Business Would Pay Extra for Stormwater Infrastructure Under Proposed Bill
SB 46 – Storm Water Fee Exemptions
Authored by Sen. Aaron Freeman (R-Indianapolis)
This bill provides that the board of a municipal department of storm water management, the board of a county department of storm water management, or the board of public works of a consolidated city may not assess or collect user fees for the operation and maintenance of a storm water system with respect to: (1) property where religious services are held regularly; (2) property that belongs to a school corporation and is used for educational purposes; or (3) property that is assessed as agricultural land for property tax purposes. Provides that the drainage board of a county that does not have a department of storm water management may not assess or collect fees for services provided to address issues of storm water quality and quantity with respect to: (1) property where religious services are held regularly; (2) property that belongs to a school corporation and is used for educational purposes; or (3) property that is assessed as agricultural land for property tax purposes.
Chamber position: Oppose
The latest: The bill was heard in the Senate Local Government Committee on Thursday. No one testified in support of the bill, but several parties testified against it. Committee chairman Jim Buck (R-Kokomo) indicated that he was not going to take a vote on the bill.
Indiana Chamber action/commentary: The Chamber testified in opposition. We cited our water study, the Indiana Finance Authority water study and the work of the 2019 Stormwater Task Force, which identified additional investment in stormwater infrastructure. This bill would shift costs to business property owners and residential property owners.
Even more fundamental than that is the principle that all entities that produce waste water, regardless of whether they are private, public, religious, etc., should contribute equally (based on their volume of wastewater produced) to local programs that fund the separation of waste water from stormwater. These various types of entities all pay for electricity and water. So, why should only the private sector pay for remediation of combined sewer overflows? It doesn’t make sense and, again, would shift substantial costs to businesses and residents.
Bill Will Not Allow Utilities to Shut Down Generation Based Upon Economic Decisions
HB 1414 – Retirement of Electric Generation Facilities
Authored by Rep. Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso)
This bill provides that a public utility may not retire, sell, transfer or terminate a lease with respect to an electric generation facility unless the public utility first obtains from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) a determination that the public convenience and necessity require the retirement, sale, transfer or lease termination. Provides that a public utility that seeks: (1) as part of any proceeding before the IURC; and (2) based wholly, or in part, on one or more federally mandated requirements; to retire an electric generation facility, or to otherwise remove an electric generation facility from the public utility’s supply portfolio, shall submit to the IURC the directive requiring the public utility to retire the electric generation facility or to otherwise remove the electric generation facility from the public utility’s portfolio.
Also, it specifies that a consent decree, an Environmental Protection Agency rule and the utility’s interpretation of an administrative rule does not constitute a federally mandated requirement for purposes of these provisions. Prohibits a public utility from acting, or failing to act, in any manner that will materially and adversely affect the operation, safety, capacity, economic useful life or any other aspect of the electric generation facility sought to be retired or removed.
Chamber position: Oppose
The latest: The bill was heard in the House Utilities, Energy, and Telecommunications Committee on Wednesday. Chairman Soliday offered an amendment which removed the consent decree language but allows a utility to earn an additional return on investment if it hits certain metrics. There was a lot of testimony against the bill – the Chamber, utilities, business groups, environmental groups, etc. – from groups that are not always on the same side. Still, the bill was passed by a vote of 9-4.
Indiana Chamber action/commentary: This bill would preclude utilities from making sound business decisions on items such as uneconomic operation of an electric generating facility, tax credits, changing technology, demand, etc. It may create other issues as well. It could increase costs due to a utility’s non-compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations or federal consent decrees (not required to be entered into by a state regulatory authority) because the bill specifically excludes those as valid reasons. This bill would likely lead to increased costs for all (utilities and ratepayers). Legislation like this needs to wait for the results of the Chamber’s energy study and the recommendations of the 21st Century Energy Task Force to come out.
More Sensible Approach to Spill Reporting Goes to Full House
HB 1337 – Notification of Water Utilities and Water Treatment Plants
Authored by Rep. Ryan Hatfield (D-Evansville)
The bill provides that the Environmental Rules Board shall amend provisions within the administrative rules governing spills to provide for notification to a water utility and water treatment plant in the event of a spill or release of any substance to a water that may cause a threat to the operation of a water utility or water treatment plant.
Chamber position: Oppose in part/support in part
The latest: The bill was heard in the House Environmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday and was passed 11-0; it is now eligible for further action on the floor.
Indiana Chamber action/commentary: The Chamber testified against additional layers of regulation, noting that there are already sufficient reporting provisions that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency require. However, we prefer this bill over HB 1257, which was heard last week. If the General Assembly is determined to amend the current requirements, we would support this approach.
Unfortunate Bill Penalizes Business That Decide to Produce Their Own Energy
HB 1327 – Power Charge Indifference Adjustment
Authored by Rep. Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso)
The bill has two parts. First, it provides that in acting upon a petition for public convenience and necessity for the construction, purchase or lease of an electric generation facility, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) shall consider the amount, ownership, current and potential uses, and current and potential assessed value of any land required for the facility; the outstanding costs associated with any of the applicant’s existing facilities or infrastructure that will be retired or replaced, in whole or in part, in connection with the facility.
Second, it establishes a power charge indifference adjustment (PCIA) with respect to a reduced load customer of an electric utility. The bill defines a “reduced load customer” of an electric utility as a customer with respect to whom the amount of electricity or retail electric service delivered by the electric utility is reduced because of the customer’s use of a cogeneration facility or the termination of a requirements contract or another contract under which the customer has agreed to purchase a designated amount or percentage of electricity from the electric utility to meet the customer’s demand for electricity.
The bill provides that a PCIA is to be based on the reduced load customer’s proportionate share of the electric utility’s costs outstanding in connection with existing facilities or infrastructure and existing power purchase agreements – as of the in service date of the customer’s cogeneration facility or the date of termination of the requirements contract or other similar contract.
Chamber position: Oppose
The latest: The bill was scheduled to be heard in the House Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee on Wednesday. However, chairman Soliday merely explained the bill and then withdrew it, noting that the 21st Century Energy Task Force would be looking at this issue later this year.
Indiana Chamber action/commentary: While the bill appears to be gone for now, we will remain vigilant throughout the 2020 process. This first part of the bill expands the existing criteria the IURC shall take into account when acting upon a petition for public convenience and necessity for the construction, purchase or lease of an electric generation facility. This seems unnecessary as the process is already very thorough and these changes will likely increase costs. The second part of the bill will penalize businesses that wish to manage their energy needs by making it more difficult to generate their own electricity. It curtails the freedom to contract for energy by codifying penalties for termination of energy contracts. Safeguards should already be built into these types of contracts through the negotiation process. It would be more appropriate to wait for the results of the Chamber’s energy study and the recommendations of the 21st Century Energy Task Force.
Reasonable Requirements on Use of PFAS Foam
HB 1189 – Use of Firefighting Foam Containing PFAS
Authored by Rep. Peggy Mayfield (R-Martinsville)
This bill prohibits the use of Class B firefighting foam containing an intentionally added polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemical for training purposes and testing purposes, unless the testing facility has implemented appropriate measures to prevent releases of the firefighting foam to the environment.
Chamber position: Support
The latest: The bill unanimously passed the House Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee on Tuesday and is eligible for further action in the House. No one testified against the bill, while several parties testified in support.
Indiana Chamber action/commentary: Although this bill creates an additional layer of regulation for use of PFAS foam for firefighting training, the Chamber believes such containment of the chemical during training is a reasonable approach to the concerns about PFAS. Currently, the Environmental Professional Agency is studying PFAS chemicals to determine their risk and whether they need additional regulation. This bill has implications for industries like steel manufacturers, who have their own internal firefighters.
Senate Version of Pesticides Bill Significantly Altered
SB 438 – Regulation of Pesticide Use and Application
Authored by Sen. Jean Leising (R-Oldenburg)
The bill makes changes to the statute governing the state chemist’s authority to impose civil penalties for purposes of the law concerning pesticides, pesticides use and application. It provides that the changes to the state chemist’s imposition of civil penalties do not apply to the imposition of a civil penalty pursuant to a proceeding of the state chemist initiated before July 1, 2020. Under current law, the state chemist has the option to impose civil penalties for violations of pesticide laws and rules but may only impose civil penalties in accordance with the schedule adopted as rules by the Indiana Pesticide Review Board. Establishes a new schedule of civil penalties in statute, which are significantly higher, and requires the state chemist to impose the penalties.
Chamber position: Support
The latest: The bill was heard in the Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday, and Sen. Leising offered an amendment in committee that made significant alterations.
It changes the effective date and removes the civil penalty schedule, plus changes the amounts that the state chemist may impose for certain violations of the laws governing pesticide registration, use and application. Most importantly, it establishes the civil penalty advisory panel to study and recommend a point system for use in determining the civil penalty that may be imposed for a violation of the pesticide use and application law. It requires the panel to make recommendations to the General Assembly before December 1, 2020. The bill subsequently passed out of committee by a vote of 9-0.
Indiana Chamber action/commentary: The bill started out identical to HB 1119, which we opposed. However, we testified in support of this amended bill. It would require input from groups, including business, before changes could be made to civil penalty amounts and their application to violations.
Resource: Greg Ellis at (317) 264-6881 or email: gellis@indianachamber.com
