Senate Bill 265 (Carbon Sequestration Pilot Project), authored by Rep. Jon Ford (R-Terre Haute), was heard in the Senate Environmental Committee on January 24. This bill changes the description of the carbon sequestration pilot project that is authorized under current law. It eliminates the requirement that the operator of the carbon sequestration pilot project be designated by the director of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Instead, it requires that the operator has submitted an application for a permit for the underground injection and permanent geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide to be issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill limits any potential liability of this pilot project by providing that a person asserting a carbon sequestration claim must prove actual interference with the reasonable use of the person’s property or direct and tangible physical damage to the person’s property, not just a lowering of property value due to perceived risk.

The Chamber supports this legislation, has language similar to that of SB 373 in 2021and HB 1249 that is currently moving through the House. It addresses property rights and liability for carbon sequestration specific to the pilot project established in Terre Haute. This bill is consistent with several recommendations regarding carbon made in the Indiana Chamber Foundation’s energy study, Powering Indiana’s Economic Future. The bill passed out of committee by a vote of 10-1 and is now eligible for further action by the full Senate.

House Bill 1224 (Government Investments and Contracts), authored by Rep. Ethan Manning (R-Logansport), was heard Tuesday in the House Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance. This bill provides that the state, a political subdivision or a separate or independent body corporate and politic may not make certain investments in companies that boycott companies that engage in the exploration, production, use, transportation, sale or manufacturing of fossil fuel-based energy. The prohibition also includes the boycott against companies that do business with fossil fuel-based energy companies. It provides that a state or local governmental body may not enter into a contract with certain companies for the purchase of supplies or services unless the contract contains a written verification from the company that the company does not boycott energy companies and will not boycott energy companies during the term of the contract. This is model legislation that was promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council and recently passed in Texas. The Chamber testified that we are neutral with concerns on this legislation. We indicated that we don’t believe that legitimate businesses that are in compliance with the law should be discriminated against based on what they make or produce. However, the Legislature should not interfere with businesses’ prerogative to do business or not to do business with whoever they deem appropriate as long as there isn’t an illegal reason. The bill passed out of committee 7-5 and is now eligible for further action on the House floor.

Senate Bill 288 (Eminent Domain by Public Utilities), authored by Sen. Brian Buchanan (R-Lebanon), was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. This bill defines a “pipeline company” and a ”public utility” for purposes of the law governing the general procedures to be used in acquiring property by eminent domain. It provides that the public utility or pipeline company must pay the defendant landowner not less than the amount of damages specified in the court appraiser’s report for the property or easement condemned, subject to the landowner’s right to file written exceptions to the court appraiser’s assessment and proceed to trial. The bill amends the statute with respect to an eminent domain action if there is a trial and the amount of damages awarded to the landowner by the judgment is greater than the amount specified in the utility’s last offer of settlement, then the court shall award the defendant costs – including reasonable attorney’s fees – in an amount not to exceed one-third of the fair market value of the property or $50,000, whichever is greater (under current law the amount is capped at the lesser of $25,000 or the fair market value of the property). The Chamber opposed the increase in the amount of fees to be awarded in this legislation. This bill will likely increase litigation over eminent domain and increase cost for public utilities, which subsequently will go into the rates and increase costs for customers of the utilities. Moreover, the current procedure works well in most cases. The author noted the objections to the bill and vowed to work with the groups that testified in opposition to it. The measure  passed out of committee 8-3 and is now eligible for further action on the Senate floor.

Resource: Greg Ellis at (317) 264-6881 or email: gellis@indianachamber.com