The Facebook group dedicated to opposing a proposed data center project in Northwestern Indiana has over a thousand members, and is growing by the week.
Since it became clear in mid-January that a data center was planning to come to town, locals in rural Lake County have shared hundreds of posts, ranging from videos about the sounds a data center emits and explainers on the associated water and livestock impacts, to posts seeking “No Data Center” lawn signs.
The focus of the group’s alarm is a proposed 500-megawatt data center in the northern part of the county. The project, to be built by the New York-based Sentinel Data Centers, would span four buildings across 160 largely agricultural acres.
Lake County sits on the seam of MISO and PJM, nudged up against both Lake Michigan and the Illinois state line. The county has long been a hub for heavy industry, like steel and oil refining, which boomed in the early 20th century thanks in part to railroad access to Chicago, and shipping via the lake. But since the early 2000s, the number of jobs in the region has plummeted as steel mills closed and other industries automated, leaving the county deindustrializing and grappling with the environmental damage left behind.
Sentinel’s proposed data center would be built in unincorporated Eagle Creek Township, population 1,700. Dubbed “Project Shirley,” it would represent a $5 billion investment by Sentinel. The company told local officials that it would create thousands of construction jobs and a few hundred permanent operational roles in Eagle Creek.
But residents of the township and the wider Lake County aren’t just concerned about preserving the region’s agricultural heritage and the physical and cultural impact of adding several data centers overnight. Those issues — which they have in common with communities all across the U.S. — are colliding with several years of rising electricity bills as well as a deep distrust of the local utility, which has negotiated a handful of deals with other data centers in the county using a unique tariff structure it built specifically for data center load.
Meanwhile, there’s a general, widespread skepticism of government, private industry, and any large projects, said Randy Niemeyer, a Lake County councilmember who serves on the County Plan Commission.
“The reason I think people are so skeptical and have pushed back with such fervor is because they’ve been lied to so many times,” Niemeyer told Latitude Media. “They’ve had a lot of things in areas like this over the years shoved down their throats,” he added, pointing to past fights over a proposed landfill and a large solar farm that were allowed to advance only after state intervention.
Local officials, Niemeyer believes, have a duty to actively govern data center development, or else the state (and potentially the federal government) will step in and preempt local control on things like zoning.
The Trump administration has made that clear, as far as Niemeyer is concerned: “Our vice president has already said in public…that the federal government is prepared to take measures to make sure that this critical infrastructure is built,” he explained. “And what I hear as a local government person is, if we don’t figure this out, somebody else is going to, and we’re not going to have a seat at the table.”
That downward pressure, he added, means “we’d better figure out locally how we create a system that protects the interests of our residents and our neighbors and still keeps us with the ability to govern the processes around data centers.”
Introducing Project Shirley
According to Data Center Watch, at least $64 billion worth of data center projects have been blocked or delayed thanks to local opposition, as of summer 2025. Dozens of states are considering data center moratoriums, and state lawmakers around the country have introduced no less than 264 data center bills in 2026 alone.
At the same time, public resistance to data centers has risen; and the top concern is how the enormous facilities might change local life.
In Indiana, which is emerging as a planned data center hotspot thanks in part to generous tax incentives that can last up to 50 years, these concerns are coalescing into increasingly organized opposition. Much of this momentum is policy-oriented; for example, several counties have already imposed their own data center moratoriums. But there has also been violent push-back; earlier this year a local elected official in Indianapolis found a “no data centers” sign on his porch after someone fired a gun into his home 13 times.
According to energy and data center research firm Cleanview, Indiana currently has four operating data centers, totalling 931 MW of capacity. Among those is Amazon’s $11-billion, 1,200-acre New Carlisle campus, designated for Anthropic’s training of the Claude model. That project went up in record-time last year and, according to the company, will eventually consume as much power each year as half of Indiana households.
That capacity total, however, is set to rise quickly. As of this month, there are at least 36 additional data centers proposed or planned in Indiana, totaling nearly 16 GW of compute.
But like most states, Indiana doesn’t have a uniform, statewide system for handling data center load, meaning its utilities design their own tariffs and interconnection rules, hemmed in only by broad state-level guardrails. As a result, developers seeking power in different parts of the state encounter divergent approaches on things like cost allocation for new generation and grid upgrades, contract durations, and clean-energy requirements.
Lake County doesn’t yet have a single operational data center. But thanks to its low property prices and proximity to Lake Michigan, it has become a prime target; Cleanview is tracking at least seven planned data centers in Lake County — more individual projects than any other county in Indiana.
Project Shirley was first put forward for study by the Lake County Plan Commission — responsible for land use and zoning in the unincorporated parts of the county — in December. At the time, the developer showed a map with several proposed projects in the region, sparking anxieties that Project Shirley isn’t a one-off, but part of a planned cluster of industrial development.
