Jasper County commissioners delay decision on Nipsco rezone after lengthy presentation and public comment

Rein Bontreger, president of the Jasper County Board of Commissioners, said the board would not act immediately on a rezoning request from Nipsco and would instead gather more information after a detailed company presentation and a timed public‑comment period.

Nipsco President Vince Parisi described amended submittals covering a potential buildout at the Schaefer site — including peaker units, combined‑cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) and the possibility of a data center — and said the company amended its application to allow the five implicated parcels to be considered together or in tranches. "We are going to dedicate somebody full‑time to permitting and land to make sure that we are in a place where we are always in front of and not behind those kinds of issues," Parisi said.

The Nipsco team told commissioners their DNR water‑withdrawal permit (issued in 1972) authorizes up to 68.5 million gallons per day from the Kankakee River. Parisi said two coal units historically had a combined design capacity near 47 million gallons per day while a proposed CCGT design capacity would be roughly 20 million gpd, and that CCGT operations generally would use significantly less water than the coal units did. Brian Kortum, Nipsco’s director of environmental permitting, described monitoring of about 100 constituents and said discharge temperatures had historically peaked near 80.2°F (August 2019). Kortum corrected an earlier statement about basin size, saying the intake settling basin is about 20 acres with roughly 80 million gallons of capacity.

Commissioners pressed Nipsco for clarity about rate impacts, natural‑gas supply and whether core customers would bear project costs. Parisi said the company’s GenCo arrangement isolates costs for large customers, adding "customers will not see a negative impact, their bill will not go up based upon their data center development," and that customer bill credits are expected to ramp from 2027 through 2032. Commissioners cautioned that state incentives and federal orders (including a recent 202c emergency order that has required continued operation of Units 17 and 18) influence long‑term outcomes.

More than a dozen members of the public spoke during the timed comment period. Speakers opposed and supported the project: Dottie Warrick urged stewardship and questioned corporate trust; Barb Deardorff raised groundwater and private‑well concerns and flagged a coal‑ash landfill on the rezoning map; Sue Steinke and Brian Kortum discussed water‑use math and permitted versus actual withdrawals; Barb Neuhauser noted state data‑center tax incentives that can include sales and business‑personal‑property exemptions for up to 50 years; and union electrician Dave Jones urged approval for jobs and local tax revenue.

Several speakers asked that any assurances from Nipsco be written, enforceable and accompanied by accessible monitoring and remedies for damage claims. "Assurances — make it strong, make it accountable, make sure there is some recourse," commenter Jerry McKim said. Norita Dykstra described a prior construction reimbursement that required a non‑disclosure agreement and urged that damage remediation avoid gag orders.

Commissioners said they would seek a list of enforceable assurances rather than informal memoranda, and that they were weighing both the economic possibilities (including potential assessed‑value growth and long‑term revenue streams) and the local impacts on water, noise, light and property values. Bontreger said the board wants to avoid making a decision based on emotion alone and intends to weigh facts and enforceable commitments; he told residents the board expects to continue the conversation and decide in the coming weeks.

There was no vote on the rezoning request at the Jan. 6 meeting.