Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
 
RE: Support for APS’ Revised Interconnection Manual, Docket No. E-01345A-20-0152
 
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
 
On behalf of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA), this letter provides comments on Arizona Public Service Company’s (“APS”) revised Distributed Generation Interconnection Requirements Manual.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the collaborative process between stakeholders and APS in developing the revised Manual. We met multiple times over the course of 2025. The current version reflects meaningful improvements, including reduced costs and simplified equipment requirements for customer-sited solar installations. These changes address prior stakeholder concerns and improve clarity, consistency, and administrability of the interconnection requirements.
 
AriSEIA supports the Utilities Division Staff’s Recommended Opinion and Order docketed on March 25th, which finds that the revised Manual complies with the Commission’s Interconnection Rules and Decision No. 78783 and recommends approval.
 
AriSEIA notes that certain issues remain under discussion, including the treatment of Non-Exporting and Inadvertent Export systems. Specifically, the use of nameplate ratings rather than Maximum Capacity for certain requirements raises concerns for systems that are designed not to export to the grid. AriSEIA and APS have engaged on this issue and will continue working toward a resolution in future revisions to the Manual.
 
While these issues remain, AriSEIA supports approval of the revised Manual at this time and appreciates APS’ continued commitment to stakeholder engagement and iterative improvement.
AriSEIA remains committed to working collaboratively with APS, Staff, and the Commission to further refine interconnection standards in future updates.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
​

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact
Autumn Johnson
520-240-4757
[email protected]

Phoenix, AZ – The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) which represents solar, storage, and electrification across the Grand Canyon state, has elected Jaclyn Cerna, Director of Estimating & Quoting and Controller at OMCO Solar, as its new Board President. AriSEIA develops and advocates for policies that promote economic development, energy reliability, and sustainable growth across Arizona’s renewable energy sector.

Cerna brings a strong background in financial leadership and renewable energy project execution. She oversees financial and accounting operations for OMCO’s solar division headquartered in Phoenix, as well as leads nationwide solar project bidding efforts, working closely with engineering to develop competitive proposals across diverse markets including DG and Utility Scale.

“I am honored to serve as President of AriSEIA and support the organization’s advocacy work of advancing Solar technology in Arizona. Our mission is clear: to collaborate with stakeholders across the state to unlock the full potential of Arizona’s greatest natural resource and build a more resilient and electrified economy for all Arizonans,” said Cerna.

Cerna succeeds former Board President John Mitman, Founder & CEO of Obodo Energy, who has served in a leadership role for AriSEIA the better part of this past decade.

“It was my pleasure to help lead AriSEIA during a period of significant growth and change for Arizona’s solar industry. Jaclyn brings exceptional leadership capabilities, industry expertise, and a collaborative spirit that will serve the organization and its members well as the clean energy transition continues to accelerate,” said Mitman.

“Jaclyn has been an outstanding member of the AriSEIA board and brings both financial expertise and deep industry experience to the role. We are excited to have her leadership as the organization continues working to expand solar, storage, and electrification across Arizona,” said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of AriSEIA.

Jaclyn earned a Bachelor of Arts and Sciences in Accounting, from Arizona State University’s Thunderbird School of Global Management. With valuable experience in Arizona’s renewable energy sector, this gives her the strong foundation to lead AriSEIA as the state’s clean energy industry continues to grow.

For more information about AriSEIA, visit ariseia.org.

About AriSEIA
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is Arizona’s solar, storage, and electrification trade association. AriSEIA represents installers, manufacturers, developers, financiers, and service providers working to advance renewable energy across the state. The organization advocates for policies that expand clean energy deployment, strengthen Arizona’s economy, and ensure reliable, affordable energy for Arizona families and businesses.

About OMCO Solar
OMCO Solar is America's premier factory-direct manufacturer of solar trackers and fixed-tilt solutions for solar projects. The company's expertise in fixed-tilt and single-axis tracker systems stems from decades of steel manufacturing, beginning in 1955 when OMCO Holdings, its parent company, was founded. To date, OMCO Solar has delivered over 12 GW of factory-direct, high-quality solar mounting structures within the US. With a manufacturing footprint spanning coast-to-coast, the company delivers their American-made solar structures built from 100% US steel to developers nationwide. For more information, please visit OMCO Solar at omcosolar.com.

