policy for Indiana Electric Cooperatives, and David Ober of the Indiana Chamber urged the committee to consider the bill as a balanced approach to resource adequacy and economic development. Ober noted a 2024 North American Reliability Corporation finding that MISO Zone 6 faces elevated reliability risk and said the bill helps address the signal for more capacity.

Opponents and concerns

- Environmental and consumer groups – including the Sierra Club Hoosier Chapter (Robin Scribe Abbas), Hoosier Environmental Council (Sam Carpenter), Citizens Action Coalition (Kerwin Olson), Indiana Conservation Voters (Delaney Barber Quan) and the Indiana State Conference of the NAACP (Denise Abdulrahman) — opposed or expressed concerns about HB 1007. Objections included: SMRs could be costly and generate more waste than conventional reactors; SMRs are unproven at commercial scale; the bill shifts financial risk to ratepayers via cost recovery mechanisms; and expedited timelines could restrict public input.

- Several witnesses and public commenters urged stronger consumer protections and more robust low‑income assistance. Senator Hundley presented Amendment 6 to give energy utilities the same authority water utilities have to propose customer assistance programs; proponents said LIHEAP is limited and utilities need flexibility. The amendment was defeated in committee.

Public commenters including Peg Hausman (Monroe County) and individual ratepayers expressed opposition to placing risk on vulnerable residents and questioned whether ratepayers should fund speculative new technologies.

What the committee decided and next steps

The committee approved procedural and technical changes and voted to recommit HB 1007, as amended, to Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee for further fiscal review. The recommittal vote was 8‑3. Proponents said the measure is intended to help Indiana compete for large industrial investments and to provide an orderly process for adding generation; opponents said it needs stronger fiscal and consumer protections before it should proceed.

Votes at a glance

- Amendment 5 (remove tariff language): adopted by consent.

- Amendment 6 (allow energy utilities to propose low‑income assistance programs subject to IURC approval): defeated, roll call 8‑3 (Ayes: Hundley, Spencer, Ford; Noes: Buchanan, Dorio, Zay, Burn, Dirie, Lisonbee, Donato, Cook [chair cast no]).

- Committee action on HB 1007 (as amended): motion to recommit to Tax and Fiscal Policy passed 8‑3.

Ending

HB 1007 will return to the Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee for further review of fiscal and tax provisions, including the proposed manufacturing tax credit and the bill’s cost‑recovery mechanics. Committee members said that subsequent hearings should focus on specific cost impacts for residential ratepayers and on drafting clearer consumer protections before final passage.