Commissioners reviewing Crossvine permit for compliance
Dubois County residents are calling for commissioners to revoke the permit for a battery energy storage system, citing safety concerns and changes to the original project proposal that they say warrant reconsideration.
Residents have voiced concerns about the location of the BESS and the potential impact of a fire on nearby schools, the town of Holland and the environment.
“The proposed project site is located less than two miles from Holland Elementary School and Hummingbird Daycare Centers to the west, and approximately two miles from Huntingburg Elementary School, Southridge Middle School, and Southridge High School to the east. The Crossvine Battery Storage and Solar project is also adjacent to Short Creek—a significant tributary with a documented history of flooding—and is located along a floodplain, surrounded by homes and farms. In addition, the site falls within the airport overlay district, directly aligned with the airport’s runwa,” resident Holly Bartelt Gogel read from a prepared statement at Monday’s meeting.
Bartelt Gogel also presented evidence to commissioners on Monday that the Crossvine battery energy storage system project has been resubmitted to the Indiana Department of Homeland Security due to changes in the plan. She argues these modifications represent a significant departure from what was originally approved by the county.
The project, operated by AES, involves a battery energy storage system alongside solar panels. According to Bartelt Gogel’s research, new language in a January 8, 2026, filing with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission indicates the facility will contain more battery capacity than originally planned.
“The battery supply for a 20-year overbuilt containerized solution consisting of 92 enclosures would be installed to guarantee end of life, a full capacity of 85 megawatts,” she quoted from the filing. “This represents an increase in the number of batteries compared to what was originally planned for the Crossvine project.”
Considering these required submissions to the state, Bartelt Gogel asked the commissioners to revoke the company’s permits for the project and to require the company to refile with the updated information.
Commissioner Chad Blessinger acknowledged receiving multiple emails about the project but said he has not yet reviewed them in detail. He indicated the county engineer would need to determine whether the changes constitute significant modifications requiring commissioner approval.
“If they are out of line, one of the requirements they have with us is that something significant is they have to bring it in front of our county engineer,” Blessinger said. “The county engineer can say, is it a significant change? Is it really impactful or is it minor?”
Blessinger said the commission would act on the engineer’s recommendation and the county attorney’s advice.
Other residents voiced concerns during Monday’s meeting.
Amanda Harris, also a Huntingburg resident, questioned what message the county sends by approving such facilities. “If our county becomes known primarily for large solar farms and lithium ion battery storage facilities, will that attract families and new residents, or will it cause them to look elsewhere?” she asked.
Though Blessinger stated he doesn’t approve of the installations, he acknowledged that, with the limited zoning in place, there was little the county could do to stop the ones currently underway.
Huntingburg’s Board of Zoning Appeals recently determined AES was not in compliance with the construction requirements since the project did not begin within the two-year window provided by the construction permit. However, the battery energy storage system is not within the portion of the project under Huntingburg’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Blessinger has stated that the county is risk-averse in previous meetings and is proceeding cautiously regarding actions to stop construction based on permits and to change the scope of the project.
Bartelt Gogel also asked if the county knew what the impact would be on property taxes.
Blessinger stated that, according to documents provided by the solar company, the project would generate an average of $1,776,733 in tax revenue annually over 25 years. Blessinger noted this represents a substantial increase over agricultural tax rates, estimating the farming revenue from the same land at approximately $200,000 per year.
Despite residents’ safety concerns, Blessinger expressed confidence in the project’s safety measures for the broader community. “As far as the safety purpose, if they’re 1,000 feet away, I feel that they’re safe,” he said, referencing his research into similar facilities.
The commissioner noted that, according to his research, evacuations at other battery storage facilities experiencing problems were precautionary and did not result in dangerous chemical levels for nearby residents.
The project continues to move forward with construction activities. According to a newsletter Blessinger referred to, AES began mobilizing equipment and materials to the project site around March 16, 2026, as part of the early-stage construction phase.
