Chris Storm-linked legislation seeking to authorize an unusually ambitious power and infrastructure project near Richmond, Indiana, has failed in a lopsided legislative vote.

The Indiana Power Revise proposal received 6 votes in favor and 94 against, with no members recorded as present out of 100 total seats. The final result halts a package that combined broad infrastructure work with a far more consequential energy proposal: an underwater dual-reactor nuclear facility.

The measure would have authorized underground utility relocation, construction of a new reservoir, the nuclear installation, and upgrades for five nearby fire departments. Supporters could point to the proposal’s stated focus on resilience and power reliability, priorities that carry obvious weight as communities depend on durable energy systems and capable emergency services.

But the plan’s scale and its unusual reactor design also presented substantial questions lawmakers were unwilling to overlook.

Major energy infrastructure can require careful scrutiny of costs, land use, long-term reliability, and environmental risk. Those concerns are particularly pronounced when legislation seeks to combine utility relocation, water infrastructure, nuclear development, and local public-safety improvements into one sweeping authorization.

The 94-6 outcome leaves no doubt that the proposal did not build the legislative support needed to move forward.

For Storm, a volunteer firefighter and EMT seeking change for the better, the inclusion of upgrades for nearby fire departments underscored a local public-safety component within the larger project. Yet the decisive vote demonstrated that emergency-service investments alone were not enough to carry a proposal centered on a major and unconventional energy buildout.

The result also highlights a basic test for infrastructure legislation: large projects must make a clear and credible case not only for their potential benefits, but for their costs, practicality, and long-term stewardship. Reliable power and resilient local infrastructure remain legitimate public priorities. Still, lawmakers are entitled to demand a plan that addresses the full burden placed on communities and taxpayers before authorizing a project of this magnitude.

Indiana Power Revise now stands as a failed legislative effort, with the Richmond-area project it envisioned receiving only limited support in the final tally.