AriSEIA Submits Second Letter to Yavapai County

Yavapai County Development Services
1120 Commerce Drive
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: July 18th Planning and Zoning Meeting Agenda Item No. 6: Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sections 501 & 608
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA previously submitted a letter and redlines on the first draft of the ordinance on June 10th. We also submitted an economic impact study of utility scale solar in Yavapai County on June 14th. This study is attached here as Attachment A for your convenience. We do plan to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting on July 18th and will also submit another round of redlines once the second draft of the ordinance is available. In the interim, below are some additional comments as to the first draft.
 
Additionally, AriSEIA would encourage you to consider holding a working session open to all interested stakeholders before the next Planning and Zoning meeting on this topic. Both Eloy and Mohave County held such a meeting and it was incredibly valuable in coming to