A bill focused on bringing more nuclear power to Indiana has passed the House of Representatives and moved on to the Senate.
House Bill 1007 — authored by Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso — would provide a tax liability for expenses related to manufacturing small modular nuclear reactors. Indiana has no nuclear power plants, but state leaders have pushed for nuclear power.
According to Post-Tribune archives, the bill would establish procedures for energy utilities to request from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission an expedited generation resource plan to meet customer load growth that exceeds a specific threshold; a generation resource submittal for the acquisition of a specific generation resource in accordance with an approved EGR plan; and a project to serve one or more large load customers.
The bill says project development costs for a public utility should recover 80% of the approved project development costs under the approved rate schedule and defer the remaining 20% of approved project development costs for recovery as part of the utility’s next general rate case before the IURC, according to Post-Tribune archives.
House Bill 1007, on Feb. 13, passed the House in a 67-25 vote. It was referred to the Senate on Feb. 14, according to the Indiana General Assembly website.
“It’s an important bill,” Soliday said. “A lot of this deals with the future. Progress is made when gray-haired old men … plant trees whose shade they’ll never enjoy.”
Soliday expects the Senate to read the bill during the second week in March, he told the Post-Tribune Monday.
Environmental activists called House Bill 1007 “an unnecessary energy inflation” for families, according to a Feb. 13 news release. Various organizations say the bill creates “a cumbersome process” to retire coal plants.
Proposals from lawmakers could make Indiana one of the most coal-reliant states in the country, according to the news release.
“Hoosier communities need Indiana lawmakers to focus on protecting the interests of hard-working families instead of putting together one of the largest corporate handouts for monopoly utilities and tech companies that Indiana has ever seen,” Robyn Skuya-Boss, Hoosier chapter director for the Sierra Club, said in the news release.
Ashley Williams, executive director of Just Transition Northwest Indiana, said House Bill 1007 is an attack on region residents, mentioning residents who attended packed IURC hearings this winter about a proposed NIPSCO electric rate increase.
The 22% electric rate increase would cost NIPSCO’s typical residential customers an additional $32 each month, according to the utility, but the Citizens Action Coalition says the increase is more like $45, according to Post-Tribune archives.
“For far too long, Northwest Indiana has been the fossil fuel industry’s dumping ground,” Williams said in the news release. “This legislation opens the floodgates for faulty technologies that will treat our backyards as testing grounds for unproven SMRs to serve hyper-scale data centers, which will siphon off the only drinking water source for millions and leave us to foot the bill.”
Soliday stressed the importance of small modular nuclear reactors, saying that one might not be certified for about 10 years, but a lot of states will move to those as an energy source.
SMRs are advanced nuclear reactors that have about one-third generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
A study from Purdue University found that SMRs release carbon-free electricity that have the capacity of Indiana growing energy needs.
The Purdue study found that R M Shahfer, a coal site in Jasper County, would be suitable for nuclear energy. The study also looked at Bailly in Porter County and Michigan City’s existing coal plant, but both were deemed unsuitable.
Nuclear energy is the most dangerous, expensive and dirtiest way to generate electricity, Kerwin Olson, executive director of the Citizens Action Coalition, previously told the Post-Tribune. Olson is also concerned about the waste and construction costs.
“(SMRs) are incredibly, incredibly financially risky,” he said. “Utility companies would not even consider building (SMRs) or advanced nuclear reactors without the full backing of American taxpayers and ratepayers’ subsidies and incentives.”
SMRs aren’t new technology, Soliday said, adding that they have been in nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers for 70 years. He encourages people to do their research on SMRs to see how they would benefit the state.
“Do what I did,” Soliday said. “Do your homework.”