Arizona Public Service (APS) filed for a 90-day extension of their integrated resource plan (IRP). If that is granted, the stakeholder comments would be due in January instead of October. AriSEIA filed to ask for stakeholder comments for all utility IRPs be due in January if the APS request is granted, regardless of whether or not other utilities file their IRPs in August. 

APS recently filed a motion asking the Arizona Corporation Commission to restrict witness examination in its pending rate case.

APS is seeking approval of significant rate increases and numerous policy proposals that could affect Arizona customers for years to come. As the applicant, APS bears the burden of proving that its requests are just, reasonable, and supported by the evidence. Cross-examination is one of the primary tools available to test that evidence and ensure the Commission develops a complete record before making decisions that will impact ratepayers.

Arizona courts have recognized that, while ratemaking is legislative in nature, the proceedings leading to those decisions are quasi-judicial and subject to due process requirements. Limiting parties' ability to question witnesses and test evidence raises serious concerns about whether the record will be fully developed before rates are approved.

AriSEIA believes APS's request is both premature and unnecessary. The hearing remains underway, and APS has not demonstrated that additional hearing days will be needed. If scheduling concerns ultimately arise, the Commission can address them through additional hearing days rather than restrictions on the examination of witnesses.
​
When a utility seeks to increase customer rates, the answer should not be less scrutiny. Arizona ratepayers deserve a full and fair review of the evidence before any decision is made.

Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Surprise
16000 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
 
RE: City of Surprise Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Text Amendment, Case FS23-1041
 
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
 
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 previously submitted written comments on November 14, 2024, February 18, 2025, and January 5, 2026. AriSEIA representatives also attended both public meetings regarding this ordinance, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission work session on May 21, 2026. We appreciate the City’s continued engagement and the revisions reflected in the latest draft.
 
The current draft reflects meaningful progress, including alignment with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855 for internal battery cabinet separation requirements. AriSEIA also appreciates the City’s efforts to create a regulatory pathway for utility-scale battery storage through the overlay framework. Several targeted revisions remain necessary, however, to ensure the ordinance is appropriately scoped, workable, and supportive of responsible energy infrastructure development.
 
Applicability and Scope 
The most significant remaining issue is applicability. While the ordinance now excludes batteries located within single-family and multi-family residential projects, it also includes accessory battery energy storage systems within the ordinance’s scope. By contrast, Mesa expressly excludes accessory systems from its utility-scale BESS requirements when those systems serve the enterprise functions of the on-site property owner or tenant and meet defined size thresholds. Mesa City Code § 11-31-37.[1]
 
As drafted, the ordinance could apply not only to utility-scale battery storage projects, but also to commercial, industrial, institutional, and backup power systems serving on-site load. This creates substantial and likely unintended consequences for commercial battery storage paired with rooftop solar, school or hospital backup power systems, industrial behind-the-meter storage, and other customer-sited installations. These systems are fundamentally different from utility-scale infrastructure and should not be subject to the same zoning framework.
 
Zoning ordinances should be clear on their face. Reliance on future interpretation or enforcement discretion creates risk of inconsistent application, appeals, and unintended barriers to distributed energy deployment. Maricopa County addresses this issue by expressly distinguishing utility-scale systems from customer-sited systems. AriSEIA recommends replacing the current applicability language in Chapter 101, Article II with the following:
 
“For purposes of this ordinance, a BESS shall be considered utility-scale when designed for energy market participation or grid services and when not intended to primarily serve on-site end-use load. Residential, commercial, and industrial systems installed behind the customer meter or primarily serving on-site consumption shall be considered distributed energy resources and are exempt from Chapter 106.”
 
This revision would ensure that the ordinance applies only to utility-scale projects while avoiding unintended impacts to customer-sited storage systems. It would also provide clearer direction to applicants, staff, and the public regarding which systems are subject to the overlay framework.
 
Setbacks and Separation Requirements 
AriSEIA appreciates the Planning and Zoning Commission’s efforts to reduce the originally proposed residential separation requirements. However, the currently recommended framework remains too restrictive. The American Planning Association has identified BESS-specific setbacks generally ranging from 50 to 150 feet. Am. Plan. Ass’n, Zoning Practice 10 (Mar. 2024).[2]
 
Maricopa County requires battery energy storage units to be setback a minimum of 100 feet from all lot lines. Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance art. 603.10.[3] Buckeye requires a 150-foot separation from residential properties, measured from the BESS facility to the nearest residential structure, building setback line, or residential property line depending on site conditions. Buckeye, Ariz., Development Code § 5.8, Commercial and Industrial Use Specific Standards, Battery Energy Storage Systems.[4]
 
Against that backdrop, a combined 250-foot requirement exceeds both Arizona peer jurisdictions and the planning benchmarks identified by the American Planning Association. AriSEIA recommends that 150 feet be treated as the maximum separation requirement. If the City determines that a residential separation requirement is warranted, AriSEIA recommends replacing the current setback and separation language with the following:
 
“A utility-scale BESS shall be located no closer than one hundred fifty feet (150’) from an existing residential dwelling unit, measured in a straight line from the outermost battery cabinet, enclosure, or associated battery equipment to the nearest exterior wall of the dwelling.”
 
This approach directly addresses compatibility concerns without creating effective barriers to otherwise appropriate development. It also avoids stacking multiple setback and separation requirements in a way that exceeds relevant safety and planning benchmarks.
 
Noise Standard 
The revised ordinance replaces the prior measurable noise threshold with a requirement that the BESS generate no noise perceptible beyond the site boundaries. This creates a less workable and less objective standard than the prior draft. “Perceptible” is inherently subjective. Perception varies based on ambient conditions, time of day, surrounding land uses, and individual sensitivity. Nearly any infrastructure may generate detectable sound under some conditions. A subjective perception standard creates uncertainty for applicants, staff, and enforcement alike and does not provide a clear compliance framework.
 
AriSEIA recommends replacing the current language with an objective, measurable acoustic standard. Consistent with prior AriSEIA recommendations, a 65 dBA limit at the project boundary would provide a clearer and more administrable framework while avoiding subjective enforcement disputes. AriSEIA recommends replacing the current language with the following:
 
“Operational noise attributable to the BESS shall not exceed 65 dBA at the project boundary, as demonstrated by a study prepared by a qualified third-party acoustical engineer.”
 
This approach provides an objective and enforceable standard while recognizing that battery storage systems are industrial infrastructure and should be regulated using measurable performance criteria rather than subjective perception-based requirements.
 
Administrative Flexibility 
The revised draft requires modifications that change or expand site design beyond what was approved in the original rezone application to return through another Type 3 rezone process. This is unnecessarily restrictive and impractical.
 
Battery storage projects evolve during engineering, procurement, and permitting. Equipment specifications, fire safety design, and layout details often change as projects mature. Requiring full rezoning for design refinements that do not alter the core characteristics of an approved project creates unnecessary delay, cost, and uncertainty. A workable ordinance should preserve public safety while allowing reasonable flexibility for routine project evolution.
 
AriSEIA also recommends that the ordinance include a limited waiver mechanism for projects that substantially comply with the ordinance but require relief from a specific provision. Without that flexibility, otherwise appropriate projects may be blocked based on rigid application of individual requirements, even where equivalent safety and compatibility outcomes can be achieved.
AriSEIA recommends replacing the current language with the following two provisions:
 
“Administrative approval may be granted for modifications that do not increase the approved project footprint, reduce required setbacks, increase approved nameplate capacity, or materially alter approved access, emergency response, or fire protection features.”

“The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant a waiver from specific ordinance requirements upon a finding that the proposed alternative provides equivalent or greater protection for public safety and compatibility with surrounding land uses.”
 
This approach preserves objective guardrails for routine project refinements while maintaining public oversight for requests that require deviation from specific ordinance standards.
 
Need for Timely Action 
AriSEIA encourages the City to make targeted revisions and move this ordinance forward promptly. As currently structured, battery storage projects cannot move forward in Surprise because there is no workable regulatory pathway for development.
 
That uncertainty carries real economic development consequences. Battery storage is increasingly important infrastructure that supports grid reliability, business investment, and economic growth. Maintaining an effective prohibition while ordinance issues remain unresolved creates a missed economic development opportunity for the City. The City can make targeted revisions now and adopt a workable framework this summer so that appropriately sited projects can move forward.
 
Conclusion 
AriSEIA supports reasonable, data-driven regulation of utility-scale battery energy storage systems. The City has made meaningful progress toward creating a pathway for these projects, but the ordinance should be revised to clarify applicability, avoid excessive cumulative setbacks, replace subjective performance standards, provide administrative flexibility, and move expeditiously toward adoption.
 
With these targeted revisions, the City can protect residents while establishing a clear, defensible, and practical framework for needed energy infrastructure. We appreciate the opportunity to continue working with the City toward that outcome.
 
Respectfully,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Mesa Resolution 12441, dated December 1, 2025, available here https://www.mesaaz.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/business-development/devsvcs/codesords/bess-adoption-by-ref-doc.pdf.

[2] American Planning Association, Zoning Practice: Battery Energy Storage Systems, available here https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf.

[3] Maricopa County, Article 603.10, available here https://esd.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4785/P-18---Zoning-Ordinance-PDF?bidId=.

[4] City of Buckeye, Chapter 7, Development Code 3.2, available here https://library.municode.com/az/buckeye/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_CH7DECO. 

City of Goodyear
Development Services Department
1900 N. Civic Square
Goodyear, AZ 85395
 
RE: Comments on Proposed BESS Ordinance (3.11.7)
 
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide supplemental comments on the City’s proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) ordinance. AriSEIA previously submitted comments on the March 16, 2026 draft and appreciates the City’s continued efforts to refine the ordinance in response to stakeholder feedback.
 
While several revisions appear responsive to prior comments, significant concerns remain. Certain provisions continue to impose restrictions that are not supported by national safety standards, duplicate requirements addressed through other regulatory processes, or unnecessarily limit the ability to site critical energy infrastructure in appropriate locations.
 
1. Zoning District Eligibility 
​
The current draft limits BESS facilities as a principal use to industrial zoning districts. AriSEIA recommends instead allowing both BESS facilities and Energy Generation Facilities to be considered through the Special Use Permit (SUP) process in all zoning districts, including AG and AU.
 
The SUP process already provides the City with the ability to evaluate compatibility, impose project-specific conditions, and deny applications that are not appropriate for a given location. Because that discretionary review process exists, limiting BESS development to industrial districts is unnecessary and may eliminate otherwise suitable sites without a corresponding public benefit.
 
This concern is particularly important for AG and AU districts, where utility-scale energy infrastructure is often appropriately located due to available land, separation from population centers, and proximity to transmission infrastructure. Requiring rezoning to industrial districts creates unnecessary procedural barriers and could produce unintended long-term land use consequences after a project is decommissioned.
 
2. Applicability to Previously Approved Projects
 
Section 3.11.7.A states that the ordinance applies to utility-scale BESS facilities permitted, installed, or modified after the effective date. As drafted, this language could apply newly adopted standards to projects with pending applications that were submitted in reliance on the City’s prior regulatory framework.
 
Developers must be able to rely on the rules in place at the time a complete application is submitted, particularly where significant development costs, engineering work, and entitlement efforts have already been undertaken. Applying newly adopted requirements midstream would create unnecessary uncertainty, increase development risk, and undermine confidence in the City’s entitlement process.
 
AriSEIA recommends revising the applicability language to clarify that the ordinance does not apply to BESS facilities that have already been approved or that have submitted a complete application prior to the ordinance’s effective date.
 
3. Accessory Use Definition
 
The accessory use provisions in Section 3.11.7.A.2 are unnecessarily complicated and appear to combine multiple distinct use cases that should be treated separately. A BESS that serves as a subordinate component of an approved Energy Generation Facility should simply be treated as an accessory use to that facility. That framework reflects how solar-plus-storage projects are commonly developed and regulated.
 
Customer-serving behind-the-meter battery systems or enterprise-serving storage installations raise different land use considerations and should be addressed separately if the City wishes to regulate them differently. Combining these concepts into a single accessory use framework creates confusion and makes the ordinance more difficult to interpret and administer.
 
4. Setbacks
 
Section 3.11.7.B.1 establishes a 330-foot separation requirement from residential uses and certain other uses, with a potential reduction to 150 feet if extensive technical studies are provided. It is unclear what technical or scientific basis supports the proposed 330-foot setback. AriSEIA is not aware of other Arizona jurisdictions using this separation distance.
 
