What commenters had to say about environmental management regulation changes

Earlier this month, Gov. Mike Braun’s office published an 18-page report by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) listing 10 regulations that will be revisited or repealed. 

“Burdensome,” “unnecessary,” and “inconsistent with the law or best available science” were some of the criteria for revisiting regulations to support Braun’s initiative of keeping Indiana law no more stringent than federal law.

IDEM also solicited feedback from local government, industries and farmers on the regulations that should be revisited. It  received around 1,000 comments and published the 25 that best reflected public opinion at the end of the report. In these comments, several themes emerged—industries and small businesses want changes in emissions and pollution regulations and testing; companies want cheaper fees for permits and monitoring systems; farming operations are hoping for confined feeding control laws to remain strict so they can retain legal protections; and other commenters want updated water quality regulations so they align with current water conditions.

Of the 10 regulations that IDEM identified, several were related to emissions and pollution as well as agriculture. IDEM will extend the timeline for facilities to comply with pollution discharge permits and extend solid and hazardous waste permit times. It will also revisit the requirement for facilities to submit plans on minimizing accidental emissions. 

Additionally, IDEM will streamline the processes for facilities releasing hot water into water sources to justify the harmlessness of doing so. And it will explore new definitions for biomass (organic material from plants or animals that can be used as fuel) and feedstock (materials used directly in manufacturing).

In 2022, a report by the Environmental Integrity Project identified Indiana as the state with the most polluted rivers and streams. Coal combustion residuals (CCRs)—the waste products like coal ash produced when burning coal for power or electricity—are a contributor to water pollution, containing contaminants like arsenic or mercury.  

Currently, the state’s CCR disposal rule is no stricter than the federal regulation, but federal law gives the EPA the authority to approve state CCR permitting programs. Indiana does not have a CCR permit program, although it is in the process of developing one. 

A CCR permit program would essentially establish rules and guidelines for disposing of CCRs in an environmentally conscious and safe way. If IDEM establishes a CCR permit program, it will have to meet criteria like ensuring CCR landfills are able to properly hold and confine CCRs and that units will minimize them from contaminating the air.  

A CCR permit program would be an addition to Indiana’s regulations. The Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation (IKEC) said in its comment to IDEM that it supported the addition of a state CCR permit program because it would provide clarity and efficiency for industries. 

Peabody Energy, a worldwide coal producer, also wrote a comment expressing its support for Indiana law that requires industries to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit before discharging pollutants into U.S. water systems. NPDES permits allow the discharge of pollutants into public waters as long as they do not affect water quality or people’s health. Peabody said that overregulation has impacted the coal industry in the state.

The Hoosier state is also ranked ninth for carbon dioxide emissions, both overall and per capita, according to a 2025 report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. To improve air quality in Northern Indiana, certain vehicles registered in Lake and Porter counties have to go through emissions testing. One commenter described this automobile emissions testing as “burdensome” to seniors who drive under 10,000 miles yearly. 

SB 103 was signed into law in May to evaluate air quality in those areas, and it included evaluating if older Hoosiers could be exempt from emissions testing while still complying with federal regulations. The consumption habits and fuel uses of older populations may be less than that of younger populations, studies have shown. Rep. Mike Andrade, D-Munster, said the law will update Indiana’s approach to emissions regulations. 

In regard to air quality, Indianapolis has been identified as having worse air quality than the EPA’s standards on average, according to the Air Quality Index. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are a contributor to air pollution all across the country. One commenter recommended exemptions to VOC rules for facilities that produce less than 15 pounds a day of VOC or cleaning operations that use solutions with 5-10% VOC content (the current rule exempts cleaning solutions with less than 1% VOC). 

The commenter also advocated for simplifying Indiana’s emissions rules to be less stringent and align with EPA regulations. Similarly, another said that the state’s inclusion of aerosol spray cans for VOC emissions is “unduly burdensome” and should not be included in state ruling. Aerosol spray cans are not part of the EPA standard.

Monitoring emissions in the state is costly, often thousands of dollars for continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), which measure pollutant gasses in the air. State law requires fossil fuel companies like coal and natural gas facilities to have CEMS. A commenter proposed allowing a facility to waive its requirements to use CEMS if it can still accurately record pollution data in a cheaper but no less effective way.

An unnamed private aircraft fuel system company also mentioned a cheaper alternative for its business in regard to IDEM regulations. It said the pollution insurance it is required to purchase is expensive and difficult to obtain and could be replaced with a performance bond. 

Pollution insurance provides financial assistance to companies that are at risk of pollution accidents. A performance bond protects a company from not fulfilling parts of its obligation in a contract; in this instance, pollution prevention could be part of this contract. The Indiana Manufacturers Association said that IDEM should review all environmental permit fees and any significant disparities should be reduced or reviewed to align with the state’s economic goals. 

Another theme in the comments that IDEM received related to confined feeding operations (CFOs). These are agricultural productions that house animals in confined spaces rather than outside (the opposite of free-range chickens, for example). 

Indiana Pork and Rose Acre Farms said they support the state’s confined feeding control laws despite their being stricter than federal law—Indiana CFO laws provide legal protection against environmental lawsuits, making them appealing for producers. Rose Acre Farms said it’s concerned that if confined feeding control laws are reduced to align better with federal regulations, counties may step up with their own regulations, creating a complicated “patchwork of livestock regulations.” Indiana Pork, however, said that manure storage laws could be limited to apply only to the construction of new or increased manure storage capacity. 

A final theme in the comments circled around water quality regulations. 

One commenter said that IDEM should examine burdensome chloride water limit requirements that increase the cost of living for residents—specifically in Angola, which has struggled with the approval of chloride variance relief. Additionally, a commenter advocated for updating the river temperature requirements so that they reflect current river conditions, noting that current limitations are often met or exceeded. 

The current water temperature requirements vary by month, with the lowest being 57 degrees in December and the highest 89 degrees in July and August. Temperatures cannot exceed the maximum limit set during that month by more than three degrees. 

Also involving the Ohio River, one commenter said the state should remove compliance with the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) pollution control standards from the Indiana Administrative Code as it is more stringent than EPA guidelines. For example, ORSANCO has a stricter limit for dioxins—toxic chemicals that can damage the immune system and affect hormones—than some EPA regulations.

The Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) said it has minimal concern with IDEM’s list of regulations. Other organisations like the Conservation Law Center expressed frustration that IDEM appears to be supporting the interests of industry.