Santa Fe County commissioners used the continuation hearing to press AES and county staff about project economics, job promises, and measures to ensure long‑term site cleanup if the project proceeds and ownership changes.

Why this matters: The questions address how the county and nearby communities will benefit economically, how much tax revenue might be affected if the developer seeks Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) tax treatment, and how the county will ensure decommissioning funds or bonds are available at the end of life or if ownership changes.

Key details from the hearing

- Estimated project cost and IRB discussion: AES told commissioners the project’s capital cost is estimated in the range of $200 million to $250 million. The applicant said an IRB application (if pursued) requires a public submission of capital costs; AES cautioned that publishing detailed commercial revenue figures can reveal competitive bids but said it would supply required information for any IRB application. County staff explained an IRB can make some gross‑receipts tax exemptions available for qualifying renewable equipment but said those details are handled as part of any later IRB review.

- Jobs and wages: AES estimated roughly 200 construction jobs over an approximately one‑year construction period and four full‑time on‑site operations and maintenance personnel during operations. AES said average O&M salaries could be in the six‑figure range (the company gave an illustrative average of roughly $165,000 for O&M personnel). Commissioner questions sought greater clarity on the duration of construction roles and whether subcontractors’ workers would receive benefits; AES said subcontractors provide their own benefits and that prevailing wage / apprenticeship requirements tied to federal tax incentives may apply.

- Decommissioning, bonding and change of ownership: AES provided a decommissioning cost estimate in current dollars of approximately $8.8 million (gross) and a net estimate of about $7.2 million after assumed salvage. County staff said a decommissioning bond is a common condition and that the board could require posting a bond or other financial assurance as a permit condition; staff also said permit conditions would remain with the project entity even if ownership changes. Commissioners pressed whether additional bonding or insurance could be required in the event of a change of control; staff said the county could adopt ordinances if there were evidence a technology was unsafe, but generally permit conditions and required bonds travel with the property or permit and are enforceable against successors as permitted by local law.

- Revenues and consumer impacts: AES described how a long‑term fixed‑price power contract (a PPA tied to a PNM RFP) stabilizes the price of energy delivered under that contract regardless of future inflation. AES told the board that if AES secures a PNM contract, the fixed price would help stabilize costs for PNM ratepayers through the utility’s regulatory mechanisms; the company said ultimate retail impacts are determined by the utility and the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.

Requests and next steps

- Staff and commissioners requested applicant cost figures required for an IRB application be submitted through the county’s IRB process if AES pursues that mechanism.

- Board members asked staff to draft decommissioning bond language and continued oversight requirements so the board can review the proposed bond amount and enforcement mechanisms when the record reopens.

Bottom line: Commissioners signaled they want both assurances that promised local jobs and tax benefits will materialize and binding financial guarantees (decommissioning bond) to protect the county and residents if the project proceeds or changes hands.