About Obodo Energy
Obodo Energy is an energy and power systems contractor led by an experienced team with national recognition for delivering landmark projects. The company partners with its customers to reduce operating expenses and improve on-site infrastructure through a combination of cutting-edge energy solutions and in-house capabilities to ensure quality control and efficiency. 

AriSEIA filed direct testimony in the Arizona Public Service rate case. We make the following recommendations:

​Site Load COSS

• Discontinue the use of the Site Load COSS and instead direct APS to use a Delivered Load COSS going forward.
• In the alternative, direct APS to make the following modifications to the Site Load COSS
  • Use AriSEIA’s recommended methodology to determine demand reductions associated with Residential DG solar.
  • Use the same transmission cost allocation in the Solar Credit as APS does in its FERC tariff filings.
  • Do not “charge” solar customers for revenue shortfalls associated with transmission rates or EPR-6 or RCP purchases.
  • Utilize a marginal avoided energy cost rate instead of the average fuel and purchased price rate to value energy generation.
• Recognizing that the cost shift in the Site Load COSS disappears after fixing the methodological errors above, cancel the GAC and LSRI and direct APS to recalculate its rates without these adjustments.

DG Study

• Find that the Company did not follow the Commission’s directive to provide sufficient information in its application for intervenors to “scrutinize” the DG Study.
• Reject the results of the DG Study based on the myriad methodological flaws identified in my testimony.
• Do not direct the Company to perform the DG Study going forward.

SP Tariff

• Shorten the on peak window from 4 PM to 9 PM to 5 PM to 8 PM.
• Expand the SP Tariff to the E32-S and E-32M rates.
• Adjust variable cost recovery to 80% energy / 20% demand.
• Adopt AriSEIA’s “3:2:1’ variable energy rate design.
• Update its marketing materials to highlight the availability and benefits of this rate.

VPPs

• Expand the VPP program to non-residential customers.
• Update its marketing materials to highlight the availability and benefits of this rate.

City of Goodyear
Development Services Department
1900 N. Civic Square
Goodyear, AZ 85395
 
RE: Comments on Proposed Battery Energy Storage System Ordinance (3.5.40)
 
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) ordinance. AriSEIA is the statewide trade association representing the solar and energy storage industries and regularly engages with Arizona jurisdictions regarding renewable energy and energy storage land use regulations. AriSEIA has previously provided comments on renewable energy and energy storage ordinances in Maricopa County and several Arizona municipalities, including Buckeye.   Many of our comments have been incorporated into those ordinances to improve regulatory efficiency and ensure appropriate flexibility is provided so that commercially viable BESS projects can be move forward without redundant regulatory structures or excess costs that are often passed on to ratepayers.
 
Battery energy storage systems are critical electric infrastructure that improve grid reliability, support renewable energy integration, and provide resilience benefits to communities and utilities. Modern BESS facilities are subject to comprehensive national safety standards, including the National Fire Protection Association Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems (NFPA 855),[1] the National Electrical Code (NFPA 70),[2] and Underwriters Laboratories certification standards such as UL 9540[3] and UL 9540A.[4] These standards govern system design, fire safety, hazard mitigation, and emergency response planning. NFPA 855 establishes nationally recognized requirements for the design, installation, and operation of stationary energy storage systems and is widely adopted by jurisdictions across the United States.
 
The American Clean Power Association (ACP) has also developed a model BESS ordinance[5] intended to guide local governments in regulating energy storage facilities while relying on established national safety frameworks rather than imposing duplicative local requirements.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the City of Goodyear’s effort to develop a regulatory framework for battery storage facilities and to add use permissions into the zoning ordinance that permit development of this critical infrastructure. The comments below are intended to ensure that the ordinance reflects nationally recognized safety standards, aligns with regulatory approaches adopted in other Arizona jurisdictions, and avoids provisions that may unintentionally prevent appropriate siting of energy storage infrastructure.
 
Residential Separation Requirement 

The proposed ordinance requires a minimum separation distance of 500 feet between BESS facilities and residential or sensitive uses. This separation distance significantly exceeds national norms and is inconsistent with setbacks typically adopted in jurisdictions regulating battery storage facilities. A study published by the American Planning Association reviewing BESS ordinances nationwide found that typical separation distances range between approximately 50 and 150 feet depending on system configuration and surrounding land use conditions.[6]  
 
Several Arizona jurisdictions fall within this range or rely on similar engineering based standards. The Buckeye BESS ordinance requires approximately 150 feet of separation from residential uses.[7] Similarly, the Maricopa County renewable energy ordinance draft relies on NFPA safety standards and setback distances closer to 100 feet from property lines rather than large separation requirements.[8]
 
The City of Mesa ordinance includes a larger separation distance. However, that provision should not be viewed as a precedent for this proposal. Mesa adopted its BESS ordinance under unusual circumstances when the City had no regulatory framework in place and projects could not move forward without some form of interim ordinance. During that policy process it was acknowledged that the setback provision was not based on industry data or national best practices and that the City would likely need to revisit the ordinance in a future update. As a result, the Mesa ordinance is widely understood to be an anomalous interim policy rather than a best practice regulatory framework.
 
The proposed 500 foot separation requirement therefore represents a significant departure from both national planning research and the regulatory approaches adopted by other Arizona jurisdictions. A setback of that magnitude may unnecessarily eliminate otherwise appropriate industrial sites and could effectively prohibit BESS deployment in areas where industrial land is located near residential zoning districts. AriSEIA recommends aligning the separation requirement with national best practices by limiting setbacks to no more than 150 feet and measuring setbacks from BESS equipment rather than from the project boundary.
 
Extensive Technical Study Requirements 

The ordinance requires numerous technical studies, including plume modeling, toxic gas dispersion analysis, environmental hazard analysis, groundwater contamination modeling, and extreme weather scenario modeling. These requirements exceed the regulatory frameworks typically applied to comparable energy infrastructure and may create unnecessary cost and permitting barriers for projects.
 
Modern BESS facilities already undergo extensive safety certification through UL 9540 and UL 9540A testing and must comply with NFPA 855 requirements addressing system design, fire safety, hazard mitigation, and emergency response planning. NFPA 855 provides comprehensive requirements governing system design, commissioning, hazard mitigation analysis, emergency response planning, and operational safety.[9]
 
The American Clean Power Association Model BESS Ordinance specifically recommends that local governments rely on NFPA 855 compliance as the primary safety benchmark rather than requiring additional technical studies beyond nationally recognized safety standards. AriSEIA recommends that the ordinance rely on compliance with NFPA 855, UL 9540, and UL 9540A testing requirements rather than imposing additional technical study requirements that are not widely adopted in other jurisdictions.
 
In addition, the draft ordinance pushes many of the technical study requirements to the time of SUP application, which is much earlier than NFPA typically requires them.  Generally, NFPA requires technical studies to be performed at the time of building permit application when more information is known about design and technology procurement.  For this reason, technical studies pursuant to NPFA and preliminary emergency plans should be required at the time of building permit application, not zoning approval.
 
Mandatory Undergrounding of Electrical Infrastructure 

The ordinance requires BESS developers to bear the full cost of undergrounding adjacent or nearby electrical infrastructure as determined by the Development Services Department. This requirement introduces uncertainty and may impose costs outside the control of project developers.
 
Electrical interconnection infrastructure is typically owned and controlled by the applicable utility provider and must be designed in accordance with utility engineering standards and state regulatory requirements. Local zoning ordinances generally do not require developers to modify infrastructure that is owned or controlled by utilities or other third parties. The Arizona Corporation Commission has likewise recognized the substantial cost implications of undergrounding electrical infrastructure and has adopted a policy statement addressing underground transmission lines and cost allocation.[10] The Commission emphasized that undergrounding decisions primarily involve cost allocation considerations and that requiring undergrounding can substantially increase infrastructure costs.
 
