Republican Ethan Hayes urged Indiana lawmakers to insist on verifiable costs, enforceable safety standards and meaningful environmental protections before advancing an energy infrastructure proposal that includes an unusual underwater dual-reactor design.

Speaking during state legislative debate Monday, Hayes brought an energy-sector perspective to a proposal that he said raises legitimate questions about reliability, credibility and public accountability.

Hayes emphasized that reliable power remains essential, but argued that major infrastructure decisions cannot rest on assurances alone. He said lawmakers must demand proof that the project’s costs, safety planning and environmental consequences have been independently assessed before offering support.

The proposal also includes underground utilities, a reservoir and stronger fire departments. Hayes said those features could serve Indiana well, but maintained that pairing them with an unproven facility does not erase concerns surrounding the central energy component.

His position amounts to a call for disciplined oversight rather than a rejection of infrastructure investment. Hayes said questions about cost transparency, environmental review and the dual-reactor design are the minimum considerations for any responsible project of this scale.

That is particularly important when a bill brings several distinct public-policy priorities into one package. Improvements to utility infrastructure, water resources and fire protection may each merit serious consideration, but Hayes warned that lawmakers should not allow potentially worthwhile provisions to become a substitute for answering unresolved questions about a facility that remains unproven.

Hayes said the bill, as debated, needs independent cost estimates, clear safety standards and meaningful environmental safeguards before he can support it.

The comments put the focus squarely on whether the proposal’s backers can provide the documentation and standards Hayes says are necessary to establish public confidence. His argument did not dispute the need for reliable energy or the potential value of infrastructure improvements. Instead, it pressed for a process that can demonstrate the project is financially sound, safely designed and subject to credible environmental review.

For Republicans who have often argued that government should pursue practical investment without abandoning fiscal restraint or public accountability, Hayes’s remarks offered a familiar warning: ambitious projects still require transparent numbers and clear safeguards.

The legislative debate over Indiana Power Revise is continuing ahead of its scheduled vote deadline. No final vote result was supplied during the coverage window, and Hayes’s remarks should not be read as a final legislative outcome.

For now, Hayes has made his standard clear. Before Indiana lawmakers commit to an unconventional energy facility, he is demanding evidence that the project can meet the basic tests of cost discipline, operational safety and environmental responsibility.