SB 135 creates a new chapter in Indiana law focused on data centers and their utility impacts. It defines “data center” broadly as a facility primarily used for storing, managing, and processing digital data, and includes related power, cooling, security, and network infrastructure. The bill requires operators of Indiana data centers to file quarterly reports with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) showing the amount of electricity used in the prior quarter, broken down by source, and requires the commission to publish an aggregated, deidentified summary on its website.
The bill also adds a new permitting requirement for local governments. Before issuing a permit for construction of a data center, a county, municipality, or township must require disclosure of the facility’s projected power and water use at full capacity and must conduct a site assessment of possible effects on local water usage, the electrical grid, carbon emissions, and agricultural, historic, and cultural resources. In addition, the IURC must convene a working group with utility, data center, transmission, and other stakeholders to estimate future electricity demand from the data center industry in Indiana and report findings and recommendations to the General Assembly by October 31, 2025. The working group provision is temporary and expires January 1, 2026; the act includes an emergency clause and takes effect upon passage, with most provisions effective July 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add new reporting, disclosure, and planning requirements for data center development and to expand the role of the IURC and local governments in evaluating the utility and environmental consequences of these projects. It amends Indiana Code provisions governing utilities and local planning/zoning to require advance information about power and water demand and to formalize state-level study of future electricity needs tied to data center growth. Data center operators, electricity suppliers, local permitting authorities, and the IURC would all be directly affected.
Because no committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, the available context does not show formal debate or a vote outcome. Based on the bill’s structure, the general sentiment appears precautionary and oversight-oriented: it seeks to support data center development while ensuring transparency about resource consumption and potential community impacts. The bill’s emphasis on electricity demand, water use, and site effects suggests a policy response to concerns about rapid industry growth and infrastructure strain.
The main points of contention likely involve the scope and burden of the new requirements. Data center developers may view the quarterly reporting and pre-permit assessments as additional regulatory hurdles, while local governments and utilities may support the added information as necessary for planning. Potential areas of dispute include whether the disclosure requirements are too broad, whether local site assessments could slow development, and how the bill balances economic development with concerns about grid capacity, water resources, emissions, and impacts on agricultural or historic lands.
SB 135 would add a new chapter to the Indiana Code on data centers and amend local permitting law to require disclosure of projected power and water use before construction permits are issued. It also directs the IURC to collect and publish quarterly electricity-use data from data center operators and to convene a temporary working group to study future electricity demand from the industry. These changes would affect data center operators, local permitting authorities, electricity suppliers, and the commission by creating new reporting, review, and planning obligations.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators in the available materials. The bill itself reflects a generally cautious, oversight-focused approach: it does not prohibit data centers, but it requires transparency and impact review before and during development. That suggests the bill is intended to address concerns about infrastructure strain while still allowing industry growth.
The likely points of contention are the new compliance burdens on data center developers and the extent of local and state oversight. Developers may object to quarterly electricity reporting, disclosure of projected power and water use, and site assessments as costly or delay-inducing. Supporters are likely to emphasize the need for planning around grid reliability, water consumption, carbon emissions, and effects on agricultural, historic, and cultural resources. Another possible issue is whether the bill gives local governments enough information and authority to manage large-scale data center projects without discouraging investment.