EL26-70-000 · 2026-09-10 · US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Comments of U.S. House of Representatives Victoria Spartz requesting independent federal review of the energy generation, grid resiliency, transmission, water-resource, and consumer-cost implications etc

September 9, 2026 
 
The Honorable Chris Wright 
Secretary 
U.S. Department of Energy 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW 
Washington, DC 20585 
 
The Honorable Doug Burgum 
Secretary 
U.S. Department of the Interior 
1849 C Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20240 
 
Dear Secretary Wright and Secretary Burgum: 
 
I write to request an independent federal review of the energy generation, grid resiliency, transmission, 
water-resource, and consumer-cost implications of the rapidly expanding LEAP Research and 
Innovation District in Lebanon, Indiana, and other major data-center projects across the state. 
 
Over the past month, I have held town halls and roundtables throughout Indiana’s Fifth Congressional 
District and heard substantial concerns from constituents and local communities. For two years, I have 
also raised concerns in Congress about data-center expansion, the generation needed to serve these 
extraordinary loads, grid reliability, and consumer costs. Despite efforts to obtain clear information about 
energy and water demands, infrastructure requirements, and costs, I have been unable to obtain clear 
numbers for my constituents. Non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality arrangements have further 
limited transparency on matters affecting Indiana’s grid, water resources, taxpayers, and utility customers. 
 
I support bringing advanced manufacturing and strategic industries to Indiana and the United States. 
However, development must be economically responsible. Hoosier families, farmers, small businesses, 
and existing industries should not subsidize extraordinary private projects through higher utility 
bills, taxpayer-funded infrastructure, or reduced reliability. 
 
LEAP Expansion and Lack of Transparency: 
 
In February, Meta announced plans for a more than $10 billion data-center campus at LEAP, with 10 
planned data centers and approximately 1 GW of capacity. LEAP also includes major manufacturing 
and pharmaceutical developments with significant energy and water requirements. Yet there is no clear 
public accounting of required generation, infrastructure costs, cost allocation, or stakeholders’ tangible 
and enforceable commitments to bear those costs. Significant questions also remain about LEAP’s effects 
on the White River watershed and surrounding communities.

Several state laws enacted during LEAP’s development appear to have created significant loopholes in 
transparency and oversight. In 2022, Indiana enacted SB 361, creating Innovation Development 
Districts and granting significant authority to the unelected Indiana Economic Development 
Corporation (IEDC). The law allowed projects exceeding $2 billion to avoid meaningful local oversight 
and permitted negotiations with local governments on smaller projects to occur behind closed doors in 
executive sessions without public transparency. Shortly afterward, LEAP’s first major investment was 
announced at $2.1 billion—just above the threshold. 
 
In 2024, SB 256 further expanded IEDC’s authority by removing the expiration date for its ability to 
designate Innovation Development Districts and allowing it to incorporate territory already within 
existing local tax-increment-financing areas. 
 
In 2025, Indiana enacted SB 4 to provide additional review for certain large water-transfer projects, but 
LEAP’s current water-supply configuration appears to fall below or outside key thresholds for 
heightened review. 
 
Grid Resiliency, Energy Generation, Transmission, and Consumer Costs: 
 
Indiana was historically a significant net exporter of electricity, but it has become a net importer as 
generation has declined and demand has increased. This shift is especially concerning as firm 
generation is retired while data centers and other large developments add extraordinary new loads. 
 
In 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) warned that rising demand and generation retirements 
were creating significant reliability risks and noted that the North American Electric Reliability 
Corporation (NERC) had reclassified the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) from 
“elevated risk” to “high risk” for 2028–2031. DOE is now using emergency authority to keep four 
generating units at three power plants within MISO available for operation and has stated that 
emergency conditions continue in MISO in both the near and long term. 
 
MISO planning documents estimate total LEAP demand at approximately 1,200 MW. Wabash Valley 
Power Alliance’s Phase 2 project alone calls for approximately $345 million in new transmission 
infrastructure, including 345-kV lines, substations, and related facilities. MISO’s reliability analysis 
identified new transmission violations and worsened existing reliability issues from the additional 
LEAP load, requiring Corrective Action Plans across multiple Indiana utility systems, including projects 
assigned to Wabash Valley Power Alliance, Duke Energy Indiana, and AES Indiana. 
 
Together with the approximately $222 million LEAP Phase 1 transmission network, these projects 
require hundreds of millions of dollars across multiple utility territories and raise a central question: who 
is ultimately paying? 
 
That question is more urgent following federal action in 2026. In June, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC) ordered all six regional grid operators under its jurisdiction and their transmission 
owners to justify or reform how extraordinary new loads are integrated. For MISO, FERC preliminarily 
found that its tariff lacks adequate protections against shifting large-load transmission costs to other

customers, potentially producing “unjust and unreasonable rates.” FERC specifically cited inadequate 
transparency regarding required Network Upgrades, their costs, and cost allocation. 
 
FERC directed MISO and its transmission owners to address cost shifting, Network Upgrade 
transparency, Cost Recovery Agreements, financial protections against stranded infrastructure 
costs, and alternatives to traditional Network Upgrades, and to report how adequate generation will 
serve both existing customers and extraordinary new loads. 
 
