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 – Goodyear Ordinance and Setback Framework
 
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
 
AriSEIA appreciates the ongoing engagement with the City of Surprise on the BESS ordinance and the meaningful progress that has been made through four rounds of comments and multiple public meetings. We are writing today to bring one additional and timely development to the City’s attention as deliberations continue.
 
The City of Goodyear recently adopted a BESS ordinance that we believe offers a compelling and directly applicable model for Surprise. The Goodyear ordinance establishes a 330-foot setback from residential areas as a baseline while building in a mechanism that allows that setback to be reduced to 150 feet when an applicant submits a plume and toxic gas study as part of the special use permit process. You can review the Goodyear ordinance here.[1]
 
This approach is notable because it takes safety seriously by tying the setback to the actual science. A plume study is a site-specific technical analysis of potential emissions dispersion in the event of an incident, which means the setback reflects real conditions at a real site rather than a uniform standard applied regardless of context. Second, it creates a clear and administratively manageable pathway for projects that can demonstrate equivalent safety through that analysis.
 
AriSEIA’s consistent position has been that a maximum of 150 feet, consistent with NFPA guidance and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s own recommendation, is the appropriate baseline. We believe 330 feet with a plume study pathway to 150 feet, as Goodyear has adopted, is a reasonable middle ground that Surprise’s municipal neighbors have already found workable. What we do not support is a blanket setback that bears no relationship to the safety literature, peer jurisdictions, or  the actual characteristics of a given site.
 
AriSEIA also wishes to draw the City’s attention to the waiver provision included in Goodyear’s BESS ordinance. Section 3.11.20 (B)(7)2 of Goodyear’s recently adopted Zoning Ordinance allows any requirement with the BESS section to be waived through the special use permit process. This kind of administrative flexibility allows the City to establish a clear standard while preserving the City’s ability to respond to projects that meet underlying safety objectives through alternative means. AriSEIA encourages Surprise to incorporate similar waiver language into its own BESS ordinance, ensuring that staff and decision-makers retain the discretion to evaluate projects on their own merits rather than being bound by provisions that may not fit every circumstance.
 
We respectfully request that Surprise look closely at what Goodyear has done and consider whether a similar framework consisting of a baseline setback with a pathway for reduction (via plume study or a waiver provision for exceptional circumstances) would give Surprise the protection it is appropriately seeking while still establishing an ordinance that responsible projects can meet.
 
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,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] City of Goodyear, Zoning Ordinance, P.72, available here https://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/33651/639192003214330000
2 Id. at 75.

Today, AriSEIA filed its closing brief in the Tucson Electric Power (TEP) rate case, outlining recommendations to modernize rate design, improve customer access to energy storage and virtual power plants, strengthen regulatory oversight, and protect customers from unjustified costs.

At the heart of AriSEIA's case is a simple principle: utility rates should help customers make informed decisions that reduce costs and strengthen the grid.

The evidence presented during the hearing showed that TEP's current time-of-use rates are overly complex, produce limited customer participation, and fail to send meaningful price signals that encourage customers to shift energy use away from peak demand. AriSEIA recommends a simpler, more effective rate structure with stronger incentives that better reflect the costs customers impose on the electric system.

The brief also urges the Arizona Corporation Commission to expand opportunities for commercial and industrial customers to participate in battery storage and virtual power plant programs. Rather than eliminating existing storage tariffs without replacement, AriSEIA recommends that TEP develop viable pathways for businesses to deploy customer-sited storage that improves grid reliability while reducing system costs.

Beyond rate design, AriSEIA asks the Commission to carefully scrutinize several components of TEP's requested revenue requirement, including its proposed return on equity and certain shareholder-related expenses, to ensure customers pay only costs that are just, reasonable, and supported by the record.

Finally, the brief recommends important procedural improvements if the Commission adopts an Annual Rate Adjustment Mechanism (ARAM). Those recommendations are designed to preserve transparency, meaningful public participation, and Commission oversight while ensuring future rate adjustments remain fair and evidence-based.
​
The Arizona Corporation Commission's decision in this case will shape electric rates, customer programs, and distributed energy opportunities for years to come. AriSEIA appreciates the opportunity to participate in this proceeding and looks forward to the Commission's decision.

After Arizona Public Service (APS) announced plans to convert the Cholla Power Plant from coal to natural gas just weeks after testifying that it did not have a "definitive plan" and that a stakeholder process was "too early," AriSEIA asked the Administrative Law Judge to recall APS witness Jacob Tetlow for additional testimony. Instead of recalling the witness, the Judge directed APS to provide written responses to supplemental questions. APS has now filed those responses, and AriSEIA has responded.

Our response explains why the written testimony raises more questions than it answers. Among other things, APS now claims the project had been incorporated into its resource planning process, yet stakeholders were never provided the purported IRP base case on the date APS identifies. APS also admits the proposed Cholla conversion was not part of the 2025 All-Source Request for Proposals (ASRFP) and that its analysis did not include production cost modeling, fuel costs, variable operating costs, or energy market impacts.

