AriSEIA Submits 2nd Letter on Goodyear BESS Ordinance

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]