The opposition gathered swiftly: multiple Facebook pages were created, yard signs distributed, local reporters pitched, petitions signed, and pleas sent off to elected officials in a matter of weeks.
In a February commission hearing, dozens of residents took turns at the microphone to voice their alarm. The land where the data center would be built was zoned for agricultural use, and should stay that way, they argued. In the wake of that hearing, Sentinel opted to postpone a vote on rezoning the property to May.
In mid-April, hundreds of local residents turned up at the high school auditorium for a town hall organized at Sentinel’s request. The developer’s spokespeople answered pre-submitted questions about everything from job creation to noise. The Eagle Creek site, Sentinel explained, was selected in part because of its proximity to a 345-kilovolt transmission line, which would make it easy to supply high-capacity, reliable power to the data center.
Attendees from the project’s opposition told Latitude that the event felt like a “dog and pony show,” showing a focus on “profit over people” that left their most pressing concerns unaddressed. The town hall featured no opportunity for live questions or conversation.
“There were repeated statements that impacts are not expected, or that any issues would be worked through if they arise,” one attendee said. “There was little discussion of how overall system demand is being evaluated, especially with multiple large-scale projects proposed in the same area.”
But the showing from the local community — especially on such short notice, with such limited promotion — was heartening, another attendee said. “We have shown that we have a strong group of neighbors,” they added. “We got that room pretty close to full without any support from [Sentinel] or the plan commission in spreading the word.”
An industry evolution
Concerns about Project Shirley on local Facebook pages and in conversations with Latitude Media run the gamut, from general suspicions that the project is linked to already-approved solar developments or a recently-built switchyard and substation, to specific anxieties about the water use of the air-cooled chiller system Sentinel is proposing for Project Shirley.
Then there’s the more existential concern: The question of whether Project Shirley really is a one-off, or whether it’s the early warning sign of a massive change to the county and its way of life.
Several residents pointed to Ceres Partners, an investment firm focused on food and agriculture, which recently purchased two plots of land in Eagle Creek totaling 1,423 acres, directly adjacent to the proposed site for Project Shirley. Late last year, Ceres was acquired by WisdomTree, a global asset manager known for creating and managing investment bundles. The company explicitly named “AI data infrastructure” as one of the key verticals that made Ceres Partners so valuable, despite the fact that data centers had never previously been a focus, and residents expressed suspicion that the surrounding area would soon be proposed for data center developments too.
(WisdomTree did not respond to Latitude Media’s request for comment.)
None of those concerns are new or surprising to those that have been designing and building data centers for long, explained Christian Belady, who helped build Microsoft’s hyperscale data center business. What is new is the degree to which communities are pushing back — and how the industry is reorienting itself accordingly.
The level of opposition that would-be data center developers face today is in stark contrast to the early 2000s, when communities and governments generally wanted data centers in their regions for tax base expansion, new jobs, and prestige, he explained onstage at Latitude Media’s recent Transition-AI conference in San Francisco.
Early instances of pushback in those years were largely driven by the visual or noise imposition of data centers, as well as environmental concerns like emissions, water, and land use, Belady explained. But they were rare enough that fixes could be cosmetic one-offs: When a man in Dublin turned up at a public permitting meeting for a data center to voice concerns about the noise from generators, the company replaced his windows with triple-pane glass. In San Antonio, they painted trees on the side of a data center to make it look more appealing to residential neighbors.
“It was easier for us to just bulldoze forward and kind of try to explain it with PR: ‘This is important to the future,’” Belady said. “But we really never sat down and thought about what’s relevant to the [neighbors].”
The reason I think people are so skeptical and have pushed back with such fervor is because they’ve been lied to so many times. They’ve had a lot of things in areas like this over the years shoved down their throats.
In recent years, that has begun to shift. Those that think about how a data center can be a net contributor to a community, and that aren’t rushing through the approval process, are having more success.
He pointed to a large Microsoft data center campus in Amsterdam, where permitting for an expansion was stalled until his team redesigned the surrounding landscape with nitrogen dioxide-absorbing trees and pollinator habitats, directly addressing local farmer concerns about declining crop yields.
Belady’s response to companies that argue they’re in a cutthroat race to build computing power and don’t have time to go back and forth for months with local farmers is “How’s that working out for you?” Trying to circumvent the community engagement process will ultimately cause greater delays and cost more money in the long run, he added.
Sentinel didn’t respond to Latitude Media’s request for comment on Project Shirley, but addressed several community concerns in an FAQ section on the project website. The company plans to be a “good neighbor,” it explained, by adhering to all local requirements for setbacks from property lines, visual mitigation approaches, and direct engagement with those directly adjacent to the data center. “In limited circumstances we would be open to a conversation about purchasing an immediately adjacent home if that ends up being the right solution for a particular neighbor,” they said.
