Connect with us

Indiana

Solar belongs on rooftops, not Indiana farmland | Opinion

Published

on

Solar belongs on rooftops, not Indiana farmland | Opinion



Solar farms depend on subsidies. It is hard to justify this corporate welfare while the state and federal governments take away similar benefits from homeowners.

play

While solar farms might not cross your mind as an issue that can decide elections, their development fills town halls in rural Indiana with angry locals. Tippecanoe and Clark counties passed new restrictions on solar farms this month, while more than 70 other counties have temporary bans, for good reason.

Advertisement

“The locations that solar companies want are in the best agricultural grounds in my district,” state Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, told me over the phone. Leising is the chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture.  “[Some people are] worried about the valuation of their property. Then you have people that are saying, plus, I just don’t want to look at it in my backyard.”

Leising successfully pushed the state to study the loss of prime farmland last year. Indiana has lost 345,000 acres of farmland and over 3,050 farms since 2010. However, the farmland still in use has become more efficient and the state is producing more crops than ever before.

A bigger concern is that commercial-scale solar farms depend on government subsidies and tax abatements. It is hard to justify this corporate welfare while the state and federal governments take away similar benefits from individuals looking to make their homes more self-sufficient. If the state and federal governments are going to invest in solar somewhere, it should be on rooftops, not on Indiana farmland.

The state recently created the ultimate tax abatement for solar farms. Businesses won’t pay any personal property taxes if they have less than $2 million worth of equipment in 2026, and the personal property taxes paid for new equipment can lower to zero as the equipment fully depreciates in value. Some estimates show Indiana solar farms averaged about $50,000 in personal property per acre, meaning they will likely save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Advertisement

In the same bill, Indiana eliminated a property tax deduction for homeowners whose home values increase after installing solar panels. A study from Zillow showed that homes that installed solar panels increased in value by 4.1%, and the deduction was originally put in place to make sure they weren’t unfairly punished for making their homes more energy efficient.

Not to mention, the state recently eliminated net metering on behalf of energy companies. Rather than receiving full retail rates for excess electricity sent back to the grid, homeowners are now paid at a much lower rate. Meanwhile, new limits on tax credits for solar energy in the federal budget reconciliation bill are predicted to favor large companies that can pass on development costs and make it much harder for homeowners to invest in solar.

Not only do large solar corporations receive unfair advantages at the expense of homeowners, but also they’re getting these benefits despite being less efficient at producing energy.

“Some people say sun is free and wind is free, but they’re not … because there’s a huge transmission cost,” Leising said. “When you site a solar field in the middle of nowhere … then how are you going to get that power to where it needs to go? Right now, we don’t have enough battery storage to store the energy produced when the sun is shining.”

Advertisement

Solar panels on homes, on the other hand, are right next to where most of the energy produced is used.

If there is any benefit to solar energy, it is the possibility of seeing more self-sufficient homes and a more decentralized energy grid, where people aren’t dependent on government-granted monopolies to live their daily lives.

The benefit is almost entirely lost when it becomes another tool in the belts of those monopolies, because there are more efficient, reliable and cleaner forms of energy out there.

Any issue that involves personal property rights is going to be complicated, but when a community’s tax dollars are being stewarded poorly, it should surprise no one to see them mobilize like they have in rural Indiana.

Contact Jacob Stewart at 317-444-4683 or jacob.stewart@indystar.com. Follow him on X and Instagram.

Advertisement





Source link

Indiana

Braun asks regulators to reconsider $71 million AES rate increase

Published

on

Braun asks regulators to reconsider  million AES rate increase


Gov. Mike Braun asked state regulators to reconsider their decision to greenlight a $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana, doubling down on his condemnation of a move that could leave Indianapolis residents with higher electrical bills for years. 

Braun wrote in a June 18 news release that he had asked Indiana Utility Counselor Abby Gray, who heads the office representing ratepayers in proceedings before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, to petition for a rehearing of the AES rate case. 

Gray indicated in the release that her office would submit the petition shortly. No petition had been posted on the IURC’s online docket as of this story’s publication.

The rate increase, which was approved by the IURC on June 17, was substantially less than the $192 million increase that AES initially requested. It was also less than the amount proposed in a settlement last October between AES and major electricity consumers. 

Advertisement

But the Office of Utility Consumer Counselor, which Gray leads, came out strongly against any increase to AES’s base rates. In September, the OUCC called for a $21 million reduction instead.

As the Republican Party grapples with rising discontent over affordability, Braun has used opposition to rising utility rates to telegraph that he’s committed to keeping costs down for Indiana residents. He signed a law in February that allows the state to make rate-setting decisions that reward or penalize utilities based on metrics including affordability.

 In March, he told reporters that he would take on Indiana’s five investor-owned utilities, describing himself as the “new sheriff in town.”

And after the IURC voted 3-1 to approve the AES rate increase, he wrote in a post to X that he was “deeply disappointed.”

Advertisement

Braun wrote in the June 18 news release that he had appointed Gray, a longtime OUCC lawyer and judge, to her current post because he knew she “would help me fight for Hoosiers.” 

According to AES’s estimates, the rate increase will cost households an additional $5 per month for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity they use, beginning in July. A second hike will take effect in January. 

Tilly Robinson is a Pulliam fellow for the Indianapolis Star. She can be reached at tilly.robinson@indystar.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Indiana

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill

Published

on

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill


The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.

It now heads to the Senate floor.

The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.

Advertisement

A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”

Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.

Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.

Advertisement

Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.

The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.

It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.

Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.

Advertisement

In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.

“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.

“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”

The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”

Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.

Advertisement

Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.

The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.



Source link

Continue Reading

Indiana

State regulators OK $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana

Published

on

State regulators OK  million rate increase for AES Indiana


(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.

That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.

Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.

“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”

Advertisement

Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.

“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”

The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.

“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”

Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.

Advertisement

“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”

AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.

The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.

Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.

Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.

Advertisement

Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.

“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”

Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.

Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”

AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.

Advertisement

The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”

A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending