San Juan Mesa repower prompts questions about tower removal, blade disposal and well safety

A company representative described a planned repower of the San Juan Mesa wind project and answered questions from Roosevelt County commissioners and residents about how turbines and blades will be removed and disposed of.

The project representative said the plan calls for removing roughly 120 existing 1‑megawatt Mitsubishi turbines and installing about 30 new 4.5‑megawatt machines, increasing generation potential while keeping the point of interconnection capped. “All of the 120 in both counties is gonna be removed, and 30 new 4 and a half megawatt towers are gonna be put in,” the representative said.

Why it matters: residents and commissioners focused on how towers will come down and where blade and concrete waste will be handled. Allen Carter, a public commenter, urged the county to require bonded contractors and an ordinance governing disposal to avoid airborne fiberglass hazards and to prevent ranchers and communities from being left with cleanup costs. “I think that there needs to be something in place, so that we don't get in a mess,” he said.

Commissioners pressed the company on decommissioning methods. The representative described a range of approaches — crane removal with careful lowering, mechanical tipping, and, rarely, explosive techniques — but said the contractor scope will specify methods to protect waterlines, wells and culturally sensitive areas. “Those are all different methods that I’ve heard, and I have not gotten a clear scope from our EPC contractor about the method we're planning to use,” the representative said. He added that work would be controlled and engineered to avoid sensitive sites identified with the State Land Office and the State Historic Preservation Office.

County members raised specific concerns about wells and water infrastructure near turbine sites, and asked whether vibration or impact from falling towers could damage wells. The representative said the company will map waterlines and wells and design removal plans to avoid impacts and that lease agreements make the company responsible for fixing any damage if it occurs.

Commissioners and staff also discussed disposal and recycling options for blades and other materials. The representative said blades will be recycled where possible and directed to a regional recycling center he previously mentioned to the commission; he also said new foundations are required for the larger machines and that some existing concrete caps will remain backfilled while the new pads and foundations are installed.

Tax and payments were discussed: older turbines that remain in operation after their PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) period lapses will be state‑assessed and taxed differently going forward, and construction sales taxes (GRT) will depend on where materials and services are sourced. The company said it will try to source what it can locally but that major components such as turbines and blades will likely be procured outside the county.

Next steps: the representative offered to provide more detailed decommissioning procedures to the commission and to meet with the subcommittee for continued negotiations. Commissioners asked staff to ensure surveys identify wells and other sensitive features before decommissioning work begins.

The commission did not take a final regulatory action at the meeting; commissioners and staff said they will continue subcommittee work and ask the company for a clearer, written decommissioning plan that specifies methods, contractor obligations and cleanup standards.