A PROJECT COMPARISON
The push to bring out-of-state corporations to develop renewable energy in the form of solar farms and Li-ion battery storage to Santa Fe County continues. A new application from a Spanish-based company, Linea Energy, LLC, for a 2-phase solar and battery storage project called Globemallow 1 and 2, was submitted to the County on 9/2/2025. Globemallow is proposed for the location east of State Highway 41. The project site is located 2.4 miles north of Stanley, New Mexico, between mile markers 42.33 and 41.69. The table provides key details about Globemallow, along with corresponding information from the AES project for comparison. For the most part, the CEC Team found many of the design parameters to be the same between the two projects.
Revised January 2026
This preliminary review is based upon information provided in Linea’s initial application to Santa Fe County. The Linea design will continue to evolve up to the point of it going to the Planning Commission. We will update as further details become available.
| Rancho Viejo Project - AES | Globemallow 1 and 2 Projects - Linea | |
| Total Land Area | 1,100 acres, 828-acre footprint | 2,896 acres, 2,002-acre footprint (1,955 solar, 19.7 switchyard, 11.8 BESS) |
| Solar Capacity | 96 MW | 199 MW + 150 MW = 349 MW total |
| BESS Capacity | 48 MW | 199 MW + 150 MW = 349 MW total |
| Solar Panels | 205,712 BYD solar panels | 433,654 + 328,250 = 761,890 Solarspace panels |
| Battery Technology | Lithium Ion, Nickel, Cobalt, Aluminum, NCA, 574,560 cells | Lithium Iron Phosphate, LFP, 1.8m+3.0m=4.8mil cells |
| Battery Enclosures | 38 enclosures, 10’ spacing* | 48 + 36 enclosures, total of 84 enclosures of varying size, 11.5’ spacing |
| On-site firefighting water | 60,000-gal on-site water tank* | 30,000-gal on-site water tank |
| Adjacent Uses/Density | 0.32 miles to nearest property in San Marcos, 1.4 mil to Eldorado. SM, Eldo, La Paz, Rancho Viejo, Dos G. Alteza, & Belicia have approx. 7,500 homes and 17,400 people within 2.5 to 6 miles | 40 residences (not necessarily occupied) located within 1.24 miles, 2.4 miles to Stanley (pop 108), 12.7 miles to Moriarity (2,059) |
* Initial AES design was 3.5’ between enclosures and 30,000-gal on-site water; table values represent land use permit conditions. CEC is recommending 60,000-gal for the Linea design.
Here are additional design parameters for the Globemallow Project, along with how they differ from the AES design parameters and the CEC's assessments of those parameters.
Battery Type - Linea uses an LFP (LiFePO) battery, which is rapidly becoming the preferred chemistry for stationary, large-scale energy storage due to its exceptional safety and durability.
AES is using an NCA (Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide), which has very high energy density but generally lower cycle life and thermal stability, making it less common for grid storage than LFP or NMC. It is mainly used in high-performance EVs.
LFP is considered the superior and safer choice for large-scale, stationary energy storage due to its inherent chemical stability.
Battery Safety and Fire Characteristics Comparison
| Rancho Viejo (AES): Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA) | Globemallow (Linea): Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) | ||
| Thermal Runaway Risk | High | Very Low | |
| Thermal Runaway Temperature | Low approx. 150 c | High approx. 270 c | |
| Oxygen Release | Readily releases oxygen during thermal runaway, acting as an internal oxidizer and fueling a more violent, unquenchable fire. | Does not readily release oxygen when decomposing. This limits the fire's ability to self-sustain. | |
| Result of Failure | Prone to severe thermal runaway leading to rapid, high-temperature fire and potential explosion. | Tends to vent gas and smoke with less intense heat and a lower risk of fire propagation to adjacent cells. | |
| Fire Mitigation | It is much more difficult to manage due to high heat and internal oxygen production. | Easier to contain and extinguish, with more time for intervention due to the higher thermal threshold. | |
| Primary BESS Use | Less common for BESS; primarily used in high-performance Electric Vehicles (EVs) where energy density is the top priority. | Preferred for utility and commercial BESS where safety and long cycle life are paramount. |
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION
The Linea LFP battery is far safer than the AES NCA in terms of chances of a thermal runaway fire. The NCA thermal runaways are more violent, have higher temperatures, and require longer cool-down times. — Linea should conduct a Plume Study to show the potential impact of a BESS fire. — Linea’s 30,000-gal tank is undersized in the event of a BESS fire. — Both facilities should detail plans for providing additional water in the event of a fire requiring an extended cooldown beyond 1 to 2 hours. — Both facilities have conflicts between the suggested “standoff of 300’ for personnel” and the location of staging areas and water tanks, which are totally or partially within 300’ of the nearest BESS enclosure.
