The Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners continued public hearings on the AES Rancho Viejo 96-megawatt solar project with battery energy storage on Wednesday, hearing nearly nonstop public comment about siting, safety and local impacts before recessing to continue questioning of the applicant and staff the following day.

The hearing mattered because the conditional use permit under review would allow a utility-scale solar facility and an associated battery energy storage system (BESS) to be built adjacent to several residential neighborhoods, two K–8 schools and other community facilities; supporters said it advances local clean-energy goals and economic development, opponents said the county’s existing rules and emergency plans do not protect residents from low-probability but high-consequence disasters.

Opponents focused on fire, toxic plume and evacuation risk, water supply and insurance impacts. Cindy Fuqua, a long-time volunteer with the Clean Energy Coalition, told commissioners: “This project is not ready,” citing concerns about water supply, spacing of battery containers, and what she called insufficient information in the applicant’s submittals. Several other speakers warned about the possibility that a BESS thermal runaway could produce a toxic plume that would travel miles and overwhelm local evacuation and medical resources. “There are 700 students and staff at Turquoise Trail Charter and about 400 at El Dorado,” said Millie McFarland, a nearby resident; she asked commissioners for a clear evacuation plan for area schools.

Technical and regulatory concerns were recurring themes. Multiple residents and consultants questioned whether the facility should be classified as a commercial solar installation (eligible for a conditional use permit) or a gas/electric power generation facility (which the county’s land-use rules restrict in rural-fringe zones). Speakers also pressed the county and AES on where construction and operational water would come from and on the company’s environmental and enforcement history; one participant summarized industry regulatory data and said the local permitting code did not contemplate a facility of this scale.

Supporters emphasized climate and reliability benefits and the project’s economic value. Tom Gish, who said he lives near the site, called himself “a yimby” and argued the facility would add needed carbon-free capacity. Carlos Matutis, New Mexico state director of Green Latinos, told commissioners: “We need to act right now” to displace fossil fuels and protect communities that are already suffering climate impacts. Several speakers with energy-sector experience and public-health backgrounds told the board modern BESS designs and codes significantly reduce the likelihood of fires and that the project would help prevent grid outages.

Representatives of local clean-energy and industry groups also testified in favor. Randy Coleman, vice president of the Clean Energy Coalition, urged the board to consider district-level impacts and alternatives while noting the project drew outside support and some local opposition; other speakers, including nonprofit and municipal energy advocates, said the project would create jobs and deliver low-cost renewable energy to the PNM system.

Procedural matters: the commissioners recessed the hearing and held an executive-session roll call during the day; they also stated publicly they would reconvene the next morning to continue questioning staff and the applicant. No final decision on the conditional use permit or on related code issues was recorded during the session covered by this transcript.

The record shows intense local interest and a split between broad support for rapid decarbonization and deep local concern about siting, emergency response capacity and long-term liabilities. Commissioners said they would continue the hearing and ask follow-up questions of staff and the applicant at the next scheduled session.

What’s next: the Board of County Commissioners reconvened the hearing the following morning for continued questioning of staff and the applicant and to give commissioners a chance to press for additional analyses and clarifications before any final action. No vote on the permit was taken during the day covered by this article.