Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 4, Sections 436–446) (Draft 5v8)
 
Commissioners and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide additional comments on Apache County’s revised draft renewable energy ordinance. AriSEIA previously submitted a detailed comment letter dated December 3, 2025, addressing foundational issues related to definitions, siting criteria, setbacks, noise standards, agency coordination, and decommissioning. This letter is intended to supplement that prior submission and to respond specifically to new or revised provisions in the current draft, as well as to areas where our earlier concerns remain unresolved.
 
AriSEIA represents Arizona’s solar, storage, and electrification industry and regularly works with counties and municipalities across the state on renewable energy siting, zoning, and land-use standards. We support the County’s goal of establishing clear, enforceable requirements that protect public health, safety, and environmental resources while enabling responsible renewable energy development. Several aspects of the revised draft reflect thoughtful engagement. However, as currently written, a number of provisions remain unworkable, internally inconsistent, or disconnected from established engineering, environmental, and land-use practice. These issues risk creating unnecessary barriers to projects that are otherwise compatible with Apache County’s planning objectives.
 
Our principal concerns are outlined below:
 
1. Applicability and Definition of “Utility-Scale”
 
The ordinance defines “utility-scale” facilities as projects of 1 megawatt or greater. As we noted in our December 3, 2025 letter, this threshold is far too low and would subject small commercial, agricultural, and community-scale systems to a regulatory framework designed for major infrastructure. A 1-megawatt trigger would sweep in behind-the-meter systems serving schools, farms, warehouses, and other non-utility users that do not function as utility-scale generation.
 
If the County wishes to regulate large infrastructure differently from smaller projects, the distinction should be meaningful. AriSEIA strongly recommends increasing the applicability threshold to at least 20 megawatts and explicitly treating projects below that level as community-scale or commercial facilities regulated under ordinary zoning and building codes.
​
2. Noise Standards and Cumulative Setbacks
 
Consistent with our December 3, 2025 comments, the ordinance continues to establish an absolute noise limit of 55 dBA without accounting for existing ambient conditions and pairs that limit with multiple, overlapping distance-based setbacks. While 55 dBA may appear modest, it is approximately equivalent to ordinary conversation and does not reflect how sound is typically evaluated in rural, agricultural, or infrastructure-adjacent environments.
 
When combined with fixed setbacks, this approach creates a cumulative regulatory structure that is not tied to measurable impact and will effectively preclude development on large portions of otherwise suitable land. If the County’s objective is to protect residential quiet enjoyment, that objective is best achieved through a single, objective noise standard or an ambient-plus methodology, rather than through layered perimeter buffers that operate as de facto prohibitions. Noise compliance should be the primary protection for residences, not secondary to multiple distance formulas.
 
3. Wind Setbacks and Project Boundary Buffers
 
The requirement that wind turbines be set back at least 1.5 times total tower height from the project boundary remains substantially more restrictive than typical safety-based standards. When applied to parcel boundaries rather than to occupied structures or sensitive receptors, this requirement functions as a land-use exclusion zone rather than a public safety measure.
Industry practice generally relies on fall-zone setbacks closer to 1.0–1.1 times tower height, paired with noise standards to protect nearby residences. We recommend revising boundary-based setbacks to reflect safety-driven distances and eliminating redundant buffers that unnecessarily reduce buildable area.
 
4. Solar Standards, Scope, and Setbacks
 
As noted in our prior letter, the ordinance contains internal inconsistency by stating that distributed generation is excluded while later applying provisions to “commercial” solar projects rather than to “utility-scale” facilities. “Commercial” is not a defined scale category and could be interpreted to capture schools, warehouses, farms, and other behind-the-meter systems. All solar provisions should be expressly limited to “utility-scale solar energy projects” to avoid unintentionally regulating distributed or mid-scale generation.
 
The ordinance’s 500-foot setback from “major and scenic highways” is not tied to any demonstrated safety or operational concern. At a minimum, the County should remove “major” from this category, limiting any such provision to designated scenic highways only. Solar setbacks should reflect established fire and access standards rather than roadway classifications. A 100-foot setback is consistent with National Fire Protection Association guidance and widely used in Arizona. Visual impacts are more appropriately addressed through design standards and site-specific mitigation rather than through arbitrary distance thresholds that increase land use, grading, and cost.
 
Importantly, extensive setbacks for solar do not serve a safety function in the way they do for battery energy storage systems or other infrastructure. Solar setbacks are generally aesthetic in nature and are often set based on the underlying zoning district or local land-use context. For example, in the City of Eloy, solar setbacks are 75 feet and increase to 100 feet where a project is adjacent to residential zoning. We agree that 100 feet is a reasonable recommendation, but the critical point is that there is no safety basis for a larger setback. The same standard should apply to setbacks from Agricultural-General zoning, which should be reduced from 150 feet to 100 feet.
 
Visual impacts are more appropriately addressed through design standards and site-specific mitigation rather than through arbitrary distance thresholds that increase land use, grading, and cost. We do not believe screening or landscaping requirements are necessary here.
 
Additionally, solar panels and related infrastructure should not be painted. Painting solar equipment is not standard practice, is unnecessary, and introduces avoidable cost. If the County wishes to address appearance, a more appropriate standard would be a commitment that solar infrastructure will be non-reflective, rather than a mandate to paint equipment.
 
5. Use of Setback Areas
 
The ordinance requires setback areas to remain in their “existing vegetative state,” which effectively prohibits productive land uses such as grazing or agriculture. As we previously noted, setbacks are intended to provide separation between infrastructure and receptors, not to freeze land use in perpetuity. Setback areas should be permitted for compatible uses such as agriculture, grazing, stormwater management, pollinator habitat, and other low-impact activities so long as safety and access are maintained.
 
6. FAA, FCC, and Transmission Facilities
 
Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission compliance requirements are relevant to wind turbine height, lighting, and potential signal interference. These requirements are not applicable to solar facilities and should be expressly limited to wind energy projects where required by federal law.
 
In addition, transmission lines, interconnection facilities, and utility-owned distribution infrastructure should not be regulated as part of a renewable “facility” under this ordinance. Such infrastructure is already subject to separate state and federal frameworks. At a minimum, the ordinance should exclude transmission and interconnection facilities beyond the project boundary from local setback and siting requirements.
 
7. Wildlife Protection and Agency Coordination
 
Several wildlife-related provisions continue to raise the concerns outlined in our December 3, 2025 letter:
 

• Design mandates to prevent nesting or perching reflect outdated, wind-specific concerns and are not applicable to solar.
• References to “wind guidelines” should apply only to wind projects.
• Requirements that agency letters be received before scheduling a Conditional Use Permit hearing risk allowing third-party agencies to indefinitely delay County review. Where an agency does not respond within a reasonable period, documentation of a good-faith effort to consult and submit required materials should satisfy the requirement.

 
Coordination is appropriate. External agency non-responsiveness should not function as a veto over County land-use authority.
 
8. Interconnection Agreements and Power Purchase Agreements
 
As we previously advised, the requirement for executed interconnection or power purchase agreements prior to issuance of any building or construction permits remains unworkable. Interconnection agreements are often finalized only after land-use approvals, and power purchase agreements are commercial contracts that may not exist at the construction-permit stage.
 
We further recommend that the County stop short of requiring formal “documentation” of these agreements. Negotiations and drafts frequently involve confidential business terms, and written requirements of this type are uncommon. If the County wishes to understand project status, a narrative discussion of overall development progress within the CUP application should be sufficient.
 
9. Perimeter Fencing
 
Rigid fencing requirements can interfere with wildlife movement, agricultural use, and site-specific safety design. Fencing should be risk-based and tailored to site conditions, with flexibility for agricultural compatibility and wildlife passage where appropriate.
 
10. Signage
 
The signage provisions are extremely restrictive. It may be in the County’s best interest to allow for increased signage during construction for safety and site management purposes, including for construction zones, equipment movement, spill kits, muster points, and other health and safety needs. The ordinance should distinguish between permanent signage and temporary construction and safety signage.
 
11. Conditional Use Permit Reviews and Transfers
 
The ordinance requires that projects be reviewed every sixty (60) months. As written, the scope and purpose of this review remain unclear. If retained, this provision must be limited to an administrative compliance review only, with no authority to modify conditions absent demonstrated non-compliance.
 
We also reiterate our recommendation that the ordinance expressly allow partial assignment of Conditional Use Permits to accommodate common project financing and ownership structures.
 
12. Complaints, Inoperability, and Enforcement
 
As discussed in our prior submission, allowing a single complaint to trigger a public hearing sets an unreasonably low threshold. Enforcement mechanisms should be tied to documented non-compliance rather than the mere filing of a complaint.
 
The definition of “inoperable renewable energy generation facility” should be revised to exclude planned or temporary non-operation, including curtailment, repowering, maintenance, or other downtime coordinated with the Community Development Director.
 
The complaint response and hotline provisions also require clarification. The ordinance should specify at what point in the project life cycle the hotline must be available and should include a good-faith standard, requiring reasonable efforts to respond and resolve issues without treating unresolved or frivolous complaints as automatic violations.
 
13. Joint Agency Review
 
Provisions conditioning County permitting on the approval or satisfaction of state or federal agencies continue to present the concerns raised in our December 3, 2025 letter. The ordinance should require submittal and good-faith consultation with applicable agencies, with agency input considered where provided, but should not require final approval as a prerequisite to County action.
 
14. Decommissioning Timelines and Standards
 
As previously stated, the requirement to commence decommissioning within thirty (30) days is not reasonable for utility-scale facilities. We continue to recommend a minimum of twelve (12) months to initiate decommissioning, with defined milestones to ensure timely and accountable progress.
 
Likewise, the requirement for “complete removal… regardless of depth” remains environmentally unsound and technically unnecessary. Removal to a defined depth, commonly approximately three (3) feet below grade, with appropriate surface restoration, is the prevailing standard and should be adopted here.
 
The ordinance’s mandate for complete subsurface removal is also counterproductive to the County’s environmental objectives. In many cases, full extraction of large turbine foundations and similar infrastructure can only be achieved through highly disruptive methods, including blasting or comparable techniques. Requiring such disturbance would result in substantially greater soil disruption, habitat damage, erosion risk, and surface impacts than leaving material in place below a reasonable depth and restoring the site. The County should eliminate this absolute removal requirement and instead adopt a standard that allows for partial removal to a defined depth, consistent with industry practice and environmental best management principles.
 
Financial assurance should be based on net decommissioning cost, accounting for salvage value and updated engineering estimates.
 
15. Preferred Siting Criteria
 
Finally, preferred siting criteria should include commercial and operational viability, in addition to visual, environmental, and locational factors. Proximity to transmission, constructability, and the ability to secure interconnection and offtake are legitimate planning considerations that help ensure projects can actually be built and operated as intended.
 
Conclusion
 
As a supplement to our December 3, 2025 letter, AriSEIA respectfully requests that Apache County revise the ordinance to ensure:
 

• Applicability thresholds that meaningfully distinguish utility-scale projects from community-scale and distributed generation;
• Noise standards and setbacks tied to measurable impacts rather than cumulative exclusion zones;
• Solar provisions limited to utility-scale facilities and consistent with National Fire Protection Association safety standards;
• Agency coordination based on submittal and good-faith consultation rather than mandatory approval; and
• Decommissioning requirements that are environmentally sound, technically feasible, and structured around a twelve-month initiation period with defined milestones.

 
AriSEIA welcomes continued engagement with County staff and the Commission and is available to provide model language or examples from other Arizona jurisdictions.
Respectfully submitted,
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

City of Surprise
Community Development
16000 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
 
RE: City of Surprise Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Ordinance (Chapter 106)
 
Dear Community Development Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide continued comments on the City of Surprise draft Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) ordinance. AriSEIA is the statewide trade association representing solar, energy storage, and electrification companies operating across Arizona. We have previously provided written comments to the City on November 14, 2024, and February 18, 2024, and appreciate the City’s ongoing engagement on this important topic.
 
After reviewing the most recent draft ordinance, we respectfully submit the following comments. While we acknowledge improvements in certain areas, several significant issues remain unresolved. These issues relate to scope, applicability, internal consistency, technical alignment with nationally adopted standards, and practical implementation.
 
1. Applicability and Scope of the Ordinance
The draft ordinance does not clearly and unambiguously limit its applicability to utility-scale, grid-connected battery energy storage systems. As written, the ordinance does not expressly exclude behind-the-meter residential or commercial battery systems.
 
This creates material ambiguity as to whether the ordinance could apply to:

• Residential battery systems installed in garages or attached structures,
• Commercial batteries paired with rooftop solar at small businesses,
• Batteries installed for onsite resiliency or backup power.

 
Zoning ordinances are interpreted based on their plain language. Reliance on enforcement discretion to narrow applicability is insufficient and exposes the City to appeals, inconsistent enforcement, and potential legal challenges. AriSEIA has raised this concern in prior letters, and it remains unaddressed.
 
The ordinance should clearly state that it applies only to utility-scale, grid-connected battery energy storage systems and does not apply to residential or commercial behind-the-meter installations. This clarification is essential to avoid unintended consequences and ensure the ordinance functions as intended.
 
2. Zoning Classification and Use Category
The ordinance establishes a standalone “BESS” zoning district and use category. This approach unnecessarily isolates energy storage from other forms of energy infrastructure that are often complementary in generating electricity and improving grid reliability.
 
AriSEIA recommends that the zoning district and use category be titled “Energy,” rather than “BESS,” and that utility-scale solar generation be included as a permitted or accessory use within the same category. This approach is consistent with Maricopa County and other Arizona jurisdictions and avoids the need for future piecemeal amendments as energy technologies continue to evolve.
 
3. Setbacks, Including the 1,500-Foot Residential Setback
The proposed 1,500-foot setback from residential properties remains a significant concern. This setback is not supported by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, peer jurisdiction practices, or empirical safety data. Nationally, BESS-specific setbacks typically range from 50 to 150 feet.[1]
 
In addition, the ordinance does not consistently specify from what point setbacks are measured. Where setbacks are imposed, they should be measured from the BESS structures themselves to the nearest residential dwelling unit, not from property lines or from an overall project boundary that may include solar generation. Excessive setbacks that are not tied to adopted safety standards unnecessarily constrain site availability, reduce project feasibility, and do not provide demonstrable safety benefits.
 
4. Internal Container Separation Distances
The draft ordinance requires a 10-foot separation between battery containers. This requirement exceeds NFPA 855, which allows a 3-foot separation for remote facilities. Deviation from nationally adopted fire codes without a technical justification creates inconsistency, increases costs, and does not improve safety. Separation between containers should be governed by NFPA 855, not by a locally imposed standard that is more than three times more restrictive.
 
5. Noise Standard
The ordinance imposes a maximum noise level of 60 dBA at the nearest existing dwelling unit. This threshold is unusually low for utility or industrial infrastructure and is often equivalent to ambient background noise levels in urban and suburban environments.
 
The ordinance does not distinguish between daytime and nighttime operations, does not account for existing ambient noise, and does not explain why battery energy storage systems should be subject to a more restrictive standard than other permitted infrastructure uses. If a noise standard is retained, it should be aligned with the City’s general noise ordinance, allow for mitigation, and reflect real-world operating conditions.
 
6. Perimeter Walls, Landscaping, and Associated Setbacks
The ordinance requires perimeter walls and landscaping and further requires these features to be set back 150 feet from other property lines. This requirement lacks a clear nexus to safety, aesthetics, or land-use compatibility.
 
Perimeter walls do not improve fire safety, and landscaping setbacks of this magnitude do not enhance screening or community protection. Instead, they significantly reduce developable area and may render otherwise suitable parcels unusable. In addition, the ordinance does not provide flexibility for circumstances where walls and landscaping are unnecessary for aesthetic purposes or where irrigation is not advisable due to water conservation concerns.
 
AriSEIA recommends adding administrative flexibility allowing staff to approve alternative perimeter treatments, including fencing without walls or reduced landscaping, where visual impacts are minimal, water use should be avoided, or site conditions warrant an alternative approach. Similar provisions have been successfully adopted by Buckeye and Maricopa County.
 
7. Timing and Sequencing of Required Plans and Studies
The ordinance requires multiple plans and studies, including emergency mitigation plans, noise studies, security plans, commissioning plans, and decommissioning plans, but does not clearly specify when each must be submitted or approved. This lack of clarity creates uncertainty for applicants and staff and may result in unnecessary delays or duplicative submissions. AriSEIA recommends the following clarifications:

• Commissioning plans should be required prior to building permit issuance.
• Emergency mitigation, noise, security, and decommissioning plans should be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• The ordinance should allow updates to plans when technology-specific details are not available at earlier stages.

 
8. Waivers and Administrative Flexibility
The ordinance limits the ability to modify or waive provisions to City Council action only. This approach is unnecessarily rigid and inconsistent with how similar ordinances are administered elsewhere. AriSEIA continues to recommend inclusion of an administrative waiver or modification process that allows staff to approve reasonable deviations when a project meets the ordinance’s safety and compatibility objectives. This flexibility improves outcomes without compromising public safety.
 
Conclusion
AriSEIA supports reasonable, data-driven regulation of battery energy storage systems. However, the current draft ordinance includes provisions that are internally inconsistent, not aligned with nationally adopted standards, and insufficiently clear as to scope and applicability.
Addressing the issues outlined above will result in an ordinance that is safer, clearer, more defensible, and more workable for the City, applicants, and the community.
 
We appreciate the opportunity to continue engaging with the City of Surprise and look forward to working collaboratively toward an ordinance that reflects best practices and supports responsible energy infrastructure development.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, P.10 (Mar. 2024), available here https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf.