Lawmakers vote to put Energizing Indiana program on hold

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that would "pause" the state's energy-efficiency program was sent to the governor's desk Monday, but Indiana lawmakers were still mulling over other tough issues, including the proposed relaxing of gun regulations, as they entered the final week of their 2014 session.

Senate lawmakers on Monday approved by a 37-8 vote placing the state's energy-efficiency program on hold for a year while they study the costs and benefits. That measure now heads to Gov. Mike Pence for consideration.

Supporters of the program, including businesses and environmental groups, say it employs hundreds of workers and saves money for consumers who receive free, in-home energy audits. But opponents of the Energizing Indiana program, led by the state's utilities and major manufacturers, have criticized it as a wasteful tax that is hurting the state's economy.

Senate Utilities Chairman Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, originally sought to exempt utilities and manufacturers from the tax that funds the program, but House Republicans changed the measure to eliminate the program altogether. Merritt said he would like a year to study the effectiveness of the energy audits.

"This allows us to look at Energize Indiana. Then the Legislature and the Pence Administration can say it's a terrific program, or maybe it's not," Merritt said.

The Energizing Indiana program has cost ratepayers $500 million since 2009, and will cost as much as $1.9 billion more by 2019, Merritt said.
The legislation, Senate Bill 340, would require the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to analyze the program's costs and benefits, and issue a report to the General Assembly by Aug. 15 of this year.

Guns near schools

Meanwhile on Monday, House and Senate negotiators spent the morning grilling an opponent of a guns measure that would allow parents to keep guns in their cars while on school property.

A bill to allow properly stowed and hidden guns in school parking lots drew heated debate in a final round of negotiations Monday. The original bill would have banned gun buy-back programs, but a Senate committee effectively gutted the measure and only would prohibit use of state or federal funding for the programs.

Testimony grew tense when members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America spoke against the bill, which they say will create easier access to guns that could be used in school shootings.

"I don't know that there is a compromise when you're talking about guns at schools," said Nikki McNally, Indiana chapter leader of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

"There was such strong opposition from educators and mothers alike that I don't think there's an in-between."

Drugs tests for food stamps

In addition, a vote on a contested bill to test certain welfare recipients for drugs is expected Tuesday. Bill author Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, now must reconcile his original plan to screen and potentially drug test any recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families with changes made in the Senate.

The measure now only would drug test applicants with past drug convictions, although McMillin said his final draft will consider whether the bill could face constitutional questioning.

Another bill to drug test welfare recipients was ruled unconstitutional in Florida in December 2013.

Lawmakers spent the day moving between brief meetings of conference committees throughout the Statehouse and meetings of the entire House and Senate.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, cautioned his members that they were bumping up against a fast-approaching deadline for action. He noted 105 different measures were still pending as of Monday afternoon.

"I would encourage you to very quickly wrap up your discussion with your colleagues on bringing these bills to a close," he said.


  • What Cost-Benefit Analysis?
    Jerry - Have you seen the cost-benefit analysis? Do you know if the study was done by an independent objective organization? I wonder what energy efficiency companies like Honeywell and Siemen's would say about the legislature's action. Remember, the intent of the proposed legislation was to descope the program, not kill it.
  • Because
    Because Jerry the energy efficiency program didn't work from a cost-benefit analysis. Any why should someone who teaches at a school be deprived of a weapon to defend themselves to and from the school where that person teaches? The only thing you got right is the drug testing initiative which is a waste of time.
  • Indiana's Sad State of Affairs
    Anyone peering in from outside the state of Indiana would simply shake their heads at the gross stupidity of these laws. Why would you eliminate a program that encourages energy efficiency, make guns more likely to appear on school property, and drug test low income welfare recipients as a specific group? And BTW, Senator Merritt works for the railroad industry, an industry in Indiana that hauls a lot of coal and does not want to do anything to affect utilities bottom lines. Now, let's see what Gov Pence does.
    • Surprised?
      But of course they did, even Mississippi has cleaner air.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

    2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

    3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

    4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

    5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?