Questa Hydrogen Project: Facts & Concerns  

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative is pursuing a proposed hydrogen energy storage project near Questa, New Mexico, on or near Chevron’s former Questa Mine property and within the broader Chevron Questa Mine Superfund area.

The project has been publicly described as part of a larger hydrogen-and-solar energy buildout that may include:

• a large solar array of roughly 300 acres

• hydrogen production equipment

• water purification and electrolysis equipment

• hydrogen compressors

• hydrogen storage vessels

• fuel cells

• a substation

• related transmission and electrical infrastructure

The project area is located directly adjacent to the Village of Questa, homes, Alta Vista Elementary School, public roads, sage habitat, the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument.

This is not a typical small renewable-energy project. It is a proposed industrial hydrogen facility and solar buildout in a rural community already shaped by decades of mining, water concerns, tailings, dust, and Superfund cleanup. It is also being built in a residential, agricultural, and eco-tourism area.

How the Project Has Been Presented

KCEC has described the project as a clean-energy and energy-storage project intended to use renewable electricity to produce hydrogen. In simple terms, the proposed hydrogen facility would use electricity and water to produce hydrogen through electrolysis. The hydrogen could then be stored and later used to generate electricity through fuel cells.

Supporters have described the project as part of a transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable-energy storage.

Community members are not opposed to renewable energy. The concern is whether this specific project, in this specific location, has been fully reviewed, honestly explained, and safely planned before construction moves forward.

Why Residents Are Concerned

Residents have raised serious questions about:

• water use from POD 18 or other project wells

• impacts to groundwater, wells, springs, acequias, and long-term water availability

• the use of water for hydrogen production during drought and aridification

• hydrogen fire, explosion, storage, and emergency-response risks

• proximity to Alta Vista Elementary School, homes, roads, and public areas

• construction disturbance, dust, and possible movement of mine-related contaminants

• impacts to sage habitat, nesting birds, prairie dogs, burrowing owls, rare plants, wetlands, and wildlife corridors

• whether the solar array was fully reviewed before ground disturbance began

• whether the full hydrogen-and-solar project was ever reviewed as one connected development

• who is permitting, inspecting, and enforcing safety during construction

• who is financially responsible if only part of the project is completed

• whether KCEC members, Village residents, or taxpayers could be affected by project costs, failed funding milestones, cleanup responsibilities, or liability

What Recent Federal Filings Show

Recent federal court filings have clarified that the project’s funding structure has changed over time.

USDA/RUS Assistant Administrator Christopher McLean stated that KCEC was approved for New ERA loan and grant funding for the “Questa Solar and Green Hydrogen Project,” originally described as two separate projects: a solar array and a hydrogen project. He also stated that funding for the solar array was later dropped from RUS financing and revised toward the hydrogen project through USDA’s “look back” process.

McLean also stated that RUS will not fund the Questa Solar Array and does not have conditions or controls over solar-array construction. He further stated that no construction has commenced on the hydrogen project itself, although KCEC has started clearing for a substation that was analyzed in the hydrogen project Environmental Assessment but is now funded separately.

The same declaration states that the New ERA award has not closed, advances of funds are not imminent, and KCEC has not yet verified to RUS that it has secured water permits and/or rights. McLean also stated that grant funds would not be released until after construction is complete and the hydrogen project is operational and verified by RUS.

The Central Problem

The public record now suggests that the project has been split across multiple categories:

• solar array

• hydrogen facility

• substation

• federal funding

• state or third-party solar financing

• tax credits

• Superfund oversight

• water-rights review

• wildlife review

• construction oversight

• local public-process questions

That fragmentation makes it difficult for residents to understand who reviewed the full project, who is responsible for each part, and whether cumulative impacts were evaluated before construction began.

The jurisdiction question has now become even more urgent. At the September 10, 2026 Village of Questa special meeting, residents were told that the Village of Questa, Taos County, and the State of New Mexico have no power to stop the proposed hydrogen-and-solar project. At the same time, a September 15 letter from attorney Guy Dicharry challenges whether New Mexico RLD/CID may still have regulatory and permitting authority over outside contractors hired by KCEC.

In other words, the public is being told both that local and state agencies may not have power to stop the project, and that at least one claimed permitting exemption may have been applied too broadly. That leaves a serious public-accountability gap.

At this time, the public still has not been shown a complete permit matrix, final fire-code approval, final emergency-response plan, completed OSE water authorization for long-term hydrogen production, full construction-inspection record, final stormwater documentation, complete biological and rare-plant review, or a single agency determination identifying who has enforceable oversight over the full combined project.

The public needs clear answers to basic questions:

Who reviewed the full project?
Who approved the solar-array disturbance?
Who is inspecting current construction?
What water rights and permits are still unresolved?
What happens if the solar array is built but the hydrogen project is delayed, denied, or abandoned?
Who is responsible for environmental damage, cleanup costs, emergency response, and long-term liability?

Bottom Line

This website exists because Questa residents deserve the full picture before more irreversible decisions are made.

A project described as clean energy still needs lawful review, public transparency, water protection, wildlife review, emergency planning, enforceable oversight, and community consent.

The concern is not renewable energy. The concern is a rushed and fragmented hydrogen-and-solar project near homes, a school, a Superfund site, scarce water resources, and lands that matter deeply to the people of northern Taos County.

Community Perspective: This Project Needs a Redesign

Community members are not asking for northern New Mexico to reject renewable energy. They are asking why this specific hydrogen-and-solar project is being pushed forward in this specific location, with unresolved questions about water, safety, habitat loss, permitting, Superfund liability, emergency response, and public consent.

As local advocate Elisabeth Dicharry has written, the project planners and sponsors should go back to the drawing board and find a better solution — one that considers Questa-area residents, tourists, scarce water in an arid region, traditional acequias, nearby homes and schools, and the environmental beauty of northern New Mexico.

The concern is not progress. The concern is a flawed design, in the wrong place, moving forward before the community has been given the full truth.

Water Remains an Unresolved Question

Water is one of the most serious unresolved questions surrounding the proposed hydrogen project.

This is not just a question of how much water POD 18 can produce, whether the well is deep, or whether the water is clean enough to use.

The deeper concern is that hydrogen production is a consumptive use of water.

To make hydrogen, water is purified and split through electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen. Once that happens, the water is no longer water in the aquifer. It has been converted into an industrial fuel stream and oxygen.

Even if hydrogen is later used in a fuel cell and water is produced somewhere else, that water does not return to POD 18, the local aquifer, the springs, the acequias, or the groundwater system it came from.

For Questa, that means this water would be removed from the local hydrologic cycle.

It would not return as recharge. It would not flow back toward springs, wetlands, shallow groundwater, acequias, or future community supply.

It would be taken from a groundwater system already under drought, climate stress, Superfund obligations, and competing community needs, and converted into hydrogen for industrial energy storage.

That is why the water question matters so deeply. 

The USDA environmental documents identify RG-14117-POD-18, a well associated with the Chevron tailings facility, as the proposed water source. KCEC has said this well appears to draw from a deeper groundwater source than many nearby domestic wells and acequias.

This may be true. But in reality, “deeper” does not automatically mean separate, protected, or impact-free.

KCEC has also described the proposed source as “non-potable groundwater associated with the former mine site,” but OSE records for POD 18 clearly identify the permitted purpose of use as including domestic use, mining, milling, and mine-site reclamation. Why is this water being characterized as disposable when the records show it is part of a permitted water-right system connected to local groundwater, reclamation, and dust-control needs?  

Groundwater is not a still underground tank. It moves through layers, fractures, faults, pressure gradients, and slow connections over time. A deeper well may behave differently from shallow wells, but long-term pumping still has to be tested, modeled, and monitored before anyone can responsibly say nearby water users, springs, wetlands, acequias, domestic wells, or future water supplies will not be affected.

KCEC’s Water Study Is Still Incomplete

On June 16, 2026, KCEC released a press release and fact sheet titled “Initial Water Study Findings.” KCEC later posted a two-page Phase One summary memorandum prepared by its hydrogeologic consultants.

That memo identifies POD 18 as the proposed production well and offers preliminary conclusions about depth, geologic layers, clay barriers, and possible groundwater connection.

But KCEC has not publicly released the full Phase One technical record behind those conclusions. The public has not seen the complete well dataset, borehole logs, cross-sections, field observations, maps, assumptions, calculations, modeling files, or technical appendices.

The memo itself says the study is ongoing and that Phase One findings could change based on future testing.

That matters because the most important work was placed into Phase Two, including:

• a step test and 48-hour pumping test at POD 18;

• additional field water-level measurements;

• development and calibration of a numerical groundwater-flow model;

• simulations of future groundwater extraction;

• and analysis of drought, precipitation changes, population growth, and other water-use scenarios.

So when KCEC says Phase One suggests “little to no impact,” the public needs to remember what has not yet been released: the pumping test, calibrated model, future pumping simulations, drought analysis, and full technical record.

That is not a small missing detail. That is the work needed to understand whether long-term pumping could affect surrounding water resources.

OSE Records Add a Legal Question

Public records from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer add another major concern.

Records produced through IPRA show that Chevron and KCEC prepared draft materials seeking to use up to 100 acre-feet per year from POD 18 for expanded purposes, including industrial, commercial, construction, dust-control, and fire-suppression uses.

OSE records also show that KCEC sought emergency authorization to use POD 18 water before the ordinary approval process was complete, citing construction delays and risk to federal funding.

OSE rejected that emergency request, stating that potential funding loss does not qualify as a legal emergency allowing groundwater use before approval.

OSE indicated that limited construction-related dust control and ground compaction may fit within POD 18’s existing reclamation-related purpose. But long-term commercial or industrial water use for hydrogen appears to require a formal application process.

Key takeaway: the records reviewed so far do not show final OSE approval for KCEC to use POD 18 for long-term industrial hydrogen production.

View Full OSE IPRA Records

POD 18 Is Still Needed for Superfund Dust Control

POD 18 is not simply an unused well sitting on Chevron property.

EPA confirmed on June 26, 2026 that POD 18 continues to be used for dust control at the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site. Chevron’s existing water-right records also describe the well as connected to mining, reclamation, closure, dust-control, and roadway-maintenance activities.

That makes the hydrogen proposal more complicated.

The public has not yet been shown whether POD 18 can reliably serve active reclamation and dust-control needs while also supplying long-term industrial hydrogen production, especially during drought, high winds, heavy earthwork, or periods of increased dust-control demand.

The question is not only whether POD 18 has water, the question is whether the same well can legally, reliably, and sustainably serve both the Superfund cleanup and a new industrial hydrogen project.

POD 18 Is NOT Disposable Mine Water

KCEC has described the project as using “non-potable groundwater associated with the former mine site.”

They are making the water sound like contaminated waste water or unusable mine water. But the records we have reviewed so far tell a more complicated story.

Office of the State Engineer records for POD 18 identify the permitted purpose of use as including domestic use, along with mining, milling, and related purposes including mine-site reclamation. The OSE Conditions of Approval also identify the place of use as the Chevron Questa Tailings Facility.

This is groundwater from the Questa area. It has been tied to reclamation, dust control, roadway maintenance, and mine-related obligations. It has also now been identified as the proposed source for hydrogen production.

Calling it “non-potable groundwater associated with the former mine site” does not answer the central question:

Why should local groundwater be purified, split apart, and permanently removed from the local hydrologic cycle to manufacture hydrogen?

If the water must be treated before hydrogen production, the public should also be told exactly what treatment is required, what wastes or concentrate streams are produced, how those wastes will be managed, and how much additional water is lost in the purification process.

Drought Conditions Matter

This project is not being considered under normal water conditions.

In May 2026, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an executive order in response to drought and severe fire conditions across New Mexico. The Governor’s Office reported historic-low snowpack, record-high spring temperatures, record-low runoff, below-average river flows, and 366 wildfires during the first four months of 2026.

New Mexico’s long-range water planning also projects that climate change could reduce available water supplies by approximately 25 percent or more, along with reduced groundwater recharge, earlier snowmelt, longer summers, and increasing aridification.

A project may have access to an existing water right and still raise serious questions about whether the proposed use is wise, sustainable, and adequately protected during prolonged drought.

These are the conditions under which the hydrogen project’s proposed groundwater use must be evaluated.

What the Public Still Needs to See

The public still needs the technical and legal records required to evaluate KCEC’s water claims, including:

• the complete Phase One technical record;

• completed pumping-test results;

• the full well-record and groundwater dataset;

• borehole logs, geologic cross-sections, maps, field records, calculations, and assumptions;

• monitoring-well data showing water-level response during pumping;

• a calibrated groundwater-flow model;

• projected drawdown, cone of depression, and radius of influence under different pumping scenarios;

• analysis of potential impacts to springs, wetlands, acequias, shallow groundwater, domestic wells, community wells, and connected aquifers;

• analysis of whether pumping could affect Superfund groundwater controls or reclamation needs;

• clear annual, peak, startup, cooling, maintenance, emergency, and fire-response water-demand figures;

• drought-adjusted analysis of long-term water availability;

• final OSE authorization for any long-term industrial hydrogen use;

• a public monitoring plan with enforceable thresholds for reducing or stopping pumping;

• and independent peer review by a hydrogeologist not retained by KCEC, Chevron, or another project participant.

The Central Water Question

The central water question is not only whether POD 18 can physically pump enough water.

The question is whether it is acceptable to remove groundwater from this place, split it apart through electrolysis, and convert it into hydrogen when that water will not return to the local aquifer system.

KCEC has released its interpretation of Phase One and a short consultant summary. OSE records now also show that KCEC sought emergency authorization to use POD 18 water before the ordinary approval process was complete, and that OSE rejected that emergency request.

Different project materials and public discussions have referenced different water-use figures, including 47 acre-feet, 80 acre-feet, and up to 100 acre-feet per year. The public still needs to know which number reflects the actual proposed operating demand.

But even the lowest number matters. In an arid place, during drought, near acequias, domestic wells, springs, wildlife habitat, and an active Superfund cleanup, groundwater should not be treated as disposable industrial feedstock.

The community is still waiting for:

• the complete Phase One technical record;

• completed pumping-test results;

• a calibrated groundwater model;

• clear project water-demand figures;

• final OSE authorization for the proposed hydrogen use;

• a drought-adjusted long-term analysis;

• independent peer review;

• and public monitoring with enforceable protections if nearby water resources are affected.

Until those records are released, KCEC has not demonstrated that POD 18 can legally, reliably, and sustainably supply the hydrogen project without harming existing water users, reclamation needs, or surrounding water resources.

And even if the well can physically produce the water, the larger question remains:

Should scarce local groundwater be removed from Questa’s aquifer system and destroyed as water in order to manufacture hydrogen?

KCEC commissioned BakerRisk to evaluate possible hydrogen-related accidents involving fire, explosion, thermal radiation, blast pressure, building damage, and human injury.

The analysis models several possible consequences, including:

• Hydrogen fires and thermal radiation

• Blast overpressure and blast impulse

• Damage to residential and other structures

• Human hearing and lung impacts

• Potential effects extending beyond the project boundary

BakerRisk concluded that additional safety work is needed, including a site fire-protection plan, emergency-response planning, blast mitigation, fire-and-gas detection, and action-plan development.

On June 25, 2026, KCEC announced that portions of its electrical system were being placed into non-reclose operation because of extreme wildfire conditions. This means electrical lines may remain off after a fault until they can be inspected, reducing the risk of repeated electrical ignition.

That announcement raises an important question: if current conditions require heightened precautions to prevent electrical wildfire ignition, how will those same drought and wildfire conditions be addressed for a facility involving high-pressure hydrogen production, compression, storage, and electrical infrastructure?

Read BakerRisk Analysis

Read KCEC June 25 Fire Notice 

Local Fire-Code Authority and Emergency Planning

On June 24, 2026, James Hampton, Taos County Fire Marshal, responded to our questions about fire-code oversight and emergency planning for the proposed hydrogen facility.

He explained that because the project is located within the Village of Questa, the Questa Fire Department is the authority having jurisdiction. This means Questa Fire — not Taos County — would be responsible for establishing local fire-code requirements, reviewing response plans, setting emergency conditions, and addressing evacuation planning. Taos County would serve only in a supporting or mutual-aid role.

This is especially important because the February 27, 2026 BakerRisk presentation says that several major safety steps still needed to be completed or further evaluated, including:

• A site-specific fire-protection plan

• The amount and source of fire water needed for worst-case events

• Emergency-response planning

• Blast mitigation

• Fire-and-gas detection

• Action-plan development

On June 24, 2026, we contacted Questa Fire & EMS asking whether these plans had been completed, reviewed, or approved, and whether local responders had the staffing, equipment, training, water supply, and mutual-aid agreements necessary to respond to a hydrogen emergency.

In July 2026, Questa Fire & EMS Chief Greg Bobick responded. He stated that Questa Fire & EMS is aware of the proposed project and has begun discussions with Kit Carson Electric Cooperative and project stakeholders regarding responder safety and emergency preparedness.

Chief Bobick also stated that he had participated in a safety meeting where emergency-response considerations, responder safety, and training needs were discussed. According to his response, project representatives indicated that they would provide specialized training for Questa Fire & EMS personnel and mutual-aid partners as the project develops.

We appreciate Questa Fire & EMS engaging on this issue. However, the response also confirms that public-safety planning remains incomplete from the public’s perspective.

Specialized training is not the same thing as a complete emergency-response system.

A project of this scale may require written emergency-response plans, responder training, mutual-aid agreements, fire-water analysis, specialized equipment review, detection systems, evacuation and shelter-in-place protocols, school-specific planning, public-notification procedures, drills, administrative capacity, and long-term funding commitments.

The community needs to know whether the full public-safety burden of the hydrogen facility has been evaluated — not only whether KCEC has offered to provide training.

At this time, the public has not yet been shown a completed hydrogen-specific emergency-response plan, fire-protection plan, evacuation plan, school-safety protocol, responder-training schedule, equipment assessment, or long-term funding plan for emergency preparedness.

There is construction happening while the public has not yet been shown that the required planning exists or that the local department expected to carry the responsibility is fully prepared and resourced.

What Remains Unanswered

• Has Questa Fire & EMS reviewed the BakerRisk analysis?

• Has a hydrogen-specific fire-protection plan been completed?

• Has a full emergency-response plan been completed, reviewed, and approved?

• Has the required fire-water supply been identified and secured for worst-case events?

• What specialized hydrogen training will local responders receive, and when?

• Who will pay for training, equipment, drills, staff time, administrative planning, and future refresher training?

• What equipment, protective gear, detection systems, and suppression resources would be required?

• Has a public evacuation or shelter-in-place plan been prepared for nearby homes, roads, businesses, and Alta Vista Elementary School?

• Has a school-specific emergency protocol been developed for Alta Vista Elementary?

• Have mutual-aid partners confirmed their capacity to respond to a hydrogen incident?

• What role would Taos County, neighboring departments, state responders, and federal agencies play?

• Has the project received final local fire-code approval?

• Will the final emergency-response plan be made public before the project moves forward?

• Why is construction advancing before these safety requirements have been completed, reviewed, funded, and made public?

The proposed hydrogen facility and solar array are on Chevron property within or associated with the broader Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site.

This is not simply an old mine that has been cleaned up and closed. The Superfund cleanup is still active. Remedy work, groundwater management, monitoring, land-use controls, maintenance, and government oversight are still ongoing.

In the 2016 federal case, the United States, the State of New Mexico, and the New Mexico Environment Department alleged that decades of mining and waste disposal contaminated soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater. A consent decree then required Chevron to perform cleanup work and reimburse certain public response costs.

That history does not prove that every acre of Chevron land is contaminated. It does not prove that every new activity will interfere with the cleanup.

This land deserves care. This soil, this water...have been exploited and deserve to be delivered from further destruction.

New roads, grading, trenching, fencing, drainage changes, groundwater use, and industrial construction should not move forward on trust alone. The public deserves to see the records behind the assurances.

What EPA and NMED Have Said

NMED has described the KCEC project area as land within the larger Chevron property that was not used as a tailings-disposal area. NMED also indicated that the area was natural or previously undisturbed land and that a separate Superfund review was not required.

EPA has said it reviewed the Chevron–KCEC lease and expects construction in the leased area not to affect the Superfund remedy. EPA has also confirmed that Chevron remains responsible for the Superfund remedy, that POD 18 is within the Superfund Site boundaries, and that POD 18 is still being used for dust control.

These statements are important but they are not the same thing as full public review of the hydrogen-and-solar project.

EPA is not saying it approved the whole project. EPA is not acting as the permitting authority for hydrogen safety, emergency response, water rights, fire code, school proximity, wildlife impacts, zoning, local land use, or long-term community risk.

EPA is looking at a narrower question: whether KCEC’s activities interfere with the Superfund remedy.

That leaves a much bigger question unanswered:

If EPA is only reviewing the project through the lens of the Superfund remedy, who is reviewing the whole project before the land is changed?

September 24 EPA Q&A: EPA Superfund Has Limited Authority

At EPA’s September 24, 2026 public Q&A in Questa, EPA representatives said:

EPA Superfund does not permit or deny new projects like the KCEC hydrogen-and-solar project unless those projects affect the Superfund remedy. EPA explained that Superfund generally works after harm has already occurred. Its job is cleanup. Its authority is not the same as full project approval.

EPA also explained that KCEC had previously discussed using an area connected to the active remedy/pilot cover project. EPA said no to that area because disturbing it could affect the remedy.

According to the Q&A, KCEC’s current leased area is within the broader Superfund boundary, but EPA does not consider it part of the active remedy area currently being cleaned up. EPA also acknowledged that the boundary itself may be causing confusion and said one possible future step could be formally clarifying where CERCLA authority applies.

It means the public is being told that the project may be inside the broader Superfund boundary, but EPA’s authority is still limited. EPA is focused on the remedy. RUS acted as the federal funding and environmental-review agency. OSE is handling water-right questions. RLD/CID jurisdiction is being challenged. Local authority remains disputed.

Meanwhile, the public still has not been shown one agency taking responsibility for the full combined project.

Construction Stormwater and Current Ground Disturbance

At EPA’s July 23, 2026 public meeting and hearing, EPA stated that KCEC’s solar-array construction is covered under an EPA Construction General Permit. EPA also said the permit requires stormwater pollution controls and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

According to the meeting transcript, EPA staff visited the site and observed active dirt work, water trucks, compaction, straw bales, and dust or stormwater-control measures. EPA also said NMED had inspected the site.

EPA also reported that it did not see a visible site board displaying permit information at the project area. EPA said NMED was working with EPA enforcement staff about what had been observed.

So one question may be partly answered: the project reportedly has construction-stormwater permit coverage.

But the public still needs to see the actual records.

Where is the Construction General Permit coverage? Where is the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan? What area does it cover? What inspections have happened? Were any corrections required? What dust-control, drainage, erosion, runoff, and monitoring requirements apply?

A permit existing somewhere is not the same as the community being able to see whether it actually matches what is happening on the ground.

Why POD 18 Still Matters

POD 18 is not just some random well.

Chevron’s water-right records describe POD 18 as being used for dust control and roadway maintenance connected to reclamation and closure of the tailing facility. POD 18 has also been identified as a possible water source for the hydrogen facility.

EPA and NMED representatives have reportedly stated that POD 18 is not inside the KCEC lease area and that Chevron continues to have access to the well for dust control required by the Superfund remedy.

That makes the water question even more important.

The public still needs a clear answer about how much water POD 18 is currently needed for cleanup-related dust control, how much water the hydrogen project would require, whether the proposed amount is 47, 80, 100 acre-feet or something else, and whether OSE has approved long-term industrial hydrogen use.

The deeper question is simple:

Can one well legally and physically serve Superfund dust-control needs and long-term industrial hydrogen production, especially during drought, high winds, heavy earthwork, and fire-risk conditions?

Groundwater is not a side issue here. The Superfund cleanup has involved groundwater investigation, extraction, interception, monitoring, treatment, and efforts to prevent contaminated groundwater from reaching other water-bearing areas.

That does not prove POD 18 pumping will interfere with the remedy.

The public deserves more than a general assurance.

Lease, Liability, and Responsibility

EPA confirmed that it reviewed the lease between Chevron and KCEC. EPA also said neither company has indicated that KCEC will perform Superfund response work.

But the boundary between Chevron’s responsibility and KCEC’s responsibility is still not clear to the public.

Chevron remains responsible for the existing Superfund remedy. KCEC may be responsible for damage or contamination caused by its own construction or operations.

The public needs to know what happens if construction encounters contamination, spreads dust, changes drainage, damages monitoring equipment, limits access to cleanup infrastructure, interferes with groundwater monitoring, or creates a new pathway for contaminants to move.

We should not have to wait for damage to happen before learning who is responsible.

Preliminary Community Soil Samples

On June 26, 2026, community members collected three preliminary soil samples near the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund area. The sampling was prompted by concerns about dust, runoff, grading, and possible contamination pathways near homes, roads, ravines, and Alta Vista.

Eurofins analyzed the samples for fluoride, sulfate, manganese, molybdenum, and uranium.

All three samples contained measurable manganese, molybdenum, and uranium. Fluoride and sulfate were detected only in the Alta Vista sample.

These preliminary samples do not prove that more complete testing is needed.

Soil testing tells us what is in the dirt. It does not tell us what becomes airborne, what people may be breathing, what moves during storm events, what leaches into groundwater, or how exposure changes by season, wind, depth, and location.

The responsible next step is straightforward:

Test the soil. Test the dust. Test the runoff. Test the groundwater where appropriate. Release the results.

Bottom Line

The Chevron Questa Mine cleanup is still active. EPA is overseeing the Superfund remedy, but EPA has made clear that it is not the full-project permitting authority for the KCEC hydrogen-and-solar project.

The public has been told construction in the leased area should not affect the remedy. But we have not yet seen the full technical basis for that conclusion. We have not seen the full stormwater record, the SWPPP, inspection reports, POD 18 water analysis, lease-liability framework, or a comprehensive review of how this project interacts with the larger Superfund landscape.

The central concern remains:

Who is reviewing the full combined project before the land is changed, water is committed, and hundreds of acres are disturbed?

Key Questions Still Awaiting Answers

1. What records, maps, engineering information, and technical analysis did EPA rely on when determining that construction in the leased area should not affect the Superfund remedy?

2. Does a formal written Superfund compatibility review exist, and will it be released?

3. Did EPA’s review include the full solar-array footprint, hydrogen facility, roads, grading, trenching, fencing, utilities, drainage changes, and transmission infrastructure?

4. Where can the public view KCEC’s Construction General Permit coverage, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, inspection records, corrective actions, and compliance reports?

5. Does any permit require chemical analysis of dust, runoff, or sediment leaving the construction area?

6. Can POD 18 legally and physically support both Superfund dust-control needs and long-term hydrogen production during drought or periods of high dust-control demand?

7. What is the actual proposed water allocation for the project: 47 acre-feet, 80 acre-feet, 100 acre-feet, or another amount?

8. Has OSE approved the proposed industrial purpose of use for long-term hydrogen production?

9. How are responsibility and liability divided between Chevron and KCEC if project activities affect the Superfund remedy, drainage, groundwater monitoring, dust, contamination pathways, or cleanup infrastructure?

10. Which agency is reviewing the cumulative effects of the hydrogen facility, solar array, POD 18 water use, Superfund remedy, stormwater, dust, drought, wildlife, and emergency-response concerns together?

Wildlife and Biological Review

The New Mexico Department of Wildlife reviewed the proposed project through the New Mexico Environmental Review Tool and issued recommendations in November 2025.

Those recommendations addressed several parts of the project, including:

• Prairie-dog habitat and possible burrowing owls

• Migratory birds, raptors, active nests, and seasonal construction precautions

• Wetlands, riparian vegetation, washes, and sensitive drainage areas

• Solar-array design, grading, fencing, habitat corridors, and retention of native vegetation

For the solar array, the Department recommended minimizing grading and blading, preserving soil and root systems, retaining native vegetation where possible, using wildlife-permeable fencing, leaving undisturbed habitat patches, and maintaining wildlife corridors.

On June 16, 2026, NMDOW confirmed that it had not received the USDA Environmental Assessment or completed biological survey reports and therefore could not verify whether its recommended surveys and protections were carried out.

SWCA has since stated that it conducted a biological survey and migratory-bird survey for the broader project area. SWCA also recommended a pre-construction nesting survey if ground disturbance occurs during the breeding season. However, the completed Biological Survey Report, survey maps, methods, timing, and findings have not yet been made public, and SWCA indicated that it did not know whether KCEC had finalized the report.

The central issue is not simply whether a biological review occurred. It is whether the surveys covered the full project footprint, were conducted at the appropriate time of year and before disturbance, and whether the findings and agency recommendations were incorporated into the final project design.

July 2026 NMDOW Site Visit Update

Ron Kellermueller, Mining and Energy Habitat Specialist with the New Mexico Department of Wildlife, confirmed that he attended the Mining and Minerals Division site visit on July 7, 2026 and observed construction activity underway for the solar facility.

According to Ron, the construction activity he observed was occurring in big sage habitat. He also stated that the biologist for the Questa Mine did not know whether Kit Carson Electric had completed a wildlife survey before construction began.

Ron’s main wildlife concern during the site visit was an active prairie dog colony in nearby grassland habitat. He spent time observing for burrowing owls and did not see any. He also noted that the prairie dog town appeared to be on private property outside the project footprint, and because prairie dogs do not typically use big sage habitat, he did not believe the project was likely to impact that colony directly.

Ron identified the primary project-related issue as the potential disturbance of nesting sage-obligate bird species. He specifically noted that this is where he hoped Kit Carson Electric had followed the recommendation to conduct nesting bird surveys before ground disturbance.

This confirms a key public question remains unanswered:

Were nesting bird surveys completed before construction began, and will the results be released to the public?

Why This Matters

The New Mexico Department of Wildlife previously recommended wildlife review and seasonal protections before ground disturbance. Ron’s site visit suggests that while the prairie dog colony may not be inside the project footprint, the project is still disturbing big sage habitat where nesting sage-obligate birds may be present.

The public still needs:

• confirmation that nesting bird surveys were completed before disturbance

• the dates and methods of those surveys

• survey maps showing the actual project footprint

• the results of any bird, raptor, burrowing owl, or migratory bird surveys

• documentation of any avoidance or mitigation measures required before construction

Until those records are released, the community cannot verify whether wildlife recommendations were followed before construction began.

Read NMDOW Recommendations 

Rare Plants, Wetlands, and Agency Review

On June 17, 2026, New Mexico State Botanist Erika Rowe responded to questions about endangered plants at the proposed project site. She said that her office had not previously been contacted for review or consultation by KCEC, USDA, the Village of Questa, SWCA, ENTrust, or another project representative. She had not received a project footprint or rare-plant survey for review.

After examining the available project maps, Erika noted that much of the mapped area appears previously disturbed, which may reduce the likelihood of rare plants in those portions of the site. However, she identified a specific concern involving the state-endangered plant Cymopterus spellenbergii. Known populations occur near the small forested area along the western side of the project.

Erika also explained that:

• State endangered-plant protections can apply on private land.

• An incidental-take permit may be required if a state-listed plant would be harmed.

• A federally funded project would generally be expected to include an appropriate biological survey.

• Private project proponents may not always realize that state endangered-plant requirements apply.

Erika brought Sami Naibauer, Botanist/Ecologist with the BLM Taos Field Office, into the discussion because of the adjacent BLM land and known plant populations.

On June 29, 2026, Sami confirmed that Cymopterus spellenbergii occurs on adjacent BLM land. She also reported that numerous pinyon-jay colonies are present in the surrounding area.

Without a GIS shapefile showing the complete project footprint and Area of Potential Effect, Sami said she could not determine what the environmental impacts may be. We are now requesting that shapefile so she can assess the project’s proximity to known plant populations and surrounding habitat. Following her recommendation, we are also contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding possible impacts to pinyon jays.

Earlier recommendations from the New Mexico Department of Wildlife also identified concerns involving an Important Plant Area, riparian habitat, and possible wetlands.

What Remains Unanswered

• Was a complete rare-plant survey performed?

• Was the survey conducted during the appropriate season?

• Did it cover the western forested area and the entire final disturbance footprint?

• Have the State Botanist and BLM Botanist been given the survey and full project shapefile for review?

• Were possible impacts to pinyon jays evaluated in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

• Has a formal wetlands delineation been completed?

• Has the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined whether federal wetlands authorization is required?

• Were agency recommendations incorporated into the project design before construction plans were finalized?

After the June 3, 2026 community meeting at Yoga Sala, KCEC sent attendees a written explanation of federal tax-credit and funding deadlines connected to the proposed hydrogen-and-solar project.

That explanation confirmed that the solar array faced the earliest deadline. According to KCEC, the solar array may qualify for the federal Investment Tax Credit by either showing a “substantial beginning of construction” by July 4, 2026, or by being placed in service by December 31, 2027. Only one of those pathways must be met.

KCEC did not explain what specific work qualifies as a “substantial beginning of construction,” how much work must be completed, who would claim the tax credit, or what happens if the solar array begins but the hydrogen facility is later delayed, denied, or abandoned.

KCEC also stated that hydrogen construction must begin by December 31, 2027, the hydrogen facility must be operating by December 31, 2028, and the ten-year hydrogen Production Tax Credit begins when the first kilogram of qualifying hydrogen is produced. KCEC also identified a later fuel-cell construction deadline of December 31, 2032.

These deadlines help explain why construction is moving quickly. They do not answer the public’s environmental, water, safety, wildlife, Superfund, permitting, or liability questions.

KCEC has been selected for or awarded approximately $231 million through USDA’s New ERA program for the broader Pathways project. But the public has not been shown the full award agreement, drawdown schedule, reimbursement conditions, milestone requirements, repayment obligations, or consequences if project deadlines are missed. The public also has not been shown a complete financing explanation separating USDA funds, state funds, tax credits, private financing, and any obligations that could affect KCEC members.

OSE records add to this concern. Those records show that KCEC sought emergency water authorization connected to POD 18, citing construction delays and the risk of losing or jeopardizing federal funding. OSE rejected that emergency request, stating that potential funding loss or project delay does not qualify as a legal emergency allowing groundwater use before approval.

That matters because it suggests the funding timeline may be driving project urgency before key water, permitting, and environmental questions have been resolved.

Major Funding Questions Remain Unanswered

• How does beginning construction on the solar array affect tax-credit eligibility, project financing, or pressure to complete the hydrogen facility?

• Who would claim the solar Investment Tax Credit?

• How much of the $231 million is allocated specifically to Questa?

• How much is allocated to the hydrogen facility, substation, batteries, solar infrastructure, or projects in other locations?

• When may KCEC begin drawing federal funds?

• What milestones must be met before reimbursement?

• Must funds be repaid if the hydrogen facility is not completed?

• What happens to the solar array if the hydrogen project does not proceed?

• Why was emergency water authorization sought if project funding and timing are secure?

Fragmented Environmental Review

The funding pressure is especially concerning because the federal environmental review did not evaluate the full hydrogen-and-solar project as one combined development.

The January 2026 USDA/RUS Environmental Assessment states that USDA/RUS funding was proposed to be used exclusively for the hydrogen facility and substation, while funding for the integrated solar array was proposed to come from the State of New Mexico. Because of that funding split, the EA states that impacts assessed in the report are associated with the hydrogen facility and substation only, and that impacts from the proposed solar array are not assessed in the EA.

However, the federal decision now being challenged is the Finding of No Significant Impact signed by Christopher A. McLean, Assistant Administrator for Electric Programs at USDA Rural Utilities Service. According to the filed complaint, that FONSI described the proposed action as including both the hydrogen production facility and the solar generation facility, even though the EA it relied on expressly excluded the solar facility’s impacts from analysis.

The issue is not simply that the solar array was left out of one technical document. The issue is that USDA/RUS allegedly approved the project as a whole while relying on an environmental review that did not analyze the full project as a whole.

KCEC’s earlier New ERA Letter of Interest also described the Questa project as an integrated development including a green hydrogen production facility, solar array, substation, and transmission. In that document, the Questa cost category included the H2 plant, solar, substation, and transmission line together, and KCEC described the comprehensive development as including the substation, green hydrogen facility, storage, and solar arrays all sited together.

That raises a central public-process question:

Has any agency reviewed the full combined project — hydrogen facility, substation, solar array, water use, wildlife impacts, dust, Superfund concerns, emergency response, financial risk, and liability — as one connected development?

Jurisdiction, Permits, and Construction Oversight

At the September 10, 2026 Village of Questa special meeting, residents were told that the Village of Questa, Taos County, and the State of New Mexico have no power to stop the proposed hydrogen-and-solar project. This raises an urgent question: who is actually permitting, inspecting, regulating, and enforcing safety before construction moves forward?

The public has now heard one agency after another describe its role as unavailable, limited, divided, or outside the scope of full project approval. The Village has been told it lacks power to stop the project. Taos County’s role remains unclear. EPA has described its role as tied to the Superfund remedy and specific environmental permits, not full project approval. USDA/RUS issued the federal environmental decision, but the public has not been shown that USDA/RUS is actively inspecting or enforcing construction safety, fire-code compliance, water authorization, emergency-response preparedness, local land-use impacts, or hydrogen operations on the ground.

The New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department / Construction Industries Division reportedly stated in an August 5, 2026 letter that it lacked jurisdiction over the project because of a statutory exception for public utilities and rural electric cooperatives.

That interpretation is now being challenged.

On September 15, 2026, attorney Guy Dicharry sent a letter to RLD challenging whether that exception applies to outside, non-employee contractors hired by KCEC to build the solar array or hydrogen plant.

The letter argues that the statutory exception applies to the public utility or rural electric cooperative itself when it constructs, reconstructs, operates, or maintains its own plant or facilities. It does not expressly say that outside contractors hired by the cooperative are also exempt from RLD/CID regulation, licensing, permitting, or inspection.

The letter states that if KCEC is doing all construction itself through its own employees, the exception may apply. But if KCEC is contracting with people who meet the statutory definition of “contractor,” then RLD may have regulatory and permitting jurisdiction and should be involved in oversight immediately.

This means the permitting question is not settled.

The public deserves a clear written determination explaining whether outside contractors on the project are licensed, permitted, inspected, and subject to RLD/CID oversight.

Examples of Other Hydrogen Projects Being Sited and Reviewed Appropriately

The community concern in Questa is not simply that the project involves hydrogen. The concern is that this specific hydrogen-and-solar project is being pushed forward directly adjacent to homes, a school, roads, acequias, wildlife habitat, and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument while major questions about permitting, inspections, emergency response, water authorization, and agency jurisdiction remain unresolved.

Other hydrogen projects show why siting and public input matter:

In Lancaster, California, the proposed Lancaster Clean Energy Center has been treated as a major land-use and environmental-review matter. California environmental-review records describe it as a green hydrogen and solar project on approximately 1,338 acres, with a conditional-use-permit process and an integrated facility including solar generation, battery storage, electrolyzers, hydrogen storage, fueling facilities, office and service buildings, and cooling towers. 

Most importantly, community concerns changed the project’s siting. According to community research, Lancaster altered its Clean Energy Overlay boundaries in response to safety and quality-of-life concerns raised by residents. The hydrogen manufacturing plant was moved from its originally proposed location to the easternmost edge of a different site, placing the hydrogen plant farther away from residential areas.

In Lancaster, resident concerns were treated as a reason to adjust the project location and increase separation from residential areas. In Questa, residents have raised concerns about safety, evacuation, water, dust, habitat, Superfund issues, school proximity, emergency response, and residential impacts — yet the project is moving forward directly next to residential zoning across Cisneros Road.

The contrast is especially important because the Lancaster project remains subject to formal land-use and environmental review. Lancaster’s municipal code identifies hydrogen production and storage as conditional alternative-energy uses and states that hydrogen production, storage, and transport activities must comply with federal and state regulations. 

In Delta, Utah, the Advanced Clean Energy Storage project is located near an existing industrial energy complex and is described in public materials as being approximately 9 to 10 miles north of Delta, with hydrogen storage in underground salt caverns thousands of feet below the surface.

These comparisons are provided not to say that every hydrogen project is safe, appropriate, or fully reviewed, but to show that large hydrogen projects are normally treated as major industrial and utility developments requiring careful siting, permitting, environmental review, public oversight, and distance from incompatible uses.

That is exactly what Questa residents are asking for.

The question is not whether hydrogen can ever be used beneficially. The question is why this project is being advanced in this location — directly next to residential areas, a school, acequias, public roads, sensitive habitat, and a national monument boundary — while the community is being told that local and state agencies may have no power to stop, permit, inspect, or regulate the project.

Questa is asking for the same basic protections other communities expect when industrial hydrogen projects are proposed.

Village Council Vote and Local Accountability

The Village of Questa Council raised related concerns in June 2026 when it considered its Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan for 2028–2032. The plan included a proposed “Village of Questa Solar Array.” During the discussion, a council member asked whether the Village had a contract with KCEC concerning the solar array. The answer given was no.

Council members raised concerns that the Village had no contract, had not been clearly shown what it would gain, and had not received a full explanation of potential financial or environmental liabilities. A motion was made to remove the Village of Questa Solar Array from the ICIP. The motion passed 3–1, and the Council approved the amended ICIP without the solar-array project.

This was not a formal land-use denial preventing KCEC from independently pursuing a solar project. However, it was a clear decision by a majority of the Village Council not to include the proposed Village solar array in the Village’s official capital improvement plan without a contract, defined benefits, understood liabilities, and further public discussion.

Lease and Liability Questions

Lease and liability questions also remain unresolved. EPA confirmed on June 26, 2026 that it reviewed the lease between Chevron Mining and KCEC and stated that neither Chevron nor KCEC had told the agency that KCEC intended to perform Superfund response work. However, the lease reportedly includes provisions requiring KCEC to restore, remediate, repair, or address environmental conditions resulting from its own project activities.

This creates an important distinction that has not yet been fully explained: Chevron remains legally responsible for the Superfund remedy, while KCEC may be responsible under the lease for environmental damage caused by its construction or operations.

EPA has not yet publicly explained where KCEC’s restoration responsibilities end and Chevron’s Superfund responsibilities begin. The public deserves to know whether project construction could create new cleanup costs, who would initially pay them, and whether any financial or environmental liability could later affect KCEC members or the Village of Questa.

What the Timeline Shows

The timeline creates clear pressure to move quickly:

• July 4, 2026 — solar “beginning of construction” tax-credit pathway

• December 31, 2027 — alternate solar placed-in-service deadline

• December 31, 2027 — hydrogen construction deadline

• December 31, 2028 — expected hydrogen operational deadline

• December 31, 2031 — USDA New ERA expenditure deadline

• December 31, 2032 — fuel-cell construction deadline

The July 4 solar tax-credit deadline may help explain the urgency around beginning construction. But it does not explain who reviewed the full project. It does not explain why solar-array impacts were not assessed in the USDA/RUS EA. It does not resolve water, wildlife, dust, Superfund, emergency-response, permitting, inspection, or liability concerns. It does not explain why emergency water authorization was sought from OSE. And it does not erase the Village Council’s 3–1 decision to remove the solar array from the Village capital plan.

The community is asking for the full picture.

Before a project of this size and experimental nature moves forward, the public needs permits, funding agreements, tax-credit documentation, OSE water-rights records and applications, water analyses, wildlife surveys, dust-control plans, emergency-response plans, construction-inspection records, contractor-licensing determinations, lease terms, liability protections, and cumulative impact review for the entire hydrogen-and-solar project.

A federal deadline does not erase a community vote.
A tax-credit deadline does not replace environmental review.
A funding award does not answer water, safety, wildlife, Superfund, permitting, or liability questions.
A claim of no jurisdiction should not allow a major industrial project to move forward without enforceable oversight.
And a project split across funding sources should not be split apart so completely that no agency, council, or community member can see the whole thing.

What Remains Unanswered

Despite months of public discussion, agency outreach, document review, public-records requests, and direct questions to KCEC, several major issues remain unresolved.

The central concern is no longer whether residents have questions. The central concern is that construction and project momentum are continuing while the public still has not been shown the full picture.

Jurisdiction, Permits, Contractors, and Enforcement

• If the Village, County, and State have no power to stop the project, who does?

•  Which agency has enforceable oversight over the full hydrogen-and-solar project?

•  Who has authority to inspect current construction activity?

•  Which agency has authority over grading, fencing, roads, stormwater, utilities, building permits, fire code, hazardous materials, water use, wildlife, wetlands, and Superfund-site protections?

•  Who has authority to stop work if critical permits, fire-safety plans, emergency-response plans, stormwater controls, water authorizations, or environmental protections are missing?

•  Has KCEC received all approvals required for grading, fencing, electrical infrastructure, hydrogen equipment, hazardous materials, fire code, water use, stormwater, roads, utilities, and site disturbance?

•  If KCEC is exempt from some state or local permitting requirements because it is a rural electric cooperative, what safeguards replace those permits?

•  Is KCEC constructing the project entirely through its own employees, or is it using outside contractors?

•  If outside contractors are building the solar array, substation, or hydrogen facility, are they licensed, permitted, inspected, and regulated by RLD/CID?

•  Has RLD/CID issued a written response to the September 15, 2026 letter challenging its jurisdictional interpretation?

•  If RLD/CID still claims no jurisdiction, what written legal basis supports extending KCEC’s exemption to outside contractors?

•  What permits and approvals have actually been issued?

•  Which permits are still pending?

•  Has any site work begun before all required approvals were complete?

•  Why have residents had to piece together the permit record through public-records requests instead of receiving a clear public explanation from KCEC and involved agencies?

Community Consent and Cooperative Accountability

KCEC describes itself as a member-owned cooperative. That raises a basic question: should a cooperative move forward with a major industrial hydrogen-and-solar project while substantial community opposition, legal questions, water concerns, and safety issues remain unresolved?

• Will KCEC continue pursuing the project despite approximately 1,400 petition signatures and the Village Council’s 3–1 vote to remove the proposed Village solar array from the ICIP?

• Will KCEC hold a member vote or another formal process to measure community consent?

• Were KCEC members clearly informed that the project includes hydrogen production, pressurized hydrogen storage, a large solar array, water use from POD 18, and development on Chevron property within the broader Superfund site?

• Were residents, acequias, nearby homeowners, Alta Vista Elementary School families, and affected communities given meaningful opportunity to review and comment before federal approval and construction activity began?

Federal Review and the Full Project

The filed federal complaint raises a central issue: USDA/RUS allegedly approved the project as a whole while relying on an Environmental Assessment that did not analyze the solar array’s impacts.

• Why did the USDA/RUS Environmental Assessment exclude the solar array’s impacts if the hydrogen facility, solar array, substation, and transmission infrastructure are functionally connected?

• Why did the Finding of No Significant Impact signed by Christopher A. McLean describe the project as including both the hydrogen facility and solar generation facility if the EA did not assess the solar-array impacts?

• Has any agency reviewed the full combined project — hydrogen facility, substation, solar array, transmission, water use, wildlife impacts, dust, Superfund concerns, emergency response, financial risk, and liability — as one connected development?

• Will USDA/RUS reopen, supplement, or redo its environmental review in light of the filed complaint, lease terms, site disturbance, OSE records, and public concerns?

• If RUS now says it will not fund or control the solar array, who reviewed the solar-array impacts before clearing and construction began? 

Safety and Emergency Response

Questa Fire & EMS has confirmed that safety discussions have begun. However, the public has not yet been shown a completed hydrogen-specific emergency-response plan, fire-protection plan, evacuation plan, school protocol, responder-training schedule, equipment assessment, or long-term funding commitment.

• Has Questa Fire & EMS reviewed the BakerRisk analysis?

• Has a final hydrogen-specific fire-protection plan been completed, reviewed, and approved?

• Has a full emergency-response plan been completed for hydrogen fires, leaks, explosions, equipment failures, and worst-case scenarios?

• Has the required fire-water supply been identified and secured?

• What specialized training will local responders and mutual-aid partners receive, and when?

• Who will pay for training, equipment, drills, staff time, administrative planning, future refresher training, and long-term preparedness?

• Are local responders equipped for high-pressure hydrogen fires and explosion risks?

• Have evacuation routes, shelter-in-place procedures, and public-notification systems been developed for nearby homes, roads, businesses, and Alta Vista Elementary School?

• Has a school-specific emergency protocol been prepared for Alta Vista Elementary?

• What role would Taos County, neighboring departments, state responders, and federal agencies play in a hydrogen emergency?

• Will the final emergency-response plan be made public before the project moves forward?

Water, POD 18, and Drought

Water remains one of the most serious unresolved issues. Public records show that KCEC sought emergency water authorization connected to POD 18, citing construction delays and risk to federal funding. OSE rejected that emergency request.

• When will KCEC release the full Phase One groundwater report, pumping data, drawdown analysis, water-demand calculations, drought analysis, and water-right documentation?

• Has OSE approved POD 18 for long-term industrial hydrogen production?

• Can POD 18 legally and physically serve both Superfund-related dust control/reclamation needs and hydrogen production during drought?

• What happens if drought, dust-control needs, fire suppression, or Superfund obligations require more water than expected?

• How much water will the hydrogen facility actually use each year?

• What is the difference between the 47-acre-foot, 80-acre-foot, and 100-acre-foot figures that have appeared in project discussions?

• Will groundwater pumping affect nearby wells, acequias, surface-water systems, springs, or connected aquifers?

• Who is responsible if nearby water users are affected?

Wildlife, Wetlands, Rare Plants, and Habitat

The project area includes native groundcover, arroyos, wildlife movement areas, and land near the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. Community members have also raised questions about rare plants, pinyon jays, wetlands, and whether biological review occurred before disturbance.

• Were complete biological, wetland, wildlife, and rare-plant surveys performed across the full disturbance footprint?

• Were surveys conducted at the proper time of year?

• Did the surveys cover the entire solar-array area, access roads, utility corridors, fencing, staging areas, and all areas of ground disturbance?

• Were state and federal agency recommendations incorporated into the final project design?

• Were the New Mexico State Botanist, BLM botanist, NMDGF, USFWS, and other relevant agencies given the full project footprint and shapefiles for review?

• Has the public been shown the final biological survey, wetlands determination, rare-plant review, and wildlife mitigation plan?

Superfund, Soil, Dust, and Ground Disturbance

Recent site photographs show active land clearing, grading, and exposed soil. Community soil samples have raised further questions about whether professional soil, dust, runoff, and contamination-pathway testing should occur before additional disturbance.

• What documents did EPA rely upon in concluding that construction should not affect the Superfund remedy?

• Has EPA reviewed the full solar-array footprint, or only the hydrogen-facility area?

• Has the full area of disturbance been professionally tested for contaminants before grading, trenching, fencing, road work, or panel installation?

• Has anyone evaluated whether construction could disturb contaminated soil, create dust exposure, alter drainage, or affect stormwater runoff?

• What dust-control measures are required during high-wind events?

• What stormwater protections are required during monsoon season?

• Where can the public view the Construction General Permit, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, inspection records, and enforcement correspondence?

• If contamination is discovered or disturbed, who stops the work, who investigates, who pays, and who informs the public?

Funding, Tax Credits, Ownership, and Liability

Project records show multiple deadlines tied to tax credits, federal funding, and project completion. Those deadlines may help explain the urgency around construction, but they do not replace environmental review or public accountability.

• What work was completed by the July 4, 2026 solar tax-credit deadline?

• Who would claim the solar Investment Tax Credit?

• How does beginning construction on the solar array affect tax-credit eligibility, project financing, or pressure to complete the hydrogen facility?

• How much of the USDA New ERA award is allocated specifically to Questa, and how much of that is allocated to the hydrogen facility and substation?

• What separate funding sources, tax credits, state funds, private financing, or KCEC obligations are tied to the solar array, batteries, transmission, or other Pathways project components?

• What funds come from USDA, state sources, tax credits, private financing, loans, or KCEC member obligations?

• When may KCEC draw, spend, or be reimbursed with federal funds?

• What milestones must be met?

• Must any funds be repaid if the hydrogen facility is delayed, denied, abandoned, or never becomes operational?

• What happens to the solar array if the hydrogen facility does not proceed?

• Who owns the infrastructure during and after the Chevron–KCEC lease?

• Could environmental, financial, or legal liability fall on KCEC members, the Village of Questa, taxpayers, or future public entities?

The Larger Accountability Question

The community is not asking for one isolated answer at a time. The community is asking for the full picture.

A cooperative should not treat the community it serves as an obstacle to overcome.

Before this project moves forward, the public deserves complete answers about permits, funding agreements, tax credits, water rights, groundwater impacts, emergency response, wildlife, wetlands, rare plants, soil, dust, Superfund risks, lease terms, ownership, liability, and cumulative review of the entire hydrogen-and-solar project.

A tax-credit deadline does not replace environmental review.
A funding award does not answer water, safety, wildlife, Superfund, or liability questions.
A training promise does not equal an emergency-response system.
A project split across funding sources should not be split apart so completely that no agency, council, or community member can see the whole thing.

And a claim of no jurisdiction should not allow a major industrial project to move forward without enforceable oversight. 

LEGAL UPDATE: Complaint Filed

A federal lawsuit has been filed challenging USDA Rural Utilities Service’s approval of the Questa Green Hydrogen Project.

The complaint argues that USDA’s environmental review did not fully evaluate the project’s impacts before issuing its Finding of No Significant Impact. The lawsuit raises concerns about the connected solar array being excluded from the environmental analysis, groundwater impacts from POD 18 pumping, Superfund-site risks, lease and site-control issues, hydrogen safety, and the need for lawful review before the project moves forward.

This lawsuit is not an attack on renewable energy or economic development. The concern is that clean-energy projects should be built the right way: with lawful environmental review, protection for water resources, meaningful public participation, and full transparency.

Goal: require a lawful environmental review before the project moves forward.

Read La Jicarita’s Lawsuit Summary

August 2026 Federal Court Filing Update:
In a declaration filed by USDA/RUS, Assistant Administrator Christopher McLean stated that KCEC was approved for New ERA loan and grant funding, but that the award has not closed, advances of funds are not imminent, and KCEC has not yet verified water permits and/or rights to RUS. McLean also stated that the Questa Solar Array was originally included in the New ERA funding request but later dropped from RUS financing, and that RUS will not fund or control solar-array construction.

This raises major public questions: if RUS did not assess solar-array impacts in the Environmental Assessment and does not control solar-array construction, who reviewed the full solar-array impacts before ground disturbance began? And if water rights and permits for the hydrogen project remain unresolved, why is the project being advanced before the public has seen the full hydrologic record?

Help Fund the Community Response

Residents have already given an enormous amount of time, research, and energy to understanding this project and bringing unanswered questions into the public record. Now that legal action has been filed, the community continues to need support for legal, technical, public-records, and outreach work.

Funds raised will help cover:

• Legal consultation, research, and case-related support

• Independent soil sampling and laboratory costs

• Technical and environmental review

• Newspaper advertisements and public notices

• Flyers, printing, signs, and community outreach

• Public-records costs and document review

• Other expenses connected to protecting Questa’s water, land, health, and future

This work is being led by local residents who believe decisions of this scale should not move forward without complete information, meaningful public participation, and clear protections for our water, land, health, and community.

Every contribution — large or small — helps us continue asking the necessary questions and pursuing real accountability.

Scan the QR code at the bottom of the page or click HERE to donate to the Protect Questa fundraiser.

Ways Residents Can Help

Community participation matters SO much! Residents can help by:

• Attending public meetings, especially Questa Village Council meetings, and asking that concerns be entered into the record

• Writing letters to agencies, elected officials, and decision-makers

• Sharing relevant documents, emails, recordings, maps, photographs, or meeting notes

• Helping research permits, public records, funding agreements, and agency decisions

• Documenting site clearing, grading, fencing, equipment delivery, dust, runoff, or other activity

• Supporting independent soil, water, wildlife, safety, and legal review

• Contributing funds, technical expertise, research help, or volunteer time

Sample letters and contact information are provided at the bottom of this website.

Sign the Petition

A countywide petition is asking local governments and KCEC to slow the proposed hydrogen project until the public has received fuller environmental review, broader water analysis, meaningful public input, and clear information about the risks and economic benefits.

Sign the Taos County Hydrogen Petition

Connect With Questa Watershed Protectors

Residents have contacted agencies, reviewed project documents, gathered approximately 1,500 petition signatures, and brought concerns before local officials.

The Questa Village Council also voted 3–1 in June to remove the proposed Village of Questa Solar Array from its 2028–2032 Infrastructure Capital Improvement Plan.

To stay connected with daily updates and community discussion, join Questa Watershed Protectors on Facebook.

Join the Questa Watershed Protectors Facebook Group

Public-Records Action Is Underway

Public-records requests are being used to gather documents related to the project’s permits, approvals, funding, environmental review, construction activity, and agency communications.

On June 18, 2026, an Inspection of Public Records Act request was submitted to Taos County seeking records concerning:

• Zoning, building, grading, utility, fencing, and development permits

• Site plans, engineering drawings, surveys, and maps

• County planning and land-use determinations

• Communications among Taos County, KCEC, the Village of Questa, Chevron, USDA, and project contractors

• Environmental-review and NEPA records

• Inspections, complaints, enforcement actions, and stop-work orders

• Whether construction began before all required approvals were issued

EPA has also been asked to identify the documents supporting its conclusion that construction in the Chevron–KCEC leased area should not affect the Superfund remedy.

Records received through these requests will be reviewed and added to this site when available.

Offer Help

Can you offer legal expertise, technical knowledge, documents, research assistance, financial support, or volunteer time?

Use the red form below to connect with the community effort.

If residents observe possible environmental concerns, unpermitted ground disturbance, dust, runoff, spills, unsafe work conditions, or other site-related problems, they can report them directly to the appropriate agencies.

Please report only what you actually observed. Include as much specific information as possible:

• Date and time

• Location or nearby landmarks

• What was observed

• Photos or video, if available

• Whether the concern involved dust, runoff, grading, equipment, worker safety, spills, drainage, erosion, or possible environmental disturbance

• Any visible company names, vehicles, signs, or equipment

Environmental concerns

Environmental concerns can be submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department using the Environmental Notification Reporting form.

Submit an environmental concern to NMED:
https://ents.web.env.nm.gov/public/INCIDENT_HDR_add.php

Photos can be attached after the first page of the form is submitted.

For environmental emergencies requiring immediate action, NMED directs people to call the 24-hour emergency line: 505-827-9329.

Worker-safety concerns

Worker-safety concerns can be reported to New Mexico OSHA through the New Mexico Environment Department Occupational Health and Safety Bureau.

Email New Mexico OSHA:
Complaints.OSHA@env.nm.gov

Worker-safety concerns can also be submitted through the federal OSHA online complaint form.

Federal OSHA online complaint form:
https://www.osha.gov/form/osha7

For fatalities or imminent life-threatening situations, do not use an online form or email. Federal OSHA directs people to call immediately: 1-800-321-OSHA (6742).

Letter to Village of Questa Mayor

Letter to Taos County Commissioners  

Letter to Request KC Board Member Contact Info 

Letter to NMED, EPA, and ATSDR 

Letter to EPA re water sampling reduction 

Letter to EPA and OSHA 

Letter to Congress Representatives 

Letter to Chevron 

Letter for Legislators 

This document library includes public records, technical reports, agency materials, site plans, lease documents, legal records, and community-submitted analyses related to the proposed Questa hydrogen/solar project and the Chevron Questa Mine Superfund Site. Documents are organized by topic so residents, agencies, reporters, and attorneys can review the records for themselves. 

EPA / Superfund Records 

Water, Groundwater, Geology, and POD 18 

Project Site Plans and Lease Documents 

Permits, Hearings, and Public Notices - (EPA Public Notice — Chevron Questa Mine Draft NPDES Permit No. NM0022306)

Government Resolutions and Public Support Records 

KCEC Cooperative Governance and Corporate Records 

Energy Feasibility, Wind, and Alternative Energy Records 

USDA RD / FONSI 

Community Analysis and Research Memos (Community analysis documents reflect the author’s interpretation of available records and project patterns. They are included for transparency and discussion, but should not be read as agency findings or confirmed project plans unless supported by primary-source documents)

Documents are posted for public transparency. Some records are agency documents, some are public-records productions, and some are community-prepared analyses. Each document should be read according to its source and context. This library will be updated as additional records are received.