Jan. 7—A representative of energy giant AES Corp. is pushing back on a recommendation last month to deny a permit for a proposed solar power and battery storage development south of the city that has spurred heated debate.
“We respectfully disagree with the hearing officer’s stated basis for her recommendation, largely as it is built on unsubstantiated claims and nonexpert testimony,” said Joshua Mayer, senior development manager for AES, in an interview this week.
Marilyn Hebert, a land use hearing officer on contract with Santa Fe County, wrote a written order Dec. 23 recommending the county Planning Commission deny the Virginia-based company’s application for a conditional use permit to develop the Rancho Viejo Solar project.
“The scale of the Project, over 200,000 panels and 570,000 lithium-ion batteries, together with the proximity to residential communities with homes as close [as] 500 feet from the Site boundary creates an unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of the communities,” Hebert wrote in the order.
Aiming to generate 96 megawatts of power and roughly 45 megawatts of battery storage, the project would cover 680 acres of a roughly 800-acre parcel and include a solar facility, a 1-acre collector substation, a 3-acre battery storage system and a 2.3-mile generation line about four miles east of La Cienega, according to the county’s website.
Supporters of Rancho Viejo Solar say the facility could play a role in the state’s efforts to slow climate change and would be an economic win for the region. An outside expert also found the risk of fires from lithium-ion batteries at solar facilities is rare.
But people who live in neighborhoods south of the city have turned up in numbers in an attempt to defeat the ambitious development, fearing the possible effects on their property values and the potential for fires.
The stage is set for a Feb. 3 Planning Commission meeting that could decide the fate of the proposal.
AES disputes hearing officer’s statements
Mayer noted in an interview multiple statements in Hebert’s recommendation that AES disputes.
Her order will slightly change the company’s approach to the Feb. 3 Planning Commission meeting, he said, with officials planning to address her statements while providing a “rebuttal.”
Mayer said the project has not been scaled too large. He cited the need to get clean energy projects online amid concerns about climate change and the state’s energy goals.
“This project is appropriately sized to produce the amount of carbon-free energy for approximately the entire residential demand of Santa Fe annually,” Mayer said. “And the battery storage facility, which has been facing the most scrutiny from opposition groups, is located 1.5 miles from the nearest residence. That’s an exceptional setback.”
He added, “This project presents a solution to Santa Fe County to take a lead in transitioning to a clean energy economy and to meet state goals of being carbon free in 20 years from now.”
Mayer said Hebert’s order also cites “inaccurate” language on the project’s proposed fire suppression system from an “outdated” document that was filed as a part of the permit application. Mayer said AES submitted an “updated” and “corrected” version of the document to the county Oct. 10.
Hebert wrote the system was “designed to suppress small fires within ancillary equipment and there is no expectation that a thermal runaway type fire within the battery banks will be suppressed.”
However, Mayer wrote in an email, “with the new fire safety standards and equipment” for battery storage systems, the opposite is true.
“The new fire suppression system that will be part of the Rancho Viejo project is specifically designed to suppress a thermal event or fire at the individual battery/battery module level before it turns into a larger fire or thermal runaway event,” he wrote.
Project opponents frequently note three fires in recent years at facilities associated with AES in Chandler and Surprise, Ariz., and Escondido, Calif.
Mayer downplayed the wildfire risk.
“Also, according to the most recent Santa Fe County Wildland Urban Interface fire risk map, the project is located in one of the lowest areas of wildfire risk in the region,” he wrote in the email. “In fact, 30% of the ground within the project location is basically barren.”
Mayer said AES has video of testing that shows the strength of its fire prevention systems and technology.
“They say a picture is worth a thousand words,” he said, “so, we are looking to present video” from testing “that shows everybody what happens when you have a single cell failure in our container and see that it is completely contained and that there is no risk to the area outside the container.”
Safety risk or clean power boon?
Lee Zlotoff, president of the Clean Energy Coalition of Santa Fe County, a group of nearby residents with about 1,200 members who oppose the project, had a strong reaction to Mayer’s comment about “nonexpert testimony” and “unsubstantiated claims” being included in the recommendation.
“What he’s saying is, ‘She’s uneducated and we know better than anybody else in the room what is really happening here.’ And it’s offensive. And it’s condescending,” Zlotoff said. “We have experts, too. And everything we said in that hearing was the truth, and we can back it up. And they have smoke and mirrors. Period.”
County spokesperson Olivia Romo wrote in a text message Tuesday Hebert declined to comment on the case.
“Santa Fe County believes it is not appropriate to facilitate or encourage direct contact with the Hearing Officer regarding this case,” Romo wrote in an email.
The county’s Sustainable Land Use Development Code establishes the hearing officer position to help in quasi-judicial cases — such as AES’ application for a conditional use permit.
Hebert, appointed by the County Commission in 2022, is paid $175 per hour with maximum compensation of $60,000 during the term of her contract, according to Romo.
While the county Planning Commission will consider and review Hebert’s order, it is not bound by her recommendation on AES’ application and will “hold a separate hearing in order to make their own findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Romo said.
Opponents also prepare for public hearing
Still, residents of Eldorado feel the project puts them at risk.
“There’s fire risk. There’s explosion risk,” said Eldorado resident Ashley Schannauer in a December interview.
Those who have organized opposition to the project are also gearing up for the public hearing before the Planning Commission, which promises to be a lively one.
“We’re probably going to approach it the same way we approached the meeting with the hearing officer. It seems to me AES is the one who now has to convince the Planning Commission and the county commissioners that somehow the hearing officer was mistaken,” Zlotoff said. “But in our opinion, she wasn’t mistaken. She got it right.”
With the recommendation to deny on the table, Zlotoff said he expects AES to be “more aggressive, forceful perhaps,” at the hearing.
“I also know that AES will say anything they need to say to get their permit, and whether or not it’s the truth is entirely irrelevant to them,” he added.
The Planning Commission’s decision on the permit won’t necessarily be the final ruling; parties with standing can appeal, which would then kick the case to county commissioners. A decision by the commission can also be appealed in state District Court.