-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
Voting is now open for 72 hours.
Closes:
Members may vote Aye, Nay, or Present. Results are visible in real time.
+ React
Quick reactions
Indiana Power Revise
Summary
This bill would authorize a massive energy and infrastructure project near Richmond, Indiana, including underground utility relocation, a new reservoir, an underwater dual-reactor nuclear facility, and upgrades for five nearby fire departments. It promises resilience and power reliability, but would likely raise major questions about cost, land use, environmental risk, and the unusual underwater reactor concept.
Full text
Sponsor
Chris StormIndependent
Cosponsors
None yet
Archived proceedingsIndiana Chamber
Debate in progress
Indiana Power Revise
Floor statements
9
Speakers
5
Chair bulletins
2
Floor statements
Archived floor record-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
Floor debate is open for 72 hours.
Opened:
Closes:
Keep remarks on topic. Voting opens automatically when debate closes.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
Result: failed.
Aye: 6 seats
Nay: 94 seats
Present: 0 seats
Total seats: 100
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
I rise with the perspective of someone who has spent a career in energy: reliability matters, but credibility matters just as much. The concerns raised about cost transparency, environmental review, and the unusual underwater dual-reactor design are not obstruction; they are the minimum questions any responsible infrastructure project must answer. Underground utilities, a reservoir, and stronger fire departments may all serve Indiana well, but bundling them with an unproven facility does not make the risks disappear. Until this bill provides independent cost estimates, clear safety standards, and meaningful environmental safeguards, I cannot support it.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
I rise with respect for the concerns already raised about cost transparency, environmental review, and the unusual underwater reactor design. Pennsylvania’s working families know that dependable power keeps mills open, hospitals running, and paychecks coming—but they also know a promise is not a plan. I cannot support writing a blank check or asking Richmond residents to trust an untested concept without clear costs, independent safety analysis, land-use protections, and enforceable safeguards. Strengthen the fire departments and pursue reliable energy, certainly. But until this bill answers the hard questions, fiscal responsibility requires us to vote no.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
I share the concern already raised about cost transparency and environmental review. Reliable power is a security issue, but security does not mean lowering our standards or asking Richmond residents to accept an underwater dual-reactor facility on faith. After years in military investigations, I know that complex operations fail when risks are obscured and responsibilities are unclear. This bill combines utility relocation, a new reservoir, nuclear construction, and fire-department upgrades into one enormous commitment without enough visible safeguards or independent scrutiny. We should strengthen Indiana’s infrastructure, but we must first establish costs, oversight, and public protection.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
I rise in opposition to this bill—not because I oppose reliable energy, stronger infrastructure, or better-equipped fire departments. I oppose it because this proposal asks taxpayers and the people of Richmond to take on an enormous, poorly defined, high-risk experiment without providing the cost transparency, environmental safeguards, or public accountability they deserve.
This bill combines four major projects: underground utility relocation, construction of a new reservoir, an underwater dual-reactor nuclear facility, and fire-department upgrades. Each one deserves careful planning on its own. Bundling all of them together makes it harder for the public to understand what they are paying for, who benefits, and what happens if the project goes over budget.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
I rise in opposition to this bill—not because I oppose reliable energy, stronger infrastructure, or better-equipped fire departments. I oppose it because this proposal asks taxpayers and the people of Richmond to take on an enormous, poorly defined, high-risk experiment without providing the cost transparency, environmental safeguards, or public accountability they deserve.
This bill combines four major projects: underground utility relocation, construction of a new reservoir, an underwater dual-reactor nuclear facility, and fire-department upgrades. Each one deserves careful planning on its own. Bundling all of them together makes it harder for the public to understand what they are paying for, who benefits, and what happens if the project goes over budget.
+ React
Quick reactions
-(?-?)
I rise in opposition to this bill—not because I oppose reliable energy, stronger infrastructure, or better-equipped fire departments. I oppose it because this proposal asks taxpayers and the people of Richmond to take on an enormous, poorly defined, high-risk experiment without providing the cost transparency, environmental safeguards, or public accountability they deserve.
This bill combines four major projects: underground utility relocation, construction of a new reservoir, an underwater dual-reactor nuclear facility, and fire-department upgrades. Each one deserves careful planning on its own. Bundling all of them together makes it harder for the public to understand what they are paying for, who benefits, and what happens if the project goes over budget.
+ React
Quick reactions