Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Dubois County over safety, transparency of Crossline battery project
Summary
At a county meeting residents urged commissioners to demand more documentation and stronger emergency planning from Crossline (AES/EDP) after construction dust and concerns about battery fires; officials said local fire departments are training with the company and a 25,000‑gallon water tank and on‑site staff will be part of response plans, but residents asked for clearer evidence of company follow‑through.
Several residents told Dubois County commissioners they remain worried about safety, environmental impacts and company transparency at the Crossline battery‑storage project and asked the county to press the developer for clearer documentation and stronger local protections.
Rita Bartle, who identified herself as a nonparticipating landowner, said she could not obtain site‑specific records from the developer and that general statements from a company project manager left her uneasy. "As a nonparticipating landowner, I'm really discouraged," Bartle said, adding that she wanted documentation showing how the company has handled past incidents and what liability protections exist for neighbors.
County officials and staff described ongoing coordination with local emergency management and fire departments. Commissioner (S2) said the company is meeting regulatory obligations and that local planners have discussed emergency response: "They will meet any applicable legal and regulatory obligations," he said. Officials noted Crossline plans to place a 25,000‑gallon tank on site to provide an initial supply of water to responders and will have a local on‑site worker during daytime hours (7 a.m.–7 p.m., Monday–Saturday) with on‑call coverage for evenings and Sundays.
A county representative said the 25,000‑gallon tank is intended to give firefighters about the first hour and a half to establish operations and that neighboring jurisdictions would shuttle additional water as needed. "The 25,000‑gallon tank is intended to give firefighters sufficient time to safely establish operations," the official said, adding that firefighters normally shuttle water from tankers for extended incidents.
Residents pressed for clarity on whether company‑funded third‑party reports or consultants would be independent. Commissioners said they were wary of a developer directly funding a county compliance officer but were open to a transparent, competitively procured consultant paid from a neutral source. "Taking money from a company to police itself complicates things," one commissioner said.
A technical speaker later briefed the meeting on lithium‑ion battery incident behavior, explaining thermal runaway, off‑gassing and why such events can be difficult to extinguish. The speaker said there is not yet a single standardized national response doctrine for large battery‑storage incidents and urged careful training and planning.
The board did not take a formal vote on Crossline operations during the meeting. Commissioners reiterated that emergency planning, equipment and training are ongoing, and they asked staff to continue coordinating with local fire chiefs, EMA and the company and to report back on any new documentation or agreements provided by Crossline.
Next steps: county staff will continue emergency‑planning meetings with fire departments and the developer, request clearer documentation from the company on past incident responses where possible, and update the board at a future meeting.