AriSEIA recommends clarifying that electrical infrastructure requirements associated with BESS projects will be determined through the utility interconnection process rather than through discretionary municipal requirements.
 
Screening Requirements 

The ordinance requires BESS modules and substations to be fully screened with opaque barriers sufficient to conceal all equipment from public view with a specific height requirement to be over and above any structure on site. While screening may be appropriate in certain contexts, rigid screening requirements may impose unnecessary costs and may not be appropriate for projects located in industrial or remote areas.
 
Other jurisdictions have adopted more flexible approaches that allow screening requirements to be tailored to site conditions and surrounding land uses. The Buckeye BESS ordinance, for example, allows flexibility in screening design based on site context. AriSEIA recommends allowing administrative flexibility for screening requirements and permitting alternative screening approaches where visual impacts are minimal.
 
In particular, the draft ordinance’s screen height requirements are overly burdensome and unnecessary.  Often the utilities purchasing the power have their own screening requirements that could conflict with local ordinance requirements, so flexibility is important in this regard.  Eight to ten foot heights are often sufficient.  In addition, components of on-site substations can reach up to 30’ in height, and a requirement for a screen wall to exceed that height is untenable.  Such untenable screen height requirements are not applied to other uses.
 
Public Art Requirement 

The ordinance requires the installation of at least one public art element at each BESS facility. That requirement appears to be anomalous to BESS and does not reflect how other jurisdictions regulate battery storage or other forms of energy infrastructure. AriSEIA is not aware of comparable public art mandates imposed specifically on BESS facilities in other Arizona jurisdictions, including in the City of Buckeye or Maricopa County.
 
Public art requirements are generally associated with urban commercial, mixed-use, civic, or large residential development where members of the public regularly access and interact with the built environment. By contrast, BESS facilities are functional utility infrastructure. They are typically regulated through standards addressing safety, setbacks, screening, lighting, noise, access, and emergency response rather than through project-specific aesthetic mandates such as public art.
 
The same is true for other energy infrastructure. AriSEIA is not aware of public art mandates that are uniquely imposed on substations, transmission facilities, pipelines, or other comparable utility uses. If the City does not require public art for other utility or industrial infrastructure, there is no apparent land use basis for singling out BESS for a requirement of that kind.
 
This requirement does not address land use impacts related to BESS facilities and may increase project costs without improving safety or compatibility with surrounding land uses. If the City determines that additional aesthetic treatment is warranted in certain locations, those concerns can be addressed through screening, landscaping, or other neutral design standards applied consistently across comparable land use types rather than through a requirement unique to BESS. AriSEIA recommends removing the public art requirement from the ordinance.
 
Definition of Battery Energy Storage System
 
The proposed definition of BESS may inadvertently capture distributed or behind the meter storage systems installed by residential, commercial, or industrial customers. Distributed energy storage systems primarily serving on site load operate under different regulatory frameworks and serve different purposes than utility scale BESS facilities designed to participate in wholesale electricity markets or provide grid services.
 
The ordinance should clearly limit applicability to utility scale BESS facilities and explicitly exempt residential, commercial, and industrial storage systems installed behind the customer meter.
 
Lack of Alternative Compliance or Waiver Provision 

The ordinance currently states that development standards may not be modified. While regulatory certainty is important, the absence of a waiver or alternative compliance provision removes flexibility for site specific engineering solutions that could provide equivalent or superior safety outcomes.
 
Many jurisdictions include waiver provisions allowing applicants to demonstrate that alternative designs provide equivalent safety performance through engineering analysis. AriSEIA recommends adding a similar alternative compliance provision to the Goodyear ordinance.
 
Airport Hazard Analysis Requirements 

The ordinance requires plume modeling and toxic gas dispersion analysis for facilities located near airports. Federal Aviation Administration regulations already govern development near airports and include review processes for potential aviation hazards. Requiring additional municipal studies may duplicate existing federal oversight processes and create unnecessary regulatory complexity.
 
Noise Monitoring Requirements 

The ordinance requires baseline sound studies, post construction verification studies, and annual monitoring for five years. While noise monitoring may be appropriate in certain circumstances, annual studies are not typically required for other types of energy infrastructure. AriSEIA recommends limiting noise monitoring requirements to baseline analysis and post construction verification rather than ongoing annual studies.
 
Augmentation Restrictions 

Battery storage systems frequently undergo augmentation during their operating life as battery modules are replaced or upgraded. The ordinance requires City Council approval for certain augmentation activities. Routine augmentation that occurs within the approved project footprint and safety parameters should be allowed through administrative review rather than requiring legislative approval.
 
Solar Plus Storage Facilities 

The ordinance does not clearly address whether BESS may be installed as an accessory use to approved solar energy facilities. Storage systems are commonly paired with solar generation and are often an integral part of project design.
 
Battery energy storage systems are frequently co-located with solar generation facilities and are often designed as integrated projects that share electrical infrastructure, interconnection facilities, and site access. Because energy storage is commonly an operational component of solar facilities, many jurisdictions allow battery storage as an accessory use to approved solar projects rather than requiring a separate conditional use permit.
 
Clarifying that BESS may be installed as an accessory use to approved solar facilities would provide regulatory certainty and ensure that solar-plus-storage projects can be developed efficiently without creating unnecessary procedural barriers.
 
Zoning Districts 

Requiring underlying industrial zoning for BESS projects in impractical and has unintended consequences.  Many jurisdictions allow BESS in rural or agricultural zoning districts, in addition to PADs.  If a remote BESS site is rezoned to an industrial district, then upon project completion in approximately 30 years, the City could be left with industrially zoned land in a remote location that is incompatible with the surrounding area.  The SUP process is in place to allow the City to evaluate each location, and an additional rezoning application should not be required.  Further, it is unclear if this industrially zoning requirement would apply to BESS that is accessory to a solar project, which would pose even further unnecessary complications.
 
Human Machine Interface Requirements 

Human machine interface technology should not be required as part of the zoning ordinance.  BESS operators have various options to ensure timely notification and operational capability in the event of an incident, which may be provided as part of preliminary emergency response planning at the appropriate time.  Human machine interface technology can pose network security issues, and adds costs and complexity when more efficient alternatives are available.
 
Regulatory Reference 

Section D.2.g references “CFC.”  This appears to be an inadvertent reference to the California Fire Code, which should be removed.
 
Conclusion
 
Battery energy storage systems are an increasingly important component of modern electric infrastructure. When designed and operated in accordance with national standards such as NFPA 855 and UL 9540, these systems provide reliable, safe, and flexible energy storage that enhances grid resilience and supports economic development.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the City of Goodyear’s efforts to develop a regulatory framework for BESS facilities and encourages the City to align the ordinance with nationally recognized safety standards and regulatory approaches adopted by peer jurisdictions in Arizona. AriSEIA looks forward to continuing to work with the City to ensure that the final ordinance protects public safety while allowing responsible deployment of energy storage infrastructure.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems (2023 ed.).
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=855.

[2] NFPA 70: National Electrical Code (2023 ed.).
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=70.

[3] UL 9540: Energy Storage Systems and Equipment.
https://standardscatalog.ul.com/standards/en/standard_9540.

[4] UL 9540A: Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems.
https://standardscatalog.ul.com/standards/en/standard_9540A.

[5] Utility-Scale Battery Energy Storage Systems Model Ordinance (2023).
https://cleanpower.org/resources/battery-energy-storage-system-bess-model-ordinance/.

[6] American Planning Association. Battery Energy Storage Systems in Local Zoning Ordinances.
Zoning Practice, Issue No. 3 (Mar. 2024). https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9255100/.

[7] Buckeye Zoning Ordinance § 3.2.2 — Battery Energy Storage System Use-Specific Standards.
https://library.municode.com/az/buckeye/codes/code_of_ordinances.