The issue is not whether the Cholla conversion should ultimately be approved. It is whether stakeholders and Commissioners received complete and accurate information during the rate case and whether APS' supplemental testimony supports its claim that everyone was already on notice of the project.

AriSEIA's response asks the Administrative Law Judge to carefully consider these deficiencies when evaluating APS' late-filed testimony. Transparency and meaningful stakeholder participation are essential to sound utility planning, particularly when major generation decisions are announced after testimony has concluded.

AriSEIA has filed comments with the Arizona Corporation Commission on the latest draft of the proposed Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee rules and the accompanying Preliminary Economic Impact Statement. While the revised draft addresses several stakeholder concerns, important improvements are still needed to ensure the Line Siting process is transparent, fair, and accessible for all participants.

Our comments recommend practical procedural improvements, including establishing reasonable time limits for Certificates of Environmental Compatibility, providing more advance notice for Committee meetings, creating clear procedures for jurisdictional determinations, improving public access to hearing transcripts, allowing limited discovery, expanding opportunities for remote participation, and ensuring the Commission reviews every Certificate of Environmental Compatibility before it becomes effective. We also encourage a more robust evaluation of how the proposed rules will affect transparency, public participation, and the ability of stakeholders to meaningfully participate in these proceedings.
​
Modernizing Arizona's Line Siting rules is an important opportunity to improve the process for developers, landowners, local governments, and the public. AriSEIA appreciates the work that has gone into the revised draft and looks forward to continuing to work with the Commission to develop rules that provide greater transparency, procedural fairness, and regulatory certainty while supporting responsible energy infrastructure development across Arizona.

Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 W. Carefree Highway
Phoenix, AZ 85086
 
Re: AriSEIA Comments on the Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona
 
Dear Arizona Game and Fish Department:
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association ("AriSEIA") appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Arizona Game and Fish Department's ("AZGFD") Guidelines for Solar Development in Arizona. AriSEIA is a statewide nonprofit organization that works on energy policy at every level of government. AriSEIA works with state agencies, utilities, local governments, industry stakeholders, and policymakers to advance practical energy policies that support Arizona's economy, electric grid, and clean energy future.
 
AriSEIA appreciates AZGFD's efforts to develop a comprehensive resource that promotes both wildlife conservation and responsible solar development. The draft appropriately recognizes that utility-scale solar is an important component of Arizona's energy future and acknowledges that thoughtful project siting and design can reduce impacts to wildlife while supporting continued deployment of renewable energy. AriSEIA strongly supports early coordination between developers and resource agencies and agrees that project-specific collaboration often produces better environmental and development outcomes.
 
While AriSEIA generally supports the objectives of the draft, several revisions would improve the document by maintaining flexibility, recognizing Arizona's significant energy needs, and ensuring that voluntary guidance is not inadvertently transformed into de facto regulatory standards.
 
I. The Guidelines Should More Clearly Emphasize Their Voluntary Nature
 
The Executive Summary appropriately describes this document as a “voluntary framework,” and AriSEIA commends that framing. However, we are concerned that this characterization is insufficiently reinforced throughout the body of the document. The guidelines explicitly encourage local governments to incorporate recommendations into zoning codes, conditional use permit criteria, and site plan review processes. As written, there is a substantial risk that recommendations developed as voluntary best management practices will instead become mandatory local development standards.
 
AriSEIA recommends strengthening the document’s repeated emphasis that these guidelines are advisory only, are intended to support project-specific decision making, and should not be interpreted as establishing minimum design requirements or default permit conditions applicable to every solar project. For example, the guidelines could expressly state that they are intended solely as voluntary best management practices and are not intended to establish regulatory requirements or mandatory permit conditions. Each section of AZGFD’s Guidelines could benefit from a brief reminder of this intent.
 
II. The Guidelines’ Framing Often Undermines the Solar Industry and the Wildlife Conservation Goals it is Trying to Advance
 
AriSEIA has a concern related to the structuring of the guidelines. Throughout the document, potential adverse impacts of solar development are described in detail, while the corresponding mitigations, advances in technology, or contradicting research are either presented as brief afterthoughts or omitted entirely. This imbalance does not reflect the current state of the science, and it risks discouraging the responsible solar development that both AZGFD and AriSEIA want to see done well.
 
A few examples:
 
The guidelines devote significant space to avian fatalities at solar facilities, citing studies documenting the “lake effect” phenomenon, while the counter research receives only a single sentence near the end of the section. Recent studies have found no evidence of bird collisions at modern facilities in the Southwest and suggests that previously reported fatalities may have been associated with older panel technologies no longer in use. This finding deserves equal emphasis, not a footnote.
 
Similarly, the section on hazardous materials implies that end-of-life solar panels pose a significant leaching risk. In practice, this risk is rare and highly regulated, and there are well-established industry best practices for responsible panel disposal and recycling. 1, 2 Presenting the risk without the context of how it is managed creates a misleading framing.
 
The vegetation management section raises concerns about herbicide overuse without noting that solar grazing (the use of livestock, commonly sheep, to manage vegetation within solar arrays) is well-documented and increasingly seen as an alternative.3 This strategy avoids herbicide use entirely while generating co-benefits for land managers and local agricultural operations.
 
The stormwater section similarly raises concerns without pointing to the body of knowledge on solar farm stormwater management best practices that do exist.4
 
AriSEIA recommends that AZGFD adopt a consistent framing practice throughout the document. When a potential impact is identified, any associated mitigation, newer technology, or counter research should be presented with equal weight in the same section and not buried or omitted. This would make the guidelines more accurate, more useful to developers and permitting agencies, and more in alignment with AZGFD’s stated goal of facilitating responsible solar development alongside wildlife considerations.
 
III. Additional Substantive Recommendations
 
Balancing Wildlife Conservation and Arizona’s Energy Needs
Arizona is experiencing unprecedented electric load growth driven by population growth, manufacturing, industrial development, data centers, and continued economic expansion. Meeting those needs will require substantial deployment of new generation resources, including utility-scale solar.
 
The draft appropriately recognizes that solar energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and can be developed in a manner that minimizes impacts to wildlife. AriSEIA recommends expanding that discussion to acknowledge that facilitating the timely deployment of utility-scale solar is itself an important public policy objective that supports electric reliability, economic development, and Arizona's long-term energy security. Wildlife conservation and renewable energy development are complementary goals that should be advanced together.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends emphasizing throughout the guidelines that conservation measures should be implemented in a manner that is practical, proportional, and based on project-specific conditions. Recognizing the need to balance wildlife conservation with Arizona's growing energy needs will better reflect the important role these guidelines can play in supporting both objectives.
 
Soil Disturbance Should Be Centered Much Earlier in the Guidelines
 
The guidelines address soil disturbance and grading practices in Chapter 3’s vegetation management section which is located well into the document. Given how foundational soil health is to wildlife habitat, plant community recovery, pollinator contributions, and invasive species resistance, this topic warrants much earlier and more prominent treatment. Soil disturbance is not a vegetation management sub-issue but the primary driver of habitat impact and should be addressed as such.
 
Additionally, the guidelines do not note that complete site grading is increasingly unnecessary with modern solar installation designs and technologies. 5, 6 Tracker systems and racking designs can now be deployed with significantly reduced ground disturbance, preserving soil seed bank, mycorrhizal networks, and native root structures that the document correctly identifies as ecologically valuable. This is an important insight that the guidelines should highlight proactively rather than treating grading as a baseline assumption.
 
Pollinator Habitat Should Be Recognized for Its Broader Landscape Value
 
The guidelines’ discussion of pollinator habitat within solar facilities is welcome, but it stops short of acknowledging the broader co-benefits that well-designed solar pollinator habitat can deliver. Localized native plantings within and around solar arrays can function as corridors or stepping stones that support nearby rewilding efforts, wildland connectivity, and agricultural pollination services. This is critical for surrounding farms and ranches that are common in rural Arizona. These benefits should be articulated explicitly, as they represent a meaningful opportunity for solar facilities to contribute positively to the landscapes they occupy.
 
Recommendations That Significantly Reduce Developable Acreage Should Remain Flexible and Site-Specific
 
The draft contains numerous recommendations intended to improve wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, including wide wildlife corridors, rounded facility corners, avoidance of dead-end fencing, roadway setbacks, and preservation of unfenced areas. Collectively, these recommendations can substantially reduce the developable area of a project and materially affect project economics.
 
In particular, the recommendation for wildlife corridors approximately 1,300 feet wide, and potentially up to 2,000 feet under certain circumstances, represents a significant design recommendation with substantial land use implications. The draft also notes that AZGFD is continuing to study effective corridor widths for solar facilities. AriSEIA recommends emphasizing that corridor width, configuration, and wildlife accommodations should be determined through project-specific evaluation based on site conditions, target species, landscape context, and the best available science.
 
The Guidelines Should Recognize the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Recommendations
 
The draft appropriately identifies numerous best management practices addressing site selection, biological surveys, facility design, fencing, vegetation management, monitoring, and decommissioning. While many of these recommendations are reasonable individually, implementing numerous recommendations simultaneously can substantially increase project costs, extend development schedules, and reduce generating capacity.
 
AriSEIA recommends acknowledging that project proponents must balance environmental benefits with engineering feasibility, land availability, project economics, and Arizona's growing need for additional electric generation. Encouraging proportional, project-specific implementation of best management practices will better support both wildlife conservation and successful project development.
 
Cumulative Impact Analysis Should Be Project-Specific
 
The discussion of cumulative landscape-scale impacts provides useful context regarding statewide development trends. However, AriSEIA recommends clarifying that cumulative impacts should be evaluated using project-specific evidence rather than presumed solely because multiple solar facilities exist within a broader region.
 
Projects that incorporate appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures should continue to be evaluated on their individual merits rather than being disadvantaged by generalized concerns regarding regional development patterns.
 
The Guidelines Should Distinguish Between Established Best Management Practices and Emerging Recommendations
 
AriSEIA appreciates that the draft reflects current scientific understanding regarding wildlife conservation and solar development. However, not all recommendations in the document are supported by the same degree of scientific consensus or practical experience. Some recommendations, such as early coordination, thoughtful site selection, and wildlife-compatible fencing, represent well-established best management practices. Other recommendations, including specific wildlife corridor widths, reflect areas where the draft acknowledges that research is ongoing.
 
AriSEIA recommends distinguishing between generally accepted best management practices and recommendations that represent emerging science or project-specific considerations. Doing so would improve transparency for developers, permitting agencies, and local governments while reducing the likelihood that recommendations based on evolving research are interpreted as universal design standards. This distinction would also reinforce the document's stated purpose as a voluntary, flexible framework that supports project-specific decision making.
 
Conclusion
 
AriSEIA appreciates AZGFD's work in developing these guidelines and recognizes the significant effort involved in producing a comprehensive resource addressing both wildlife conservation and renewable energy development. AriSEIA supports continued collaboration to identify practical, science-based approaches that conserve Arizona's wildlife while allowing the timely development of the renewable energy resources needed to support Arizona's continued economic growth.
 
As Arizona continues to experience growth in utility-scale solar and battery energy storage development, AriSEIA respectfully requests that AZGFD include the association in future stakeholder processes relating to renewable energy, battery energy storage systems, and associated wildlife guidance. AriSEIA values the opportunity to collaborate with state agencies and other stakeholders to develop practical, science-based approaches that support both wildlife conservation and responsible energy development.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 
cc Governor’s Office of Resiliency
 
[1] American Clean Power, 2024, Solar Panels are Safe for Your Community, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ACP_Solar-Panels_are_Safe-for-Your-Community_FactSheet.pdf
 
[2] American Clean Power, 2024, Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/gateway/2024/10/SolarRecycling_241104.pdf
 
[3] American Solar Grazing Association, n.d., What Is Solar Grazing and How Does It Work?, https://solargrazing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Solar-Grazing-Brochure.pdf
 
[4] National Laboratory of the Rockies, last updated 2026, Photovoltaic Stormwater Management Research and Testing, https://www.nlr.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/pv-smart
 
[5] PV Magazine, 2026, Say goodbye to grading: New alternatives for solar on challenging topography, https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2026/01/13/say-goodbye-to-grading-new-alternatives-for-solar-on-challenging-topography/
 
[6] PV Tech, The end of mass grading for solar projects, 2023, https://www.pv-tech.org/the-end-of-mass-grading-for-solar-projects/

Arizona deserves a transparent resource planning process, especially when major generation investments could shape the state's energy mix for decades.

Just weeks after APS testified in its rate case that it did not have a definitive plan for the future of the Cholla Power Plant, the utility announced it plans to convert the facility to natural gas.

Today, AriSEIA filed supplemental questions seeking answers about when that decision was made, what alternatives were considered, and whether renewable energy and energy storage were fully evaluated alongside the proposed gas conversion. The questions also seek information about the project's costs, supporting analyses, and how the decision relates to APS' ongoing Integrated Resource Plan.
​
As Arizona continues to experience rapid load growth, it is critical that utilities evaluate all available resources on a level playing field. Customers and stakeholders deserve confidence that major investment decisions are based on transparent analysis, sound economics, and a fair comparison of all available energy options.

AriSEIA has joined a motion asking the Administrative Law Judge to reconsider the admission of a report that claims solar energy is expensive and unreliable, arguing that the document lacks a disclosed methodology, was not authored by the sponsoring witness, and directly conflicts with substantial evidence already in the record.

The report, offered by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, is a policy brief published by the Heartland Institute. Although the witness who sponsored the exhibit cited it in his testimony, he acknowledged during cross-examination that he did not write the report, did not develop its scoring system, and could not explain the methodology used to reach its conclusions.

The publication presents itself as an "objective scorecard" comparing different electric generation technologies. It assigns numerical scores to resources such as solar, wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, concluding that solar is among the least affordable and least reliable generation resources. However, the report contains no methodology explaining how those scores were calculated, how competing factors were weighted, or how the numerical rankings were derived.

AriSEIA's filing argues that unsupported conclusions should not be admitted for the truth of the matters asserted simply because they appear in a published report. Instead, parties should be required to demonstrate the analytical basis for factual claims that are central to issues being litigated before the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The filing also notes that the report's conclusions are inconsistent with other evidence already admitted into the case, including APS's own long-term resource planning and nationally recognized cost analyses showing that renewable energy continues to be among the most cost-competitive options for new electric generation.

Administrative proceedings often operate under more flexible evidentiary standards than traditional court proceedings. Even so, those standards do not eliminate the need for reliable evidence. When a publication presents factual conclusions without explaining how those conclusions were reached, and the sponsoring witness cannot explain or defend the underlying analysis, the Commission should carefully consider whether the exhibit deserves any evidentiary weight.
​
As Arizona continues to make long-term decisions about reliability, affordability, and the future of the electric grid, those decisions should be based on transparent analysis, sound methodology, and credible evidence—not unsupported scorecards.

Today, AriSEIA filed a motion asking the Arizona Corporation Commission's Administrative Law Judge to recall APS Chief Operating Officer Jacob Tetlow for limited additional cross-examination.

During the APS rate case hearing on May 26, AriSEIA questioned Mr. Tetlow about APS's plans for the Cholla Power Plant after its coal units retire. Mr. Tetlow testified that APS did not have a definitive plan for the site, that multiple options remained under consideration, and that it was too early for a stakeholder process regarding the plant's future.
On July 2, however, APS announced plans to convert the Cholla Power Plant to natural gas.
​
Because the announcement came while the rate case hearing is still underway and concerns the same subject addressed during Mr. Tetlow's testimony, AriSEIA has asked that he be recalled to answer limited questions about when APS made this decision, what planning had already occurred at the time of his testimony, and how the project fits within APS's resource planning process.

Gila Bend Town Council
Gila Bend Unified School District Media Center
308 N. Martin Avenue
Gila Bend, AZ 85337
 
RE: Solar Field Overlay Zone Update Comments
 
Mayor and Council Members,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association ("AriSEIA") appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Town of Gila Bend's proposed Solar Field Overlay Zone ("SFOZ") ordinance. AriSEIA is a statewide nonprofit working on energy policy at every level of government across the state. AriSEIA regularly works with cities, counties, utilities, the Arizona Corporation Commission, state agencies, the Arizona Legislature, and Tribal governments to develop energy policies that promote economic development, protect consumers, and provide regulatory certainty.
 
As part of that work, AriSEIA has provided recommendations on renewable energy and battery ordinances for jurisdictions throughout Arizona, including Maricopa County, Apache County, Navajo County, Mohave County, Yavapai County, the City of Buckeye, the City of Goodyear, the City of Surprise, and the City of Eloy, among others. Those efforts have focused on developing objective, predictable land use standards that protect public health and safety while preserving private property rights, supporting economic development, and allowing local elected officials to evaluate projects based on their individual merits.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the significant effort the Town has invested in comprehensively updating its Zoning Ordinance. The proposed SFOZ establishes a discretionary review process that appropriately recognizes the importance of evaluating utility-scale solar projects based on their individual characteristics, surrounding land uses, available infrastructure, and consistency with the Town's long-term planning objectives. AriSEIA supports that case-by-case approach and believes it provides the Town Council with the flexibility necessary to make informed land use decisions as future opportunities arise.
 
The recommendations below are guided by three overarching principles. First, the ordinance should preserve the Town Council's discretion to evaluate each proposal on its own merits rather than unnecessarily limiting that discretion through categorical restrictions. Second, the ordinance should respect private property rights by allowing landowners to pursue lawful development opportunities while preserving the Town Council's authority to determine whether a particular proposal is appropriate for its location. Finally, the ordinance should position Gila Bend to compete for future economic development opportunities. Markets, utility infrastructure, and regional energy needs will continue to evolve over time. The ordinance should preserve the flexibility of future Town Councils to respond to those changes rather than unnecessarily limiting the Town's options today.
 
I. Preserve Town Council Discretion, Private Property Rights, and Economic Development
 
AriSEIA supports the Town's decision to structure the Solar Field Overlay Zone ("SFOZ") as a discretionary overlay requiring approval by the Town Council. That approach appropriately recognizes that utility-scale solar projects, like other significant land use decisions, should be evaluated based on their individual merits, surrounding land uses, available infrastructure, consistency with the Town's planning objectives, and anticipated public benefits. The discretionary approval process provides the Town Council with broad authority to approve, deny, or condition projects based on the unique facts presented by each application.
 
Because the proposed SFOZ already requires discretionary approval, AriSEIA recommends against imposing an overall acreage cap on SFOZ development within the Town. While AriSEIA understands the desire to thoughtfully manage growth, an acreage cap would unnecessarily limit the authority of future Town Councils by prohibiting them from even considering projects once the cap is reached, regardless of their merits or the wishes of the affected property owners.
 