Adjacent Uses and Development Density - There is a stark contrast between the surroundings of Linea and AES. The US Postal Service shows a single delivery zone serving the area around Stanley/Linea, which encompasses over 200 sq. miles and includes 385 residences and approximately 885 people. In contrast, the 14 postal routes surrounding AES include 8,748 residences and nearly 20,000 people, spanning 80 sq. miles. That is 22 times the population in an area less than half the size. — Yet, no matter the size, all industrial utility energy projects need to be safe for nearby residents and the environment.
Water - AES states it will use 100-150 ACF of water over a 12-month construction period, while Linea states it will use 67 ACF over 18 months. AES is using two to four times the amount of water during construction on a site that is less than half the size. Water will be trucked to both sites from locations TBD.
There is no discussion by AES or Linea regarding the collection of water used during firefighting on the BESS yard. A CEC expert witness demonstrated that water used to cool down enclosures adjacent to a burning enclosure will interact with the smoke plume and capture toxic chemicals in runoff. Linea shows swales lined for erosion control, but the basin appears unlined. The swales and retention basin should be lined as necessary to contain hazardous runoff from firefighting. In general, CEC recommends that the swales be considered Industrial Land Use sites, as defined by the EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i)-(xi) require stormwater discharges associated with specific categories of industrial activity to be covered under NPDES permits (unless otherwise excluded). The specific category of regulated industrial activity is Category Five (v): Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps with industrial wastes.
Noise - Linea’s predictive (no actual on-site measurements) noise report, prepared by SWCA, indicates noise levels of 31 dBa to 36 dBa at the edge of the project site, assuming the use of “BESS silencers”. No specifications are provided for the BESS Silencers regarding how much they reduce noise. Linea is upfront that the Noise analysis and design are incomplete. They recognize the constraints they must meet and are working to resolve the design gaps. AES’s predictive (no actual on-site measurements) noise report, prepared by SWCA, indicates noise levels of 43.5 to 48.3. The study has been disputed based on assumptions about baseline ambient noise levels. The BCC added Condition #21 to the CUP approval, requiring an on-site ambient noise study before recordation of the CUP site development plan.
Biological – Linea indicates the presence of birds, pronghorn antelope, and deer. The report says that “wildlife-friendly” fencing will surround the solar arrays, while chain link will surround the BESS, switchyard, and interconnection. Migration pathways are also present in the site design. Linea does not specifically address weed or vegetation control within the 1,955 acres of solar panels. AES indicates the presence of prairie dogs and burrowing owls. The AES EIR states that the site will be “fenced,” while verbal testimony has suggested “wildlife-friendly fencing”.
Economics - Linea projects a total project cost of $628 million with real estate taxes totaling $29.3 million over the projected 41-year life. The total payments equate to 4.6% of the project cost. The payments are based upon the assumption that the project will use Industrial Revenue Bonds issued by Santa Fe County. AES projects a total project cost of $200 million with real estate taxes or Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) totaling $7 million. The total payments equate to 3.5% of the project cost. The payments are based upon the assumption that the project will also use Industrial Revenue Bonds issued by Santa Fe County.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
A major difference between the two projects is that Linea has been open to continued conversations with CEC and the general communities around the site. Linea has already implemented many of the suggestions that have arisen during these discussions. This is in contrast to the approach AES has taken of making misleading statements, refusing to discuss or accept design changes other than those directed by the County, and even hiding design parameters behind false claims of “Trade Secrets”.
CEC will be submitting a formal exhibit of its analysis of the Linea application at the upcoming Globemallow 1 Hearing Officer Hearing, because we believe making informed decisions is necessary to protect our environment and keep ALL our neighborhoods safe.
At this time CEC is not taking a formal position in support of or in opposition to the Linea project. With the prospect of a County-owned utility that will really serve residents and can be safer and more cost effective, we feel our efforts should be directed toward that.
Please read CEC’s recommendations for A Smarter Way