In red Indiana, Green New Dealers are hoping to make local officials impotent, so county commissioners can no longer get in the way of their projects.
Fed up with so-called renewable projects, communities across Indiana have “green energy fatigue,” as one county commissioner described it. That’s why many counties in the northern half of the state have enacted moratoriums or strict zoning regulations to combat the unchecked growth of solar and wind.
Despite the very uncertain future of renewables in the Donald Trump age, Indiana legislators have introduced a bill that would not only overrule locals in this domain, but even beyond. As more power-hungry projects such as data centers move into Indiana, the state could take over some zoning and permitting rights from Indiana’s 92 counties to ensure that local officials and townspeople don’t get in the way of centralized energy and development plans.
A lot of money is on the line, and Indiana doesn’t want the not-in-my-backyard push-back from locals to hurt its centralized economic planning. The state already tried to take over solar and wind rights in 2021, but the counties refused to cede territory, causing the bill to fail miserably. Republican bill sponsor Sen. Mark Messmer said the back-and-forths were like a “hostage negotiation with a schizophrenic.” Even after all that was done to appeal to local officials, Messmer said they “still shot the person at the end of the ordeal anyway.”
Groups like the Association of Indiana Counties and the Indiana County Commissioners oppose the more recent bill aimed at stripping local elected officials of some of their most important duties. They ferociously guard the concept of home rule: the belief that the government closest to the people is best and that the state shouldn’t unnecessarily interfere with local control.
Despite the state’s huge defeat a few years ago, its latest power grab is even bigger this time, and the bill’s implications unclear. The new proposed law would not only pre-empt locals on renewables, but also on other projects that involve the generation, transmission, distribution, and storage of electricity, gas, fluids, and water. This could encompass such projects as carbon capture and storage, or small modular reactors (SMRs)—considered a nuclear answer to the slew of power-hungry data centers starting take hold in the state.
The increased and blurry scope of the bill is not surprising, considering the active role Indiana has taken through its Indiana Economic Development Corporation to aggressively spur growth via big business. This includes a project that involves a controversial 35-mile water pipeline, which sparked loud complaints from locals after they realized how much water would leave their aquifer to feed a far-away industrial center. Additionally, plans are already in the works for a SMR in Spencer County, where coal will soon shut down.
The question is: Will the state be able to wrestle control from the locals so it can proceed unhindered in its quest for alleged economic development? The state is not going to take control without a battle, as counties do not want to be at the state’s mercy on contentious projects that can negatively affect homeowners and their property values.
At a recent hearing on the bill, Republican Committee Chair Rep. Ed Soliday said some compromise must go forward: “[W]e have to decide who we are as a state and what the limits of control are. Can a county of 9,000 people block $10 billion project that affects the economy of the whole state?” he asked. “There’s a sane conversation that needs to happen.”
Yet even the bill author sounded hesitant regarding the bill’s breadth: “Personally I even struggle with some of this code as well,” said Republican Rep. Craig Snow. “I’ll be honest…I don’t like the idea the state was just going to control and dictate what locals do. However…we’ve got to figure out a place to get to so that we can get the energy we need for all the businesses that want to come to Indiana.”
The committee testimony was dominated by discussion of wind and solar power, and the counties that rose up against the invasion of such projects into their communities. Democrat state Rep. Sue Errington complained her county was giving up tax revenue that could help pay for roads, calling opponents “frightened” and “angry”: “Controversy has paralyzed local decision-makers,” she said. “They are unable to look past the angry protestors to see the benefits that renewable energy can contribute to all of the citizens in our county.”
However, common-sense counties are right to question the highly subsidized renewables eating up vast acres of farmland, which already appear to be losing their luster in a nuclear future. Locals’ valid concerns are part of Indiana’s marketplace of ideas and shouldn’t get quashed by a state takeover.
So-called renewable projects have still gone forward in Indiana, but locals have also stepped in to put on the brakes when needed. St. Joseph County, which already has two solar fields and as many as four more planned, placed significant set-back limits after locals complained that a planned 2,500-acre industrial solar project would weave between their houses. The council, split between Democrats and Republicans, voted unanimously for more restrictions, due to the local outcry.
The energy future in Indiana, however, is unlikely to be powered by unreliable and inefficient renewables, which already appear outdated in the era of data centers and SMRs. Even President Joe Biden was pushing for more nuclear development before he left office, and President Donald Trump’s focus on killing the Green New Deal will likely make the renewable field less lucrative.
At the committee hearing, Republican Rep. Tim Wesco, questioning a solar developer, noted that by taking local officials out of the equation, companies would have less incentive to make sure neighbors are satisfied: “If they have no recourse at the local level to go to anyone to get anything changed, the only person they can talk to is a bureaucrat in Indy. Doesn’t that reduce the motivation of companies to reach out to them and develop that relationship?”
The question was well placed. Locals, most certainly, provide a check and balance on unrestricted economic development and force companies to strike a deal that benefits not only themselves, but the townspeople who live there.
St. Joseph County, and its local government, just said yes to Indiana’s biggest economic development project ever, an $11 billion Amazon data center, in a deal that was heavily negotiated on the local level and included Amazon representatives sitting down at the table with the town’s boards.
Just like states don’t want Washington telling them what to do, Indiana counties want the same level of respect from state government. Indiana, through its legislators, is trying to keep the local people out of the equation. But, without counties having a voice, those projects could end up steamrolling them.
Amy Drake is a stay-at-home mom, writer, and St. Joseph County councilwoman in South Bend, Ind.
Jesus Christ is King