Preserving the Town Council's discretion is particularly important because no one can predict with certainty which economic opportunities will ultimately materialize. An acreage cap effectively assumes that another, more desirable land use will develop instead of utility-scale solar. That assumption may prove correct for some properties, but it may prove incorrect for many others. If a property owner wishes to pursue manufacturing, industrial development, logistics, housing, or another lawful use, the Town Council remains free to approve that proposal. If no competing development materializes, however, there is little public benefit in preventing the Town Council from even considering a utility-scale solar project that could create jobs, generate tax revenue, and provide long-term investment in the community.
 
The discretionary review process also provides the Town with the opportunity to secure additional community benefits where appropriate.  Utilities are increasingly recognizing the importance of community investment. For example, Salt River Project's 2026 All-Source Request for Proposals requires respondents to provide a one-time contribution of $1,500 per megawatt of nameplate capacity dedicated to supporting the surrounding community, with Salt River Project retaining direct input regarding how those funds are used.[1]
 
Maintaining that flexibility is particularly important given the substantial economic benefits utility-scale solar projects can provide. A recent economic impact analysis prepared by Elliott D. Pollack & Company found that a representative utility-scale solar and battery storage project in Gila Bend would support approximately 690 construction and related jobs, generate approximately $736.7 million in cumulative economic activity throughout Maricopa County, and produce approximately $36.4 million in tax revenues over the life of the project, including approximately $2.6 million for the Town of Gila Bend.[2] While every project differs, these findings demonstrate that utility-scale energy projects can represent significant long-term economic development opportunities for the Town and surrounding region.
 
For these reasons, AriSEIA recommends that the Town preserve the discretion afforded by the proposed SFOZ process and decline to adopt an overall acreage cap. The Town Council is fully capable of evaluating each proposal on its own merits and determining whether it is appropriate for the proposed location. Maintaining that flexibility best protects private property rights, preserves the authority of future elected officials, and allows Gila Bend to respond to changing economic conditions and development opportunities over time.
 
II. Battery Energy Storage Systems
 
Section 16-4-17 appropriately recognizes Battery Energy Storage Systems ("BESS") as an accessory use to utility-scale solar facilities. AriSEIA supports allowing co-located energy storage as part of SFOZ developments because battery storage has become an increasingly important component of modern electric generation projects. However, AriSEIA recommends removing the provision limiting BESS to no more than 20% of the total SFOZ area.
 
The proposed 20% limitation assumes that today's project configurations will remain appropriate throughout the life of the ordinance. In reality, the electric industry continues to evolve rapidly. Utilities are increasingly procuring solar generation paired with larger amounts of energy storage to improve grid reliability, increase operational flexibility, and better match energy production with customer demand. As battery technology continues to improve and costs decline, future projects may appropriately include larger storage components than are common today.
 
A fixed acreage limitation may therefore unnecessarily constrain future project design and discourage investment in technologies that are expected to become increasingly valuable over time. Because utility-scale energy projects often operate for 30 to 40 years, zoning ordinances should provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate technological advancements and changing utility procurement practices rather than locking future development into today's assumptions.
 
Importantly, removing the 20% limitation would not reduce the Town's oversight of energy storage projects. Every SFOZ application remains subject to discretionary review and approval by the Town Council. If a future project proposes a battery storage configuration that is incompatible with the surrounding area or otherwise inconsistent with the Town's planning objectives, the Town Council retains full authority to approve the project, deny the project, or impose reasonable conditions tailored to the specific proposal.
 
Rather than relying on a rigid numerical limitation, AriSEIA recommends allowing the Town Council to evaluate the appropriate amount of battery storage on a case-by-case basis as part of the overall SFOZ review process. This approach preserves the Town's discretion, better accommodates future technological advancements, and positions Gila Bend to remain competitive as utility-scale energy projects continue to evolve.
 
III. Solar Panel Setbacks
 
AriSEIA supports establishing setback requirements that protect neighboring properties, provide adequate access for maintenance and emergency response, and promote compatibility with surrounding land uses. Objective development standards such as setbacks can play an important role in creating predictable and well-designed projects. At the same time, setback requirements should retain sufficient flexibility to account for the unique characteristics of individual sites and should not unnecessarily constrain otherwise appropriate development.
 
The proposed ordinance establishes both traditional setbacks and significantly larger separation requirements from residential zoning districts, schools, churches, parks, preserves, and airport property. AriSEIA respectfully encourages the Town to reevaluate whether these separation requirements are larger than necessary to accomplish the Town's planning objectives. The American Clean Power Association's Model Ordinance Framework for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Systems identifies "Common and Accepted Setback Requirements" of 100 feet from nonparticipating residences, 200 feet without a vegetative buffer, 75 feet from occupied community buildings, and 50 feet from nonparticipating property lines and public road rights-of-way.[3] By comparison, section 16-4-17(B)(5), the proposed ordinance requires 2,500-foot separation from residential zoning districts and 3,000-foot separation from schools, churches, parks, preserves, and airport property boundaries, in addition to other setback and siting requirements. While AriSEIA recognizes that every community is different, the proposed separation requirements appear substantially larger than nationally recognized guidance and should be supported by a demonstrated planning, engineering, or public safety basis.
 
Additionally, AriSEIA recommends expressly authorizing setback waivers as part of the SFOZ approval process or, where appropriate, by the Planning Director. Utility-scale solar facilities often encompass thousands of acres, and the need for setbacks may vary considerably throughout a project depending on adjacent land uses, topography, access roads, and parcel configurations. Providing flexibility to modify setbacks in appropriate circumstances would allow the Town to achieve its planning objectives while avoiding unnecessary restrictions.
 
This flexibility is particularly important for interior parcel lines and roadways that are part of a unified development. Utility-scale solar projects are frequently assembled from multiple contiguous parcels or are separated by internal roads, utility easements, or rights-of-way that remain under common ownership or control. In these situations, requiring setbacks that are intended to protect adjacent, unrelated properties serves little planning purpose because the parcels function as a single integrated project. It is common industry practice to allow reduced or zero-foot setbacks along these interior boundaries while maintaining appropriate setbacks along the exterior perimeter of the development.
 
More broadly, AriSEIA encourages the Town to recognize that not all project boundaries present the same planning considerations. Perimeter setbacks adjacent to neighboring properties, public roadways, or sensitive land uses may warrant different treatment than boundaries internal to a unified project. Allowing the Town Council or Planning Director to approve reasonable modifications based on site-specific circumstances would provide greater flexibility while continuing to protect the public interest.
 
Finally, because every SFOZ application is subject to discretionary review and approval by the Town Council, the Town already possesses the authority to determine whether proposed setbacks are appropriate for a particular project. Authorizing reasonable setback waivers where justified by the facts of an individual application preserves that discretion and allows the Town to tailor development standards to the unique characteristics of each site rather than relying exclusively on inflexible dimensional requirements.
 
IV. Minimum Project Size
 
AriSEIA recommends removing the minimum project acreage requirement in section 16-4-17(B)(4)(a). While AriSEIA understands that utility-scale solar facilities are generally large developments, establishing a minimum acreage requirement unnecessarily limits the Town Council's ability to evaluate projects based on their individual merits.
 
The proposed SFOZ already requires discretionary approval by the Town Council. That process provides ample opportunity to evaluate whether a proposed project is appropriately sized for its location, compatible with surrounding land uses, and consistent with the Town's planning objectives. Imposing a minimum acreage requirement in addition to discretionary review restricts the Town's flexibility without providing a corresponding planning benefit.
 
The minimum acreage requirement may also unintentionally discourage future investment in existing solar facilities. Utility-scale energy projects frequently evolve over time through phased construction, expansions, repowering activities, technology upgrades, or the addition of complementary infrastructure. A project that does not satisfy the minimum acreage requirement may nevertheless represent a beneficial investment that improves the performance of an existing facility, increases local tax revenues, or better serves the evolving needs of the electric grid.
 
Moreover, the energy industry continues to evolve rapidly. Future utility procurement practices, technological advancements, and project designs may differ significantly from those common today. Rather than establishing a rigid minimum acreage requirement based on current market conditions, the ordinance should preserve the Town Council's ability to evaluate each proposal on a case-by-case basis as development patterns and industry practices continue to change.
 
For these reasons, AriSEIA recommends eliminating the minimum project acreage requirement and allowing the Town Council to determine whether the size of a proposed SFOZ is appropriate through the existing discretionary review process. This approach preserves local control while providing the flexibility necessary to accommodate future investment and technological innovation.
 
V. Minimum Separation and Proximity to Electrical Infrastructure
 
AriSEIA recommends reconsidering the proposed minimum separation and proximity-to-electrical-infrastructure requirements in section 16-4-17(B)(4)(d). While AriSEIA understands the Town's interest in encouraging orderly development and utilizing existing infrastructure where practical, these fixed locational requirements may unnecessarily limit future development opportunities and reduce the Town Council's flexibility to evaluate projects based on their individual merits.
 
Grid infrastructure is not static. Utilities routinely expand transmission systems, construct new substations, upgrade existing facilities, and modify long-term transmission planning in response to changing customer demand and regional growth. A property that does not satisfy the proposed proximity requirements today may become an ideal location for future energy development as new infrastructure is constructed or existing facilities are expanded. Conversely, projects located farther from existing infrastructure may still prove appropriate depending on future utility planning and interconnection solutions.
 
In addition, these requirements may become increasingly restrictive over time. As additional transmission lines, substations, and utility facilities are developed in and around Gila Bend, more properties may become subject to the ordinance's separation requirements while other properties remain ineligible because they do not satisfy the prescribed proximity standards. The cumulative effect of these overlapping restrictions may unnecessarily reduce the number of sites available for future consideration.
 
