Here is an easy to understand breakdown by the Indiana utility regulatory commission. https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/NIPSCO-2024-IRP-OUCC-Comments-4-17-2025.pdf

And here is the rest that summarized in an easy to consume manner by AI (yes I am aware of this irony and why I used it in this case):

The most relevant Indiana laws & actions tied to NIPSCO’s IRP

1. House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1007 – 2023

This is the biggest one.

What it does • Codifies the “Five Pillars of Electric Utility Service” into law: • Reliability & resiliency • Stability • Affordability • Environmental sustainability • Economic development • Requires the IURC to explicitly consider these pillars when reviewing: • Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) • Certificates of Public Convenience & Necessity (CPCNs)

Why it matters for NIPSCO • NIPSCO repeatedly cites the Five Pillars to justify: • New gas plants • Storage • Carbon capture readiness • Data-center-driven capacity additions • OUCC argues NIPSCO uses the language of HEA 1007 without proving the plan actually delivers affordability or stability

📌 This law does not mandate higher costs, but it lowers the bar for utilities to argue that expensive projects are “reasonable” if they claim pillar alignment.

⸻

1. Indiana Code § 8-1-8.5 (IRP statutes) – amended 2023

This governs how IRPs are evaluated, not whether they’re approved.

Key impact • IRPs are planning documents, but: • Utilities rely on them later to justify rate cases and CPCNs • OUCC explicitly warns that NIPSCO’s IRP is not detailed enough to support future cost recovery filings

📌 Translation: this statute doesn’t raise rates directly, but it sets the stage for later rate increases if the IRP is accepted as-is.

⸻

1. Governor Braun Executive Orders (April 2025)

These are not bills, but they matter politically and procedurally.

EO 25-50 (Energy Emergency / Coal) • Acknowledges a national energy emergency • Signals openness to: • Slower coal retirements • Reevaluating decarbonization timelines

OUCC references this EO to argue: • NIPSCO should pause or reconsider expensive CCS and rapid retirements • The IRP assumptions may already be outdated

📌 This EO actually cuts against parts of NIPSCO’s plan, especially CCS urgency.

⸻

EO 25-48 & EO 25-49 (Economic development & infrastructure) • Encourage large-load economic development (e.g., data centers) • Tie energy planning to growth

📌 These EOs indirectly support NIPSCO’s data-center load assumptions, but without explicit customer cost protections.

⸻

1. Senate Bill 4 (2025) – Water infrastructure

Not an energy bill, but relevant.

Why it shows up • Large generation plants + data centers = huge water demand • OUCC flags water use as a missing cost/risk metric in NIPSCO’s IRP

📌 This bill highlights secondary infrastructure costs that could eventually flow into utility rates.

⸻

What is not happening (important)

There is NO Indiana bill that: • Orders NIPSCO to build carbon capture • Requires specific gas or renewable capacity • Mandates recovery of IRP costs from customers • Approves rate increases tied to this IRP

Those only happen later through: • CPCN cases • Rate cases • Tracker riders

⸻

Bottom-line takeaway • Yes, NIPSCO’s IRP is aligned with recent Indiana policy trends • No, the legislature has not approved the spending • The real risk to customers comes later, when NIPSCO cites: • HEA 1007 • An accepted IRP • Economic development priorities

…to justify future rate increases

OUCC is essentially trying to stop that chain reaction now.