[8] Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Amendments — Renewable Energy / Battery Energy Storage Systems Draft Regulations (2025). https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter.

[9] See National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 9.1–9.6 (2023 ed.).

[10] See Arizona Corporation Commission, Policy Statement Regarding Undergrounding of Electric Transmission Lines, Docket No. ALS-00000A-22-0320 (Oct. 2023). https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000209995.pdf?i=1773425880820. 

Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 4, Sections 436–446) (Draft 5v10)
 
Commissioners and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to continue working with Apache County on the development of a renewable energy ordinance. AriSEIA previously submitted a detailed comment letter on December 3, 2025, addressing definitions, applicability, setbacks, agency coordination, decommissioning, and other foundational provisions. AriSEIA also submitted supplemental comments on January 12, 2026 responding to revisions in Draft 5v8 and identifying several remaining technical and administrative concerns.
 
County staff has clearly engaged with stakeholder feedback in several areas. In particular, the revision allowing removal of subsurface infrastructure to approximately three (3) feet during decommissioning represents a practical and environmentally responsible improvement. AriSEIA appreciates this change and the County’s willingness to incorporate input. After reviewing the most recent draft ordinance, several additional issues remain that warrant clarification or revision prior to adoption. The most significant remaining issues are outlined below.
 
Applicability and Definition of Utility-Scale Projects 
The ordinance currently defines a “utility-scale solar energy project” as a facility with the actual or planned ability to generate at least one (1) megawatt of electricity. This threshold is far too low for purposes of a land use ordinance designed to regulate major infrastructure. A one-megawatt trigger would capture numerous smaller commercial and agricultural systems that are not functionally equivalent to large utility generation facilities. Schools, farms, warehouses, and community-scale solar installations frequently fall within this size range and should not be subject to a regulatory framework intended for large-scale generation projects.
 
In addition, the definition excludes systems that do not feed residual power into the electrical grid. This phrasing does not align with the Arizona Corporation Commission’s treatment of distributed generation and could unintentionally capture projects that primarily serve on-site load but export occasional excess energy.
 
If Apache County intends to regulate major infrastructure differently from smaller commercial or community-scale systems, the distinction should be meaningful and administrable. AriSEIA strongly recommends increasing the applicability threshold to at least twenty (20) megawatts and removing language tied to whether a project exports residual power to the grid. Size and primary project purpose provide a clearer and more workable distinction.
 
Section 439 – Fire Protection and Emergency Response 
The current language requires approval of a fire protection plan “prior to construction” while the following sentence requires that a copy of the approval be submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application. These two provisions are inconsistent with one another. If approval must be submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application, the approval would necessarily occur much earlier than construction.
 
Fire protection plans are typically developed during the engineering phase of a project and submitted during the building permit process when final layouts, equipment specifications, and access plans are known. Requiring full approval at the Conditional Use Permit stage may be premature and could require repeated revisions as project design evolves. The ordinance should clarify that fire protection plans will be submitted and approved at the building permit stage rather than as a prerequisite to the Conditional Use Permit application.
 
Section 439 – Wildlife Protection and Agency Coordination 
AriSEIA understands the County’s interest in ensuring coordination with state and federal agencies. However, the current language creates the possibility that a single non-responsive outside agency could prevent a Conditional Use Permit from being scheduled for hearing. Under the ordinance as drafted, the absence of a response from an outside agency could indefinitely delay County consideration of an application. This would create a situation where third-party inaction effectively prevents a hearing from occurring, raising due process concerns. A more workable approach would allow the County to proceed with scheduling a hearing if an agency does not respond within a defined period. AriSEIA recommends that if an agency has not responded within thirty (30) days of a request for review, staff may schedule the item for a hearing with a note in the staff report indicating that the agency response was not received. Any agency concerns can then be addressed during the public hearing process.
 
Section 439 – Permits and Agency Coordination 
The ordinance also states that building permits may not be issued until the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors concur that all outside agency conditions have been satisfied. Building permits and grading permits are administrative approvals issued by County staff based on compliance with established technical criteria. These approvals do not typically return to the Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Supervisors for review.
 