Because every SFOZ application remains subject to discretionary review and approval by the Town Council, the ordinance already provides an effective mechanism for evaluating whether a proposed location is appropriate based on available infrastructure, surrounding land uses, community priorities, and other site-specific considerations. Fixed locational requirements are therefore unnecessary to protect the Town's interests and may instead limit the flexibility of future Town Councils to respond to changing utility needs and evolving development opportunities.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends removing or providing flexibility from the mandatory proximity requirements and allowing the Town Council to evaluate whether a proposed project is appropriately located as part of the existing discretionary SFOZ approval process. This approach preserves local control while ensuring the ordinance remains adaptable as infrastructure, technology, and regional energy needs continue to evolve.
 
VI. Schedule of Construction
 
AriSEIA recommends revising section 16-4-17(C)(1) to provide a minimum five-year period for commencement of development following SFOZ approval and to authorize administrative extensions by Town staff where appropriate.
 
Utility-scale energy projects routinely require multi-year development timelines that extend well beyond local land use approval. Following zoning approval, project developers must complete utility interconnection studies, transmission planning, environmental reviews, financing, equipment procurement, and negotiations for power purchase agreements. Many of these activities are controlled by utilities, regional transmission planning, or other third parties and cannot be accelerated by the project developer.
 
In addition, utility procurement practices have evolved significantly in recent years. Utilities increasingly prefer projects to obtain local land use approvals before selecting projects through competitive solicitations. As a result, zoning approval is often one of the earliest milestones in the development process rather than one of the last. It is therefore common for several years to elapse between local zoning approval and the commencement of construction while developers complete utility procurement, interconnection, and permitting requirements.
 
A one-year commencement requirement, even with limited extensions for documented utility interconnection delays, does not adequately reflect current industry development timelines. Such a short timeframe may unnecessarily create entitlement risk for otherwise viable projects, complicate project financing, and reduce the competitiveness of projects seeking selection through utility procurement processes. These consequences do not advance the Town's planning objectives and may discourage investment in Gila Bend.
 
Providing a five-year commencement period, together with the ability for staff to grant reasonable administrative extensions where warranted, would better align the ordinance with current utility procurement and development practices while reducing unnecessary re-entitlement efforts and administrative burdens for both applicants and the Town. At the same time, the Town would retain its existing authority to ensure approved projects continue to move forward in good faith and remain consistent with the conditions of approval.
 
Accordingly, AriSEIA recommends extending the commencement period to at least five years following SFOZ approval and authorizing administrative extensions where appropriate. This approach better reflects the realities of modern utility-scale energy development while preserving the Town's oversight of approved projects.
 
Conclusion
 
AriSEIA appreciates the Town's willingness to carefully consider how best to regulate utility-scale solar and battery storage development. The proposed Solar Field Overlay Zone establishes a thoughtful framework for evaluating these projects through discretionary review by the Town Council. AriSEIA believes that framework provides the Town with the tools necessary to protect the public interest while preserving the flexibility to respond to changing technologies, market conditions, utility needs, and future economic development opportunities.
 
The recommendations above are intended to preserve that flexibility by avoiding unnecessary numerical limitations and rigid development standards where the Town Council already possesses the authority to evaluate each proposal on its individual merits. Preserving local discretion, respecting private property rights, and maintaining opportunities for future economic development will help ensure the ordinance remains effective as the energy industry and the Town continue to evolve.
 
AriSEIA has attached the recent economic impact analysis prepared by Elliott D. Pollack & Company, which evaluates the potential economic and fiscal impacts of a representative utility-scale solar and battery storage project in Gila Bend. As discussed above, the study demonstrates that projects of this nature can generate substantial employment, long-term tax revenues, and economic activity for the Town, local schools, Maricopa County, and the surrounding region. If it would be helpful, AriSEIA would be pleased to arrange a meeting between the Town and Elliott D. Pollack & Company so that Town officials may ask questions about the study, its methodology, assumptions, and conclusions.
 
AriSEIA appreciates the considerable work that has gone into modernizing the Town's Zoning Ordinance and thanks the Mayor, Town Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town staff, and Logan Simpson for their time and thoughtful consideration of these comments. AriSEIA welcomes the opportunity to continue working collaboratively with the Town throughout this process and is available to answer any questions or provide any additional information that may be helpful.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Salt River Project, 2026 All-Source RFP, page 8, https://www.srpnet.com/assets/srpnet/pdf/doing-business/suppliers/2026-All-Source-RFP.pdf.

[2] See Attachment A.

[3] American Clean Power, Utility-Scale Solar Energy Systems, Model Ordinance Framework, page 7, https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/gateway/2024/11/ACP_Model-Commercial-Solar-Ordinance_StandardsPractices_241114.pdf.