Dec. 4—More than a hundred people gathered in a downtown Santa Fe meeting room Wednesday to voice their opposition to a proposed solar and battery storage development near Eldorado.
“Fellow community members, let us unite against this potential environmental disaster in what is clearly a fight for our lives,” said Eldorado resident Patricia Sill, who received loud applause at Wednesday’s Santa Fe County land use hearing.
Virginia-based AES Corp. proposes the high-profile and ambitious Rancho Viejo Solar project, which has received a lot of attention as concerns about fires caused by lithium battery storage persist. But advocates say it could play an important role in the state’s efforts to curb climate change.
“This project could generate the equivalent of the entire housing burden of Santa Fe,” Joshua Mayer, senior development manager at AES, said at the meeting. “At the broader state level, this represents 1% of reaching that 100% [clean energy] goal by 2045.”
Heated hearing
The hearing began at 9:30 a.m. and lasted at the Santa Fe Convention Center until about 5 p.m. as a hearing officer prepared to make a recommendation to the county Planning Commission. The project is currently going through the county’s conditional use permitting process.
“We oppose this project for several legal reasons. In particular, it will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the area. It will create a potential fire and panic hazard,” said Catherine Babbitt of the Clean Energy Coalition of Santa Fe County, a group with about 1,200 members opposed to the project.
“The only thing green about their project is the money they hope to gain from the citizens of New Mexico,” said Lee Zlotoff of the Clean Energy Coalition, calling the project “corporate profit at our expense.”
Marilyn Hebert, the hearing officer assigned to the conditional use permit application, will make a written recommendation to the county Planning Commission before the end of the month, according to a county spokesperson. The panel could then make a decision on Rancho Viejo as early as February. So the high stakes of Wednesday’s hearing were clear to all, even if no real revelations emerged about the project or the views of locals.
Tensions emerged early on when Mayer argued that the development would not impact home values, a concern for those living near the project. Cynical laughter erupted from the crowd, largely made up of older people living in the Eldorado and San Marcos areas, as they shook their heads in indignation.
“I asked for respect,” Mayer said, turning to the crowd.
During the meeting, the hearing officer urged the crowd to stop applauding speakers who repeatedly denounced the project.
Aiming to generate 96 megawatts of power and about 45 megawatts of battery storage at a site about two miles east of NM 14, the project would cover 680 acres of an approximately 800-acre parcel and include a solar energy facility, a collector substation of 1 hectare. , a 3-acre battery storage system and a 3.7-mile generation line. The target customer would be the Public Service Company of New Mexico, the state’s largest utility.
Debate about fire risk
The project’s most vocal opponents, in deep-blue Santa Fe County, say they support the clean energy transition but have concerns about AES and the project, including past fires at AES facilities such as in Chandler, Ariz.
“What I think is missing from all of this is that this is not a normal fire. These are chemical fires that we’re concerned about. These batteries are so hot,” said Patsy Welch. “They can start a chain reaction called a thermal runaway fire, which has happened a few times in recent years.”
“Water doesn’t stun them, so you can imagine that in Eldorado, where it’s full of dry vegetation everywhere, it could really be a huge nightmare,” Welch added.
But AES officials have characterized the project as a “moonshot” for New Mexico, noting the state’s clean energy goals. Officials have tried to allay concerns about the project.
“This project will allow Santa Fe County to be a leader,” Mayer said.
Glenn Schiffbauer, executive director of the Santa Fe Green Chamber of Commerce, president of 350SantaFe.org Robert Cordingley and John Buchser, chairman of the Northern Group of the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club, argued in a recent op-ed published in The New Mexican that there are countless reasons to support Rancho Viejo Solar.
“This project is in one of the lowest wildfire categories for Santa Fe County,” Mayer said Wednesday, showing images that he said “exemplify the very low amount of vegetation in this area.”
Ashton Thornhill called the project a major concern for those living in the area, in terms of insurance costs and property and home values.
“They just say this is a fire area,” Thornhill said of insurance companies. “This is a major concern.”
PNM’s plans
While it seems that many have views that are deeply rooted in this issue, not everyone is firm. Mary Van Sickle, a Santa Fe resident, attended Wednesday’s hearing with an open mind. Van Sickle, 77, noted that it seemed like many of the project’s opponents were around her age, while communities south of Santa Fe, such as Eldorado, were home to many retirees.
“I want to hear the facts,” Van Sickle said. “I think what will be most interesting besides the facts is these older people standing up and becoming activists like they were in the 1960s.”
PNM is seeking approval for new renewable energy and gas generation projects that the utility says will meet expectations for higher electricity demand in the coming years.
Integrated Resources Plan PNM recently sought approval for three new solar and battery storage projects, as well as an extension of a natural gas power plant contract for more than 10 years. The plan requires approval by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, which PNM has requested by August 2025.
PNM’s plan does not mention Rancho Viejo. Although AES had initially expressed plans for the project to start in 2026, the estimated date has been steadily pushed back due to a battle that has reached the courts.
“Past selection or non-selection is not relevant to a future procurement,” Mayer said after it was brought up during public comment. “…Ultimately it will be PNM’s choice. They may or may not select this project in the next one [request for proposals].”