As far as community benefits go, Sentinel said that if the rezoning request is approved, they plan to negotiate a “development agreement” using nearby projects as a template. That could include a one-time impact fee, contributions to local infrastructure funds tied to construction milestones, or annual community impact payments.
The utility element
Nationwide, concerns about electricity costs and whether data centers will impact residential customers abound. In the case of Project Shirley, the region’s rocky relationship with the local utility, Northern Indiana Public Service Company, has made the problem particularly salient.
Indiana has a state law that requires large energy consumers to cover at least 80% of direct and indirect service costs. However, local planning boards and commissions handle siting approvals, which includes rezoning agricultural or rural land to industrial use.
NIPSCO is expecting 8.6 GW of data center demand across their system by 2035. And according to Latitude Intelligence analyst Nick Zenkin, the utility has taken an approach to interconnection that puts it at odds with its regulated peers in the state.
In September 2025, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved a structure NIPSCO calls “first of its kind,” aimed at ensuring existing ratepayers don’t get stuck with the costs of adding new data centers in their region. Rather than amend an existing industrial tariff, NIPSCO created a new subsidiary — NIPSCO Generation LLC, or GenCo — to build and own generation dedicated to data center load. GenCo then sells that power via a power purchase agreement to NIPSCO, which in turn serves data centers under special contracts negotiated on a project-by-project basis.
Crucially, Zenkin explained, GenCo is exempt from the certificate of public convenience and necessity process that would normally require a utility to justify new generation before breaking ground, meaning it can proceed with construction more quickly, without the standard regulatory review and delays often imposed on traditional utilities like NIPSCO.
According to Belady, engaging more directly with utilities is critical for data center developers who want to get their projects built. But that engagement can also make things more complicated with the local community, depending on how it plays out.
Utilities and hyperscalers should be “shaking hands” with regulators and communities up front, Belady said, co‑designing projects that use flexible loads, distributed resources and shared savings to lower bills and improve resilience for nearby customers — not just guarantee capacity for the next wave of AI build‑outs.
The GenCo question
The first projects to leverage NIPSCO’s new structure are two Amazon data centers in Hobart and Wheatfield, communities adjacent to Eagle Creek Township. NIPSCO and GenCo filed for approval of a special contract and PPA to serve the Amazon data centers in November of last year — agreements that represent nearly $7 billion of investment, and which will roughly double the generation NIPSCO manages.
For these projects, GenCo is building 2.6 gigawatts of combined-cycle gas with no renewable commitment. According to the companies, the arrangement will deliver $1 billion in savings to existing customers over 15 years, roughly $7–$9 per month per household.
Details about how the contracts between Amazon and NIPSCO are structured, including how much Amazon will pay for service, are confidential. Amazon has said it will pay the full cost of generation dedicated to its data centers, as well as direct interconnection costs and network upgrades. But critics argue the deals haven’t quantified the extra wear and tear on the system from the data centers themselves, and that ratepayers could still be stuck with those operations and maintenance costs if NIPSCO deems upgrades benefit a broader customer base.
NIPSCO, in response to Latitude Media’s request for comment, said all investments associated with serving data center customers “are not recovered from other retail customers” and that “associated costs to support data center growth will not be paid by our traditional customer base.” Additionally, the utility said it now anticipates cost savings for existing customers to reach approximately $1.25 billion over the next 15 years, thanks to its recently announced agreements.
The second major deal under the GenCo structure is a Google data center in Michigan City, announced earlier this month. While Amazon’s projects are powered by a massive investment in dedicated, new-build fossil gas plants, for Google’s Michigan City site GenCo will utilize a pooled portfolio of battery storage and seasonal market purchases to prioritize immediate speed to market.
That setup contrasts with the approach taken by neighboring utility Indiana Michigan Power, which, when faced with a similar wave of data center demand, amended an existing industrial tariff. That process got buy-in from Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, as well as consumer advocates. It sets minimum 12-year contracts and exit fees of up to five years of minimum charges, and includes a clean energy transition pathway.
NIPSCO’s approach has none of those standardized floors. Every deal is negotiated individually, under largely confidential terms. In the case of Project Shirley, it’s not yet clear what type of generation may be built to support the data center. There isn’t yet an executed agreement filed with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, though the project is expected to utilise the GenCo structure. And as residents look east to the fossil generation being built for nearby Amazon projects, they’re drawing their own conclusions about the broader system impacts.
NIPSCO, in response to Latitude’s questions, said concerns regarding emissions “are addressed through the regulatory review process that applies to GenCo agreements and resources.” Generation and transmission infrastructure developed under the GenCo structure are required to meet applicable environmental standards, and agreements are reviewed by regulators for compliance.”