Requiring additional Board or Commission concurrence for routine administrative permits would create unnecessary procedural complexity and could delay project construction even after land use approvals have been granted. This provision should be revised to clarify that building and grading permits are administrative determinations handled through standard County permitting procedures.
 
Section 441 – Solar Project Setbacks 
The most recent draft does not incorporate earlier recommendations to align solar setbacks with those used in other Arizona jurisdictions. In fact, the setback requirement adjacent to Agricultural-General zoning appears to have increased.
 
It is unclear what objective this larger setback is intended to achieve. Setbacks adjacent to residential zoning districts can provide meaningful protection for nearby homes. However, extensive setbacks adjacent to undeveloped Agricultural-General land provide little public benefit while significantly reducing the amount of land available for project development. If the County wishes to maintain an Agricultural-General setback, AriSEIA recommends limiting the requirement to situations where the adjacent Agricultural-General parcel contains a permitted residential structure at the time the renewable project obtains building permits. This approach would protect occupied residences without unnecessarily restricting development adjacent to vacant agricultural land.
 
Section 443.C – Complaint-Triggered Board of Supervisors Hearings 
The ordinance continues to allow any individual complaint during project operations to trigger a hearing before the Board of Supervisors. This threshold is extremely low and would likely result in repeated hearings triggered by individual complaints, regardless of whether a violation has occurred. As drafted, the ordinance provides no opportunity for County staff to evaluate the validity of a complaint before scheduling a Board hearing.
 
County development services staff should be allowed to review and investigate complaints in the first instance. Only if staff determines that a violation may exist or that the issue cannot be resolved administratively should the matter be elevated to the Board of Supervisors. Without such a review process, opponents of a project could repeatedly trigger hearings and place ongoing operational matters on Board agendas indefinitely, effectively turning the Board into a day-to-day zoning enforcement body.
 
Section 439 – FAA and FCC Compliance 
The new FAA and FCC compliance provisions generally move in a constructive direction. However, the complaint provisions associated with this section again place significant weight on a single reported incident. The primary focus should be on technical studies submitted during the application process demonstrating compliance with Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission requirements. Once a project is operational, it can be extremely difficult to isolate the cause of a single interference incident, particularly in areas where multiple potential sources exist. The ordinance should focus on pre-construction studies and compliance certifications rather than complaint-driven enforcement tied to individual reported events.
 
Section 448 – Development Agreements 
The ordinance introduces a new section referencing development agreements. Arizona law already authorizes counties to enter development agreements, and Apache County code already provides the authority necessary to use those tools where appropriate.
 
It is therefore unclear what purpose this section is intended to serve or what additional authority it creates. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that development agreements may be used in certain circumstances, the section may be unnecessary. If the County intends to require development agreements for certain projects, that requirement should be clearly explained so that applicants understand when such agreements may apply.
 
Additional Observations 
In reviewing the most recent draft, AriSEIA also notes several areas where the language may inadvertently extend beyond the scope of renewable energy facilities. For example, certain provisions appear broad enough to capture transmission infrastructure or interconnection facilities that are typically regulated through separate state and federal processes. Ensuring that the ordinance clearly distinguishes between generation facilities and transmission infrastructure will help avoid regulatory overlap and jurisdictional confusion.
 
Conclusion 
AriSEIA appreciates the County’s continued engagement and the improvements already incorporated into the draft ordinance. The revisions to the decommissioning provisions demonstrate that productive dialogue is occurring and that stakeholder input is being carefully considered.
 
The remaining issues identified above primarily involve procedural clarity, administrative feasibility, and alignment with established renewable energy development practices. Addressing these concerns will help ensure that the ordinance protects County interests while remaining workable for projects that can bring economic development and tax revenue to Apache County. AriSEIA welcomes continued dialogue with County staff and the Board of Supervisors and remains available to provide examples from other Arizona jurisdictions or to assist in refining ordinance language where helpful.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]