A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning utilities.
SB 79 creates a new state framework for tracking and planning around data center growth in Indiana. It directs the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to form a working group with utility, data center, transmission, and other stakeholders to estimate future electricity demand from the data center industry and report findings and recommendations to the General Assembly by October 31, 2026. The working group is temporary and expires January 1, 2027.
The bill also imposes reporting and local permitting requirements on data centers. Operators of Indiana data centers would have to file quarterly reports with the commission showing electricity use in the prior quarter, disaggregated by source, and the commission would publish an aggregated, deidentified summary on its website. In addition, before a local authority issues a permit for construction of a data center, the applicant must disclose projected full-capacity power and water usage, and the local authority must conduct a site assessment of potential effects on water use, the electric grid, carbon emissions, and agricultural, historic, and cultural resources.
In terms of state law, SB 79 adds a new section to the utility code and a new chapter on data centers, while also amending local planning and permitting procedures under the zoning code. It affects data center operators, electricity suppliers, local governments, and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The bill is effective in part upon passage and otherwise on July 1, 2026, with an emergency clause included.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is cautious and regulatory rather than oppositional or promotional: it appears aimed at gathering information and managing infrastructure impacts associated with rapid data center development. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests an interest in balancing economic development with utility reliability, water use, and community impacts.
The main points of contention likely center on the new disclosure and assessment requirements. Data center developers may view the quarterly reporting and local site-assessment mandate as burdensome or potentially sensitive from a business-confidentiality standpoint, while utilities and local governments may support the added planning tools to evaluate grid and water impacts. Environmental, agricultural, and historic-preservation concerns are explicitly built into the local review process, indicating those interests are likely to be part of any future debate.
SB 79 would add new statutory requirements to Indiana utility and local land-use law by creating a data-center-specific reporting regime and a pre-permit review process. It would require the IURC to convene a temporary working group, require data center operators to report electricity use quarterly, and require local permitting authorities to obtain projected power and water usage and assess broader site impacts before approving construction. These changes would directly affect data center developers, electric utilities, the IURC, and local units of government.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s contents, the measure appears generally pragmatic and oversight-oriented, reflecting concern about the strain that data center growth may place on electricity supply, water resources, and local infrastructure. The bill does not read as anti-development, but rather as an effort to collect data and impose planning safeguards before further expansion occurs.
The likely areas of contention are the new reporting obligations, the requirement to disclose projected power and water usage, and the mandatory site assessment before local permits are issued. Data center operators may object to administrative burden, potential exposure of operational information, or delays in project approval. Local governments and utilities may support the bill as a way to better understand and manage grid, water, and community impacts, while environmental, agricultural, historic, and cultural stakeholders may favor the added review requirements. Because no transcripts or votes are available, these are inferred points of tension rather than documented debate positions.