Additionally, Zenkin said, critics argue the protections cited by NIPSCO and GenCo are more porous than they appear. While the two are separate legal entities, both are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company, NiSource.
GenCo had no employees, no assets, and hadn’t determined its financing structure when the state commission voted to approve it last year. At the time, the state’s consumer advocacy office raised concerns about what would happen to ratepayers if GenCo went bankrupt: If NiSource issues debt at the parent level to capitalize GenCo, or else if GenCo’s debt is cross-collateralized with NIPSCO assets, the subsidiary’s failure could reverberate through the parent company and reach retail ratepayers, the office argued.
The commission approved the structure anyway, over the objections of the consumer office, the Citizens Action Coalition, the Clean Grid Alliance, LaPorte County, and Takanock Beckham — a data center developer that argued the opacity of the process put competing developers at a disadvantage.
A history of mistrust
But the problems with NIPSCO go much further back than the creation of GenCo, the Amazon data centers, or Project Shirley.
Earlier this year, protests against NIPSCO driven by sharp spikes in bills took place outside the utility’s headquarters in Lake County. Several additional Facebook groups, all focused on the utility’s shortcomings, garnered thousands of members and filled with posts criticizing “corporate greed.”
“We’ve lost a lot of trust with NIPSCO,” said Ben Inskeep, program director for the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, pointing to rising electricity bills in the region. “There’s a massive outcry right now.”
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission said more than half the complaints it has received so far in 2026 have been about NIPSCO — a number that already surpasses all complaints filed against the utility in 2025.
NIPSCO is the “poster child for cost shifting from industrial customers on to residential customers,” Inskeep added. He cited the fact that NIPSCO didn’t apply an exit fee to large load customers in the region. As local industries including steel have declined, his organization has found that that’s become a problem for existing ratepayers.
“As a result, really expensive coal plant generating costs all got shifted onto residential customers and other customers, and bills have just soared through the roof, in part because of that decision,” he said.
In the past two years, NIPSCO customers have seen a $77 per month bill increase per 1,000 kilowatt-hours of use. Those rates make the $7 a month discount from the Amazon data centers feel trivial, Inskeep said, especially considering the potential for ratepayers to ultimately absorb extra costs of grid maintenance.
And it’s not just rising electricity prices. NIPSCO is also at the center of local controversy over the workforce that actually builds and maintains the grid — and would under normal circumstances build the infrastructure for data center projects.
We’ve lost a lot of trust with NIPSCO.
During the first week of April, NIPSCO locked out around 1,600 employees covered by the United Steelworkers Union after failing to reach an agreement on a new contract. Core to the disagreement, union representatives said, was NIPSCO’s use of contract workers over its own bargaining units.
NIPSCO’s assurances that a data center (or several) is a great economic opportunity for a community are hard to reconcile with the question of who would be hired to do the work to get them online, one local resident said, who said the uncertainty has made people uncomfortable:“If they’re bringing in these jobs, are they actually going to go to people within Northwest Indiana?”
One of the key issues was whether the separate, lightly regulated nature of GenCo creates room for the company to shift data center-related work away from NIPSCO’s bargaining units and toward nonunion contractors. NIPSCO, for its part, has said it is not trying to eliminate union jobs, and that its proposal creates new roles and career paths internally, while including limited outsourcing in some areas.
The negotiations have since been partly resolved: NIPSCO and USW reached a tentative agreement in mid-April with the physical bargaining unit, which includes lineworkers and mechanics. The clerical bargaining unit remains subject to the lockout.
The mistrust of NIPSCO, local residents told Latitude, is central to the current dynamic at play between the community and the proposed Sentinel data center. Given the history of high rates and departing industry, labor challenges, and skepticism of government and large projects generally, the Eagle Creek Township area isn’t inclined to give a data center developer the benefit of the doubt, they explained.
The only option, as residents see it, is to push back as hard as they can, for as long as they can. Project Shirley’s request for re-zoning heads to a vote later this month, but regardless of the outcome, local activists see a long road ahead to keep the data center out of their community. They’re gearing up for several more weeks or months trying to harness the enthusiasm and momentum of the Facebook groups into physical turnout at public hearings and events.
A “no” vote from the plan commission might make it harder to win council approval, but wouldn’t pose an insurmountable hurdle to the project; the commission’s vote is more of a recommendation to the Lake County Council, which holds the power to make a final decision on rezoning.
And even then, rezoning the land is just the beginning. Project Shirley’s developers — and opposition — must then move on to the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals, which serves as the gatekeeper to final permitting for the project.“There’s nobody to turn to,” one local organizer told Latitude Media. Organizing community resistance against a data center, they said, “feels like a David and Goliath feat.”
