Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances three‑part bill limiting local fuel and benchmarking rules and adding airport overlay protections
Summary
HB 1150 would (1) bar HOAs and local governments from restricting consumers’ choice of fuel for outdoor equipment, (2) create airport overlay districts to protect approaches and departures, and (3) prohibit local ordinances requiring building utility‑usage reporting. The committee advanced the bill after contested discussion on the benchmarking prohibition.
Representative Pressell presented House Bill 1150 as a three‑part measure to protect consumer fuel choice for outdoor equipment, establish airport overlay zoning to protect approaches and departures, and prevent local units from imposing mandatory utility‑usage reporting (energy benchmarking) on building owners.
On consumer fuel choice, Pressell said "that fuel choice should be up to the consumer," arguing homeowners associations and local governments should not be able to require electric‑only equipment. Aviation stakeholders and an engineering witness testified in support of the airport overlay provision, which the sponsor said would use existing state standards and federal Part 77 rules to keep tall structures out of approach and departure paths.
Section 4 — the bill’s restriction on mandatory local utility‑usage reporting — drew the most opposition. Delaney Barber Quan of Indiana Conservation Voters said the language would prevent local jurisdictions from collecting building energy and water‑use data that can identify efficiency opportunities, reduce demand and guide local programs. She said local benchmarking programs (citing Indianapolis as an example) include exemptions and phased rollouts to manage compliance. Oliver Berry, representing the Building Owners and Managers Association, told the committee his members prefer voluntary efficiency measures and warned that mandatory local benchmarking would add duplicative compliance and disclosure risks.
Representative Pressell acknowledged section 4 was the most contentious element and described outreach with stakeholders; he said there are roughly 2,000 targeted buildings in Indianapolis’ existing program and that participation and exemption practices are still being evaluated.
After questions and exchanges, the committee voted to advance HB 1150; the transcript records the committee vote as advancing the bill with a 6‑1 tally. The sponsor said he would continue discussions and consider amendments on the benchmarking language before subsequent readings.
