Hamilton County hearing draws hours of opposition to proposed 200 MW battery project at Overdorf Road

The Hamilton County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 28 heard a land‑use variance request from IPA Power to construct and operate the Kingfisher Reserve battery energy storage system at 21598 Overdorf Road in White River Township, a project IPA Power described as a 200‑megawatt, standalone battery installation sited on about 9 acres of a 70.1‑acre parcel.

The petitioner, Brandon Grama, identified himself as the lead developer for IPA Power and told the board the system would be “exclusively a battery energy storage system,” not a solar or wind farm, and said the design would use containerized lithium‑iron‑phosphate (LFP) battery units, meet NFPA and UL safety standards and interconnect to the adjacent substation. No final vote on the variance was recorded in the transcript of the hearing.

The request, filed as docket BZALUV0007072025, asks the board to grant a variance from Article 3.A.2.2 of the Hamilton County Unified Development Ordinance to allow the battery project in an A‑2 (agricultural) zoning district. IPA Power’s application included a staff report, two appraisals and a 437‑page packet of materials; the petitioner also proposed conditions including a written commitment that no solar or wind generation would be placed on the parcel and continued training with the Hamilton County Emergency Management Agency and White River Township Fire Department.

Why it matters: County residents and conservation advocates said the proposal raises public‑safety, environmental, and land‑use questions while IPA Power said the installation would add grid capacity to an area that abuts existing generation and transmission infrastructure. Much of the public testimony focused on risks from fire or toxic releases, possible impacts to local wells and the White River watershed, heavy construction traffic, property values and whether the proposed use conforms to the county comprehensive plan.

Key facts presented by IPA Power - Project site: 21598 Overdorf Road (parcel 0707080000010000); total parcel 70.1 acres; approximately 9 acres proposed for battery containers. - Capacity and duration: 200 megawatts with a four‑hour duration; developer said this equals roughly 60,000 homes for four hours. - Timeline: developer estimated a grid interconnection agreement from MISO in 2026, permitting with the Indiana Department of Homeland Security (IDHS) in 2027, construction commencing in late 2027 (contingent on permits and supply chains) and operations in late 2028, with a 9–12 month construction window. - Safety standards and design: IPA Power told the board the design will use containerized LFP (lithium‑iron‑phosphate) battery modules, comply with NFPA 855 and UL 9540A testing and obtain multiple IDHS permits; containers would be mounted on steel piles driven into the ground and rated for high winds and sealed to IP67 weatherproofing standards. - Operations and emergency planning: IPA Power said the site will have 24/7 remote monitoring by its asset management team plus on‑site operations and maintenance staff; the company proposed annual emergency‑response training with local fire responders and said it will produce a site‑specific emergency response plan as part of required permits.

Public concerns raised in testimony Residents, landowners, farmers and local experts filled the hearing to voice opposition and ask for a continuance. Speakers cited a range of concerns, including: - Fire and hazardous emissions: Multiple speakers cited documented battery‑energy‑storage fires elsewhere and asked whether local fire departments are equipped. Chief Kenny Scanlon, identified as a fire and risk consultant and former New York City Fire Department chief working with the petitioner, told the board "when you have a fire in one of these containers, you just want to let it expel its energy until it's empty. So you don't put water on it," and described tactics such as cooling adjacent containers and using portable water reservoirs for rural response. - Water, runoff and wells: Neighbors asked how firefighting runoff or fog‑curtain water would be contained and tested, whether the detention basin would ever discharge to soil or groundwater, and how the project would affect private wells and the White River watershed. IPA Power stated the preliminary drainage plan is intended to detain runoff in accordance with county MS4 rules and said "this facility does not use any water," adding the company would detain and test water if emergency runoff occurred. - Property values and compatibility with the comprehensive plan: Realtors, property owners and residents argued the use conflicts with the Hamilton County comprehensive plan’s stated priorities for White River Township and said appraisals provided by the petitioner lacked comparable local data; one speaker referenced a registered historic resource on the parcel (ID 12H778) and urged protection of historic assets. - Construction impacts and long‑term maintenance: Residents described the expected heavy truck traffic to build a pad and to place large containers, expressed worry about decommissioning and abandonment, and asked whether the company would post a decommissioning bond or other financial assurance. IPA Power said it would consider a decommissioning bond if requested and that decommissioning provisions were in its materials. - Noise, wildlife and character: Neighbors said the industrial scale of the nine‑acre battery yard would alter a rural landscape, affect birds and wildlife (including nesting bald eagles cited by residents), and increase noise if containers and fans operate near homes.

What the board asked and what the petitioner answered Board members and members of the public asked specific operational questions. IPA Power said: - Interconnection and siting: The site was chosen because it abuts an existing substation with available injection capacity; the company said that constrained capacity made this parcel an efficient location for the 200 MW system. - Monitoring and staffing: IPA Power described a 24/7 remote monitoring system based in Austin, Texas, plus local operations staff; the company said none of its utility‑scale assets have experienced a fire to date. - Tornado and wind risk: The developer said containers are attached to steel piles and wind‑rated; containers are intended to be weatherproof and secured to piles driven into the ground. - Emergency response training: The petitioner described best‑practice, multi‑day trainings with local EMA and fire agencies and offered to continue annual on‑site training and collaborative emergency planning.

No final action recorded The transcript ends after extended public comment and a question period. The petitioner answered questions and offered follow‑up with subject‑matter experts. The board did not record a vote during the portion of the hearing in the provided transcript; the petition remained under consideration at the end of the excerpt.

Voices from the record - Brandon Grama, IPA Power lead developer: "This is exclusively a battery energy storage system." - Alicia Kioski, resident: "We should not approve a project that puts our first responders and our community at risk." - Kenny Scanlon, fire and risk consultant (former New York City Fire Department chief): "When you have a fire in one of these containers, you just want to let it expel its energy until it's empty. So you don't put water on it."

Next steps and outstanding details The petitioner identified items that remain subject to later permitting and coordination, including the MISO grid interconnection agreement, IDHS permitting, a final site plan informed by soil, drainage and highway department input, and an on‑site emergency training and safety review required by state permits. Several neighbors asked the board for a continuance to allow additional time to review the 437‑page application materials and for county staff to confirm local inspection capability, insurance and bonding, and public notification procedures for emergency events.

The board’s docket number for the petition is BZALUV0007072025. No motion or vote on the variance appears in the provided transcript; any formal action would be recorded in subsequent minutes or in a later portion of the hearing.

Ending note: The petition drew large turnout and sustained public comment addressing safety, water, property values and land‑use compatibility. County staff and the petitioner repeatedly cited required state and industry permits and collaborative emergency planning; neighbors asked the board to either deny or continue the application pending more study and clearer local assurances.