Residents demand moratorium on proposed solar and battery storage project – Dubois County Free Press, Inc.

Report on Community Response to the Crossvine Solar Project in Huntingburg

Project Context and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 7

A public meeting of the Huntingburg Common Council was convened to address the proposed Crossvine Solar Project and its associated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). The project, developed by AES, is designed to contribute directly to Sustainable Development Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by increasing the share of renewable energy in the local power grid. The BESS component, which utilizes lithium-ion batteries, is integral to this goal, as it enhances grid stability and ensures a reliable supply of clean energy.

Community Concerns and Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Despite the project’s alignment with clean energy objectives, local residents from Huntingburg and Holland have raised significant concerns that highlight a conflict with other core SDGs. A petition with over 200 signatures was presented, requesting a moratorium on the project pending further investigation into its impacts.

• Public Health and Safety (SDG 3 & SDG 11): Residents expressed apprehension regarding the safety of the BESS facility, citing the risk of thermal runaway fires that are difficult to extinguish. Concerns were also raised about the potential release of toxic chemicals from damaged solar panels (e.g., cadmium, lead) and the adequacy of local emergency services to manage such an industrial incident, impacting community safety and well-being.
• Sustainable Land Use (SDG 15 & SDG 11): The project’s impact on land use was a primary issue. The conversion of agricultural land into an industrial solar field was described as detrimental to the local landscape and ecosystems. This challenges the principles of SDG 15 (Life on Land) by altering land use and potentially impacting biodiversity.
• Inclusive and Sustainable Communities (SDG 11 & SDG 16): A critical failure in communication and public consultation was reported by residents and city officials. This lack of transparent engagement from the developer undermines the principles of creating inclusive, safe, and resilient communities as outlined in SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and the call for accountable institutions in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Institutional and Regulatory Response

Local government officials are evaluating their response to balance renewable energy development with their responsibility to protect community interests and uphold sustainable development principles.

1. Legal and Jurisdictional Review: The council is seeking legal counsel to determine its authority over the project. A key challenge is that while a portion of the solar field is within the city’s two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, the BESS facility is located outside of it, complicating regulatory oversight.
2. Zoning Ordinance Assessment: The mayor noted that current ordinances classify solar fields as an acceptable agricultural activity, a regulatory gap that limits the city’s ability to intervene. There is a commitment to explore strengthening the Unified Development Ordinance to better align with the comprehensive goals of SDG 11.
3. Emergency Preparedness: The city has formally requested that AES coordinate with the county’s emergency management agency and local first responders to establish robust safety and response protocols.

Path Forward: Seeking Partnership and Sustainable Solutions

The conflict surrounding the Crossvine Solar Project underscores the necessity of integrating all pillars of sustainable development in energy projects. The path forward requires a renewed focus on SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), fostering collaboration between the developer, government, and the community.

• Scheduled Public Engagement: AES has scheduled public and virtual meetings to address the community’s concerns, representing a crucial, albeit delayed, step toward transparent dialogue.
• Decommissioning Assurance: The city has secured a decommissioning bond from AES. This financial assurance ensures the site will be restored if the facility ceases operation, which is a key practice for responsible, long-term environmental management in line with SDG 15.
• Official Stance: The mayor has expressed opposition to large-scale solar development under the current circumstances and has pledged to keep the public informed of all discussions with AES and potential legal actions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The entire article revolves around the “Crossvine Solar Project,” a renewable energy initiative. It involves a solar field and a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), which are key technologies for transitioning to cleaner energy sources.
2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The discussion addresses community safety, land-use planning, and disaster preparedness. Residents express concerns about fire response capabilities for the BESS, the project’s impact on property values, and the adequacy of local zoning ordinances to manage such large-scale developments.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article highlights concerns about the project’s impact on the local environment. It is being built on agricultural land, and residents worry about the transformation of this land into “ugly, unusable areas” and the potential for soil contamination from damaged solar panels leaking toxic chemicals.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The conflict between residents, the developer (AES), and the local government (Huntingburg Common Council) points to issues of governance and public participation. The article repeatedly mentions a “lack of communication” from the developer and the residents’ efforts to engage in the decision-making process by collecting signatures and speaking at council meetings.
5. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Concerns are raised about potential health risks associated with the project. A biology teacher specifically mentions that “damaged solar panels can leak toxic chemicals, including cadmium, lead and silicon dust,” which poses a risk of soil and water contamination and could affect human health.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy):
   • Target 7.2: “By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.” The Crossvine Solar Project, with its solar field and 85-megawatt BESS, is a direct effort to contribute to this target by generating and storing electricity from a renewable source.
2. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.3: “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management…” The residents’ demand for a moratorium to “better understand its impacts” and the complaint about a lack of communication reflect a call for more participatory and integrated planning.
   • Target 11.b: “By 2030, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards… disaster risk reduction…” The concerns about potential fires at the battery facility and the city’s engagement with emergency services to discuss “emergency response protocols” are directly related to disaster risk reduction planning.
3. Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
   • Target 15.3: “By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil… and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.” The concern that damaged panels could “leak toxic chemicals, including cadmium, lead and silicon dust” relates directly to preventing land and soil degradation. The city’s approval of a “decommissioning bond” is a measure intended to ensure the land is restored after the facility’s life.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The article highlights a failure in this area, noting that “the project has received little public communication” and that residents had to collect “more than 200 signatures” to have their voices heard by the council, demonstrating a demand for more inclusive decision-making.
5. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.9: “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The residents’ fear of “potential toxins” and leaks of “cadmium, lead and silicon dust” from the solar panels directly aligns with the goal of reducing illness from hazardous chemical contamination.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 7, Target 7.2:
   • Implied Indicator: The generating and storage capacity of the renewable energy facility. The article specifies the BESS is an “85-megawatt facility,” which is a direct measure of its contribution to the energy grid.
2. For SDG 11, Target 11.b:
   • Implied Indicator: The existence and adequacy of local disaster response plans. The article mentions the “mayor confirmed the city has requested AES meet with the county’s emergency management agency and has involved local police and fire departments in discussions about emergency response protocols.”
   • Implied Indicator: Data on past incidents at similar facilities. Residents cite a “thermal runaway event that occurred in 2022 at a 10-megawatt facility in Chandler, Arizona” as a benchmark for potential risk.
3. For SDG 16, Target 16.7:
   • Implied Indicator: Level of public participation in planning processes. This is measured in the article by the “more than 200 signatures” collected and the scheduling of a “public open house” and a “virtual meeting” by AES in response to the outcry.
4. For SDG 15, Target 15.3:
   • Implied Indicator: Mechanisms for ensuring land restoration. The article states the city approved a “decommissioning bond that requires AES to maintain funds for removing the facility,” which serves as a financial guarantee for future land restoration.
5. For SDG 3, Target 3.9:
   • Implied Indicator: Identification of hazardous materials in project components. The article explicitly names “cadmium, lead and silicon dust” as potential toxins that could leak from damaged solar panels.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: duboiscountyfreepress.com