AriSEIA appreciates staff’s efforts to reduce the originally proposed setback requirements. However, the currently recommended framework remains too restrictive. The American Planning Association has identified BESS-specific setbacks generally ranging from 50 to 150 feet. Am. Plan. Ass’n, Zoning Practice 10 (Mar. 2024).
 
Maricopa County requires battery energy storage units to be setback a minimum of 100 feet from all lot lines. Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance art. 603.10. Buckeye requires a 150-foot separation from residential properties, measured from the BESS facility to the nearest residential structure, building setback line, or residential property line depending on site conditions. Buckeye, Ariz., Development Code § 5.8, Commercial and Industrial Use Specific Standards, Battery Energy Storage Systems.
 
National safety standards already address separation distances. NFPA 855 generally establishes a 100-foot separation framework depending on system configuration and technology. AriSEIA has supported setbacks of approximately 150 feet in other jurisdictions as a conservative buffer above national baseline standards.
 
A 330-foot setback appears arbitrary absent a demonstrated technical basis and may unnecessarily eliminate viable sites without producing meaningful public safety benefits.
In addition, the reference to “other similar sensitive use as determined by the Development Services Director” introduces unnecessary subjectivity and uncertainty into the ordinance. Land use regulations should provide clear, objective standards rather than open-ended administrative discretion. AriSEIA recommends reducing the setback requirement to no more than 150 feet and removing subjective “similar sensitive use” determinations.
 
5. Screening Flexibility
 
Section 3.11.7.B.4 imposes mandatory screening requirements while limiting City Council flexibility to phased installation of screening. That approach is unnecessarily rigid and does not adequately account for the wide range of contexts in which BESS facilities may be appropriately located.
 
Many utility-scale BESS facilities are located in industrial, agricultural, or rural settings where extensive decorative screening may serve little practical purpose while imposing unnecessary cost. In some cases, landscape-based screening may also create avoidable water demand that is inconsistent with the character of the site or broader resource conservation goals.
 
Because the Special Use Permit process already allows project-specific review, City Council should have the authority to modify, reduce, or eliminate screening requirements where site conditions warrant. Limiting flexibility to phased implementation unnecessarily constrains that review.
 
6. Utility Requirements
 
Section 3.11.7.B.5.b states that BESS facilities may be subject to additional requirements from the applicable utility provider. That concept is already true independent of the zoning ordinance and does not need to be restated here.
 
Including utility compliance language in the zoning ordinance creates redundancy and creates the potential for unintended confusion or conflict between municipal land use requirements and utility interconnection processes. Utility operational requirements should be addressed through the applicable utility review process rather than through local zoning code.
 
Section 3.11.7.B.5.a similarly raises concern because it appears to grant the Development Services Department sole discretion to require undergrounding of on-site electrical infrastructure. Electrical infrastructure design is typically governed through utility engineering and interconnection requirements, and duplicative local requirements could create unnecessary cost or conflicting obligations.
 
7. Public Art Requirement
 
Section 3.11.7.B.6 requires a public art element such as a mural or sculpture. AriSEIA is not aware of comparable public art requirements imposed on BESS facilities or other comparable utility infrastructure in Arizona.
 
This requirement also appears inconsistent with the ordinance’s broader apparent objective of minimizing visual impacts associated with these facilities. If the City’s intent is to reduce visual prominence, requiring public art that draws visual attention to the facility does not appear to advance that goal.
 
The requirement would impose additional cost without a clear land use, public safety, or public benefit justification. If aesthetic treatment is warranted in certain contexts, that objective can be addressed through site-specific screening or landscaping conditions through the Special Use Permit process.
 
8. Augmentation and Nameplate Capacity
 
Section 3.11.7.F.1.b.ii requires City Council approval for augmentations that increase nameplate capacity. If the physical footprint of the project remains unchanged and land use impacts do not materially change, there is no clear land use basis for requiring new discretionary approval solely because electrical output increases.
 
Electrical capacity and interconnection constraints are already governed through utility engineering review and interconnection processes. Municipal land use review should remain focused on physical impacts such as setbacks, access, screening, noise, and compatibility with surrounding uses.
 
Thank you for the opportunity to provide supplemental comments. AriSEIA appreciates the City’s continued engagement on this issue and welcomes continued discussion to ensure the final ordinance appropriately protects public safety while allowing deployment of critical energy infrastructure.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 8 Renewable Energy) v8
 
Commissioners, Supervisors, and Staff,
 
On behalf of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA), thank you for the continued work to refine Apache County’s proposed renewable energy ordinance. AriSEIA appreciates the County’s engagement and respectfully submits the following comments on Draft 8, including specific recommended replacement language for each outstanding provision.
AriSEIA commissioned an independent economic impact analysis from Elliott D. Pollack & Company evaluating a representative utility-scale solar project in Apache County. That analysis found the example project would generate:

• 468 construction-related jobs
• $25.8 million in total tax revenue over the project life, including $8.4 million to Apache County and special districts and $15.9 million to local school districts
• $602.2 million in total economic activity over the life of the project
• An average of $628,100 in annual tax revenue during operations

These are significant potential benefits for Apache County, local taxing jurisdictions, and surrounding communities. AriSEIA would strongly encourage the County to review the attached economic analysis before any final ordinance action or consideration of a moratorium.

I.  Opposition to a Renewable Energy Moratorium
Before addressing specific ordinance provisions, AriSEIA respectfully urges Apache County not to pursue a moratorium on renewable energy development, whether temporary or otherwise.
Apache County has already invested substantial time developing a comprehensive ordinance framework. If additional revisions to Draft 8 are warranted, continued refinement through the ordinance process is the more appropriate path than a blanket suspension of otherwise lawful development activity.
AriSEIA is also concerned that some of the stated rationales for a moratorium are not supported by technical facts:

• Communications / National Security Concerns: Communications compatibility is a technical, project-specific matter addressed through FAA, FCC, and project-level review. Draft 8 already imposes those requirements. A generalized concern about hypothetical interference does not provide a factual or legal basis for a countywide moratorium.
• Water Use Concerns: Utility-scale solar is among the lowest-water electricity generation technologies available, particularly compared to conventional thermal generation. Wind generation has negligible operational water consumption. Pausing all renewable development based on generalized water concerns would lack a sound technical foundation.

 
Under A.R.S. § 11-833, a county may not pause development based on generalized policy concerns. A moratorium must be supported by specific written findings and a demonstrated factual basis. Based on the concerns discussed publicly to date, AriSEIA does not believe that threshold has been met.

II.  Sections 801 and 802 — Utility-Scale Definitions and Applicability Threshold
Draft 8 retains a 1-megawatt threshold to define utility-scale renewable facilities. That threshold is exceptionally low for a county ordinance intended to regulate major energy infrastructure and would subject small commercial and agricultural systems to a burdensome CUP process not intended for projects of that size. In addition, the current exclusion for systems that do not feed residual power into the electrical grid does not accurately reflect how distributed generation operates in Arizona, where systems primarily designed for on-site use may export incidental excess generation without functioning as utility-scale infrastructure.
AriSEIA recommends the following revisions:

Recommended Language — Section 801(A)(1):
Utility-scale wind and solar projects regulated under this Article shall be facilities primarily intended to generate electricity for off-site customers through the electrical grid and having an actual or planned generating capacity of at least twenty (20) megawatts.

Recommended Language — Section 802 Definitions:
Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Production Facility — A wind or solar energy system primarily intended to generate electricity for off-site customers through the electrical grid and having an actual or planned generating capacity of at least twenty (20) megawatts. The term does not include systems primarily intended to serve on-site residential, agricultural, institutional, or commercial energy consumption, even if incidental excess generation is exported to the electrical grid.

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Project — An energy generation facility using solar energy to generate electricity by the photovoltaic effect, primarily intended to generate electricity for off-site customers tied into the local electrical grid, with the actual or planned ability to generate at least twenty (20) megawatts. The term does not include systems primarily intended to serve on-site residential, institutional, agricultural, or commercial uses, even if incidental excess generation is exported to the electrical grid.

Utility-Scale Wind Energy Project — An energy generation facility using wind technology consisting of one or more wind turbines and accessory structures, with an actual or planned generating capacity of at least twenty (20) megawatts. The term does not include systems primarily intended to serve on-site residential, institutional, agricultural, or commercial uses, even if incidental excess generation is exported to the electrical grid.

III.  Section 804 — FAA/FCC Complaint Provisions
Draft 8’s communications interference framework imposes investigation obligations, independent engineering review at the applicant’s expense, and potential operational curtailment upon receipt of a single written complaint. Communications disruptions frequently result from causes entirely unrelated to a renewable energy facility, including weather, third-party equipment failure, or changes to nearby infrastructure. The ordinance should not presume facility responsibility or trigger expansive post-construction causation investigations based on a single incident where multiple variables may be involved.

The appropriate framework is one that emphasizes pre-construction technical studies and compliance with approved mitigation measures, with post-construction remediation obligations triggered only by verified, facility-caused interference. AriSEIA recommends revising the complaint and remediation provisions as follows:

Recommended Language — Section 804 (Communications Interference):
Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit a pre-construction RF/microwave interference study prepared by a qualified communications engineer. If credible technical evidence demonstrates that the Renewable Energy Generation Facility is causing material interference in violation of applicable federal law, Apache County may require the permit holder to implement reasonable corrective measures necessary to address the verified interference. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability for interference not caused by the facility or to require operational curtailment absent competent technical evidence establishing project causation.

IV.  Section 804 — Interconnection and PPA Documentation Requirement
Section 804 currently requires documentation confirming an executed interconnection agreement or power purchase agreement before any building or construction permits may be issued. Executed interconnection agreements and power purchase agreements are routinely finalized after local approvals are in place, because counterparties do not commit to those agreements until there is a reasonable path to project approval. Requiring them prematurely creates a circular development barrier that will prevent otherwise viable projects from advancing.

Recommended Language — Section 804 (replace interconnection/PPA requirement):
Applicant shall provide a narrative description of project development status, including interconnection and commercial contracting progress, as applicable.

V.  Section 806 — Setback Requirements
Several setback provisions in Draft 8 remain substantially more restrictive than peer jurisdictions and in some cases function as de facto siting prohibitions. AriSEIA’s principal concerns are as follows:

• 500-foot solar setback from major highways: This setback is significantly more restrictive than comparable county ordinances. AriSEIA recommends reducing this to 150 feet, with the Board retaining authority to approve further reductions where terrain, vegetation, or visual screening adequately mitigates visual impact.
• Wind setbacks — internal inconsistency: Section 806(D) simultaneously requires a setback of 1.5 times total turbine height and a one-half mile setback from the project boundary. These provisions are mutually contradictory for most turbine configurations and should be reconciled by retaining the 1.5x turbine height standard as the sole project boundary setback.
• Wind setback from major highways: Section 806(F)(ii) requires a 1-mile setback from major highways. This is not a standard safety requirement and may effectively preclude development across significant portions of the County. AriSEIA recommends revising this to 1.5 times total turbine height, consistent with the other roadway setback provisions in the ordinance.

 
Recommended Language — Section 806 (Solar — Roads and Highways):
Solar facilities shall maintain the following setbacks from public road rights-of-way: one hundred fifty (150) feet from the right-of-way of any Major Highway, including U.S. and State Highways; one hundred (100) feet from the right-of-way of any county road, whether paved or unpaved; fifty (50) feet from the right-of-way of any other road not maintained by Apache County. The Board of Supervisors may approve a reduction in roadway setbacks where terrain, vegetation, visual screening, or other mitigation measures adequately reduce visual impacts and protect public safety.

Recommended Language — Section 806(D) (Wind — Project Boundary):
Individual wind turbines shall be placed at least one and one-half (1.5) times the total turbine height from the center of the turbine foundation to the project boundary.

Recommended Language — Section 806(F)(ii) (Wind — Major Highways):
Individual wind turbines shall be set back from any major highway or significant Scenic Travel Corridor as listed in the Apache County Comprehensive Plan a minimum distance of one and one-half (1.5) times the total turbine height, measured to the nearest edge of the right-of-way.

VI.  Section 807 — CUP Duration and Vesting
Utility-scale renewable projects do not move on a typical commercial development timeline. Interconnection, environmental review, financing, offtake contracting, and supply chain timelines routinely span multiple years. Lenders and investors require certainty that local approvals will remain valid through normal project development cycles. Without a meaningful CUP vesting period, otherwise viable projects will be unable to secure financing.
Draft 8 does not currently include explicit CUP duration or extension provisions adequate to support project development timelines. AriSEIA recommends the following addition:

Recommended Language — Section 807:
For any Renewable Energy Generation Facility approved through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the permit holder shall apply for and pay for a building permit within sixty (60) months of the date of CUP approval, unless a longer duration is stated in the CUP approval. Prior to the date of expiration, the permit holder may file unlimited requests for a one (1) year time extension authorized by the Community Development Director.