MISO’s Large Load Working Group in August 2026 further raised concerns about cost 
transparency and cost shifting, but these issues remain unresolved as extraordinary new loads continue 
to advance. 
 
The combination is particularly troubling: MISO is classified as “high risk” for 2028–2031; DOE is 
using emergency authority to preserve generation within MISO; MISO has identified LEAP-related 
reliability violations requiring major corrective projects; and FERC has found MISO’s protections 
against large-load cost shifting potentially inadequate. 
 
These concerns also arise as Indiana’s utility ownership landscape changes. In March 2026, a consortium 
led by Global Infrastructure Partners, a part of BlackRock, and EQT Infrastructure agreed to 
acquire AES, the parent company of AES Indiana, for approximately $33.4 billion. AES Indiana is 
also seeking approval for substantial generation and infrastructure investments to serve Google’s 
proposed data-center campus in Monrovia, Indiana. These developments further underscore the need 
for transparency regarding who finances, owns, benefits from, and ultimately pays for infrastructure 
serving extraordinary new loads. 
 
Water Resources and the White River Watershed: 
 
LEAP’s current plan calls for supplying up to 25 million gallons per day to Lebanon and LEAP, 
requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in water infrastructure. 
 
I first raised concerns about LEAP’s water demands and their potential effects on surrounding 
communities in the fall of 2024, including directly with the Indiana Finance Authority and other 
stakeholders. Despite my efforts to understand the long-term water requirements, infrastructure costs, 
and potential effects on existing users, I was not able to obtain substantiated answers from the 
stakeholders. 
 
The original proposal to supply LEAP from the Wabash River aquifer generated significant public 
objections and ultimately was not pursued. The project then shifted toward the White River watershed, 
but affected communities were not afforded a similarly transparent process or comparable independent 
review before major commitments were made. 
 
As a farmer in the White River watershed, I have seen local water challenges firsthand, including drying 
wells. Indiana Farm Bureau has likewise raised concerns about protecting local and agricultural water 
supplies as data centers and other large developments increase demand.

An independent analysis must consider current and future water demands, including population 
growth, economic development, agriculture, and other reasonably foreseeable uses, and determine 
whether the watershed can sustainably support LEAP and surrounding communities during normal, 
drought, and other stressed conditions. 
 
The effects would extend beyond Boone County, potentially affecting municipalities, farmers, aquifers, 
surface waters, and future development throughout Central Indiana, including Indiana’s Fifth 
Congressional District. 
 
Request for Independent Review and Concrete Data: 
 
I respectfully request that the Departments coordinate with FERC and other appropriate federal agencies 
to conduct an independent review addressing interstate grid reliability, water resources, 
infrastructure, cost allocation, and transparency. 
 
Please provide concrete data and a full accounting of LEAP’s projected energy-generation and 
water requirements at full buildout; all generation, transmission, water, wastewater, and other 
necessary infrastructure; estimated and actual costs; and how those costs are allocated among 
LEAP stakeholders, utilities, existing consumers, and taxpayers. 
 
For transmission, please identify all LEAP-related projects and Corrective Action Plans identified by 
MISO, including those assigned to Wabash Valley Power Alliance, Duke Energy Indiana, AES Indiana, 
and other affected owners; the cost of each project; the applicable MISO pricing zone; and the amount 
expected to be borne by LEAP customers versus existing residential, agricultural, commercial, and 
industrial customers. 
 
Please also identify all tangible and enforceable commitments protecting customers and taxpayers, 
including Cost Recovery Agreements, minimum-demand commitments, financial guarantees, collateral, 
take-or-pay provisions, and other protections against stranded costs if projected loads are delayed, 
reduced, or never materialize. 
 
The review should provide comparable data for the White River watershed, including current and 
projected LEAP demands, required infrastructure and costs, and whether sufficient water will remain for 
existing communities, agriculture, future growth, and economic development during normal and drought 
conditions. This is particularly important for some of Indiana’s poorest communities in the Fifth 
District along the White River watershed, which have suffered from the loss of manufacturing and 
desperately need economic revival. These communities should not be subsidizing development in a 
“water desert” that will also be destroying some of the most productive farmland in Indiana – and 
the world. 
 
Please also identify any federal grants, loans, tax incentives, permits, studies, or other federal 
support associated with LEAP’s generation, transmission, water, wastewater, or other major 
infrastructure.

This review should not be limited to LEAP. Indiana is experiencing rapid expansion of large data-center 
projects involving Google, Amazon, Meta, and other developers. The cumulative effects of these loads 
on generation, transmission, utility rates, water resources, and taxpayers must be evaluated, not merely 
each project in isolation. 
 
Indiana should compete for advanced manufacturing and strategic investment, but development must be 
economically responsible. Hoosiers deserve clear numbers showing what energy and water these 
projects require, whether our grid and water resources can support them, what infrastructure must 
be built, how costs are allocated, what enforceable protections exist, and who ultimately pays. 
 
Thank you for your prompt attention. I look forward to your response. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Victoria Spartz 
Member of Congress 
 
cc:  
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission