AriSEIA Sends Additional Letter on Apache County Renewables Ordinance

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)