AriSEIA Sends Comments on the Gila Bend Solar Ordinance

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. 

ariseia_letter_to_gila_bend_7.1.2026_final.pdf
File Size:	569 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---