VII.  Section 808(C) — Complaint and Hearing Process
As currently drafted, Section 808(C) provides that upon receipt of any complaint alleging a facility is unsafe or inoperable, the Board of Supervisors shall convene a public hearing. This creates a direct pathway from a public complaint to a Board hearing without administrative screening, factual review, or any opportunity for the permit holder to respond. A complaint process should provide for investigation and a permit holder response before escalation to a Board hearing.

Recommended Language — Section 808(C):
Upon receipt of a complaint by the Community Development Department alleging that a Renewable Energy Generation Facility is unsafe or inoperable, if the permit holder does not adequately respond and the Community Development Director determines that the matter warrants further review based on credible evidence, the Department may refer the matter to the Board of Supervisors to convene a public hearing.

VIII.  Section 809 — Agency Coordination and Non-Response
The current draft does not address how to proceed when an outside agency fails to respond to a coordination request, creating a risk that a project could be held in indefinite limbo due to a third-party agency’s inaction. AriSEIA recommends adding the following default provision:

Recommended Language — Section 809:
If a requested reviewing agency does not respond within thirty (30) days of the County’s written coordination request, the County may proceed with scheduling the application for hearing, noting the lack of response in the staff report.

IX.  Section 811 — Decommissioning — Complete Removal Reservation
Section 811(B) requires removal of all below-ground infrastructure to a minimum depth of 36 inches and further provides that “Apache County reserves the right to determine that such man-made, above-ground and below-ground project materials may need to be removed completely.” The open-ended complete removal reservation is problematic because it creates unlimited and unpredictable decommissioning cost exposure, undermining the financial assurance framework established elsewhere in the ordinance and making it difficult or impossible for applicants to bond projects at a defined cost.

Decommissioning standards should be tied to actual site conditions, future land use, and legitimate safety or contamination concerns rather than reserving unlimited discretion. AriSEIA recommends replacing the complete removal reservation with the following:

Recommended Language — Section 811(B) (complete removal reservation):
Removal of below-ground project materials shall be performed to a depth of thirty-six (36) inches. Apache County may require removal to a greater depth upon a specific written finding that site conditions, contamination, public safety concerns, or a written landowner agreement requires more complete removal.
 
X.  Conclusion
AriSEIA appreciates the Apache County Planning and Zoning Commission’s and Board of Supervisors’ sustained engagement throughout this process. The issues identified above can each be addressed through the targeted revisions recommended above, which are designed to preserve legitimate County interests while ensuring the ordinance remains legally sound, technically workable, and compatible with responsible economic development.
AriSEIA respectfully urges the County to continue refining Draft 8 through the ordinance process rather than pursuing a moratorium. AriSEIA would welcome the opportunity to meet with County staff, Commissioners, or Supervisors to discuss these recommendations and the attached economic analysis at the earliest convenient opportunity.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 
Exhibit A: Elliott D. Pollack & Company, Apache County Solar (Example Project) Economic Impact and Tax Revenue Analysis (May 2026)

Today, AriSEIA filed a brief with the Arizona Court of Appeals in an appeal from the Arizona Corporation Commission's (ACC) decision in the Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative (SSVEC) rate case which eliminated net metering for commercial solar customers. Read the brief below.

AriSEIA has filed surrebuttal testimony in the APS rate case, directly challenging how the utility values rooftop solar and allocates costs.

The testimony argues APS’s “Site Load” cost of service study is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced with a standard Delivered Load approach. The current model understates the benefits of distributed solar and is being used to justify solar-specific charges that lack a valid foundation.

A key issue is APS’s reliance on transmission-level peak hours rather than retail customer load, which distorts results and minimizes solar’s contribution during high-demand periods. When evaluated using the correct framework, the testimony finds that rooftop solar significantly reduces peak demand and provides broader system benefits, including serving neighboring customers through exported energy.

AriSEIA also criticizes APS’ distributed generation study as methodologically unsound and disconnected from real-world grid operations.
​
The filing urges the Commission to reject APS’ approach, eliminate unsupported solar charges, and adopt a more accurate, data-driven framework for valuing distributed energy resources.