ILNews

Environmental bills to watch

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

A number of bills with environmental impact have been introduced in both houses of the Indiana Legislature. Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, is following bills the HEC believes have potential for movement and support in both houses and from both parties. The HEC considers what bills might further economic development in Indiana by supporting environmentally friendly practices. For example, if Indiana has lax laws regarding pollution in the drinking water supply, businesses will be less likely to have operations in Indiana, he said.

This year, the HEC has been watching bills addressing financial assurance for concentrated animal feeding operations, property-assessed clean energy bonds, and renewable energy standards. A fourth issue, the promotion of public transportation, was shelved this session because of its impact on the budget and a need to raise taxes. The HEC is also following bills addressing activities that could affect ground and surface water, including a bill to limit the use of phosphorus in lawn fertilizers, and coal bed methane operations.

Financial assurance

HB 1568 – Provides that a person may not start the construction of a concentrated animal feeding operation, an expansion of a CAFO that would increase animal capacity or manure containment capacity, or both without obtaining the prior approval of the Department of Environmental Management. Establishes financial assurance requirements for confined feeding operations and CAFOs. Requires the Water Pollution Control Board to adopt rules before Jan. 1, 2012, to set the amount of financial assurance – insurance that would cover the damage caused from a spill or closure of a manure storage site – that is required.

Latest Action: Referred to Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development: Jan. 20.

Coal bed methane and other oil and gas safety issues

SB 71 – Allows the Department of Natural Resources to adopt emergency rules for most aspects of oil and gas and other petroleum regulation. Provides that oil and gas statutes do not apply to methane ventilation governed under an approved federal Mine Safety and Health Administration coal mine ventilation plan. Allows the director to review certain activities that may result in waste or endangerment of the health and safety of miners. Requires the Natural Resources Commission to regulate various aspects of coal bed methane wells.

Latest Action: Approved on 3rd reading, referred to the House: Feb. 8.

Property-assessed clean energy bonds

SB 260 – Allows the legislative body of a unit (other than a township) to establish a clean energy improvement financing program to fund clean energy improvements for voluntary participants in the program. Requires financing to come from private equity or federal grants or loans. Prohibits the legislative body from issuing bonds to finance clean energy improvements. Establishes a 20-year period for the payment of special assessments on each participating property. Provides that assessments are billed, collected, and enforced in the same manner as property taxes.

Latest Action: Approved by Committee on Utilities & Technology: Feb. 7.

Similar bill: HB 1457

Latest Action: Referred to Committee on Local Government: Jan. 20.

Restrictions on fertilizer containing phosphorus

HB 1425 – Establishes restrictions on the application of fertilizer material that contains phosphorus. Provides exceptions for fertilizer material that contains less than 0.67 percent of phosphorus per weight or is used for agriculture purposes. Requires distributors and licensed commercial lawn-care applicators to prepare and provide certain consumer educational information.

Latest Action: Referred to Committee on Natural Resources: Jan. 18.

Renewable electricity standard

SB 453 – Requires an electricity supplier to provide a certain percentage of its total electricity supply from renewable energy resources. Establishes the Renewable Energy Resources Fund to receive penalties paid by electricity suppliers that fail to supply electricity from renewable energy resources. Requires the Utility Regulatory Commission to report not later than April 1, 2016, to the General Assembly on the effectiveness of and industry compliance with the renewable energy standard.

Latest Action: Referred to Committee on Utilities & Technology: Jan 12.

Clean energy standards

SB 251 – Requires the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to allow an energy utility to recover certain federally mandated costs through periodic retail rate adjustment mechanisms. Sets standards for what is clean energy. Requires the IURC to adopt rules to establish the Voluntary Clean Energy Portfolio Standard Program to provide incentives to participating electricity suppliers to provide specified percentages of electricity from clean energy sources. Establishes goals and reporting requirements.

Latest Action: Reassigned to Committee on Utilities & Technology: Feb. 7

Source: Jesse Kharbanda, Hoosier Environmental Council; Indiana General Assembly website. Action on bills current as of Feb. 14.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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 Indiana Lawyer 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT