SB 101 creates a new alternative pathway to become a registered professional engineer in Indiana. Under current law, applicants generally qualify through an approved engineering degree plus four years of progressive experience, or through eight years of engineering education and experience, and they must pass the required examination. The bill adds a separate route for applicants who do not meet the educational requirements: they may qualify if they have at least 25 years of engineering experience and pass the professional engineer examination on their first attempt.
The bill also amends the examination provisions for professional engineer applicants. It keeps the existing two-part exam structure—engineering fundamentals and principles and practice of engineering—but clarifies that applicants under the new 25-year experience pathway get only one attempt to pass each part within the board’s rule-based time period. The bill is effective July 1, 2025, and amends Indiana Code chapter 25-31-1 governing professional engineer registration.
Impact
SB 101 would amend Indiana Code 25-31-1 by adding a new section establishing an experience-based licensure pathway for professional engineers and by modifying the examination rules for those applicants. It would not eliminate the existing degree-based routes, but it would expand eligibility for registration to long-tenured engineers who lack the formal educational credentials otherwise required. The bill affects the Indiana professional engineering licensing board’s authority over examination timing, attempts, and qualification standards, and it could broaden the pool of individuals eligible for PE registration in Indiana.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral and procedural rather than contentious. The proposal is framed as a professional licensure adjustment intended to recognize extensive practical experience. There is no evidence in the provided record of organized support or opposition, but the structure of the bill suggests a policy preference for balancing traditional education requirements with long-term field experience.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is whether 25 years of engineering experience should substitute for formal educational requirements for professional engineer registration. Supporters would likely view the bill as a practical recognition of seasoned engineers whose expertise was gained through work rather than a degree program. Opponents may be concerned that lowering educational barriers could affect licensure standards, public safety, or consistency with existing professional engineering qualifications. The first-attempt exam requirement for this pathway may be seen as a safeguard, but it also creates a stricter hurdle than the general applicant process.