Residents urge Duboce County to pause AES battery storage project over school and airport safety fears

Duboce County residents and nonprofit advocates urged the Board of Commissioners on April 6 to pause or reconsider approvals tied to AES’s Crossline battery energy storage system (BESS), saying the project’s safety and site‑selection questions have not been fully resolved.

Karen White, a Huntingburg resident who said her family lives within the two‑mile radius described in developer materials, told commissioners that multiple schools lie within that circle and said the county should “revoke or reconsider” the project approvals until independent safety and siting studies are complete. She said the southwest school district includes about 2,001 students and warned that any evacuation of schools and adjacent neighborhoods would be large and complex.

County staff and commissioners explained the limits of local authority during the same update: the county issues building and commercial solar permits but identified the Indiana Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Energy Development (OED) as state entities with permitting or review roles for new‑construction or expanded battery energy storage systems. The board also said it has bonding in place to cover construction‑era road impacts (approximately $3.5 million) and will continue spot checks of the site to verify setbacks and footprint compliance.

Multiple public speakers cited technical safety literature and parts of AES’s own filings acknowledging lithium‑ion batteries can vent, smoke and burn. One commenter summarized AES’s annual report language that warns of significant injury or property damage and of operations‑suspension risk in the event of incidents. Residents asked the county to obtain independent analyses of soils, flood‑plain risk, air‑quality and emergency‑response plans before allowing construction or energization to proceed.

Industry and developer representatives responded to those concerns at the meeting. Trina Brown Bush, an EDP Renewables representative appearing for a solar developer (not AES specifically), told the board that panels use anti‑glare coatings, that FAA and other agencies review aviation impacts, and that decommissioning and property tax arrangements are typically covered by leases and local assessments. She said the state formula for community incentives exists but noted the statute lacks appropriated funds to pay those incentives.

What happened: the commissioners did not revoke permit 2024‑02 at the meeting and did not place a formal pause on the project. Commissioners reiterated that, under current state law and county processes discussed in public meetings over several years, the applicant has met the county’s permit requirements and that the county’s authority to stop an otherwise legally allowable and permitted project is limited unless cause is shown or permits are legally defective.

Why it matters: neighbors said the project combines concentrated energy storage with schools, day‑care centers and an airport nearby; they said the county should obtain independent testing and formally document evacuation and emergency‑response plans. Developers and county staff said applicable state and national standards (including references to NFPA 855 noted in the meeting) apply, and that state agencies such as DHS and the IURC (utility regulators mentioned during remarks) also review aspects of these projects.

Next steps: commissioners said staff will continue to perform spot checks and report back, and several residents urged a formal county request for additional independent studies and clearer emergency‑response protocols. No formal vote to revoke or pause the permit was taken at the April 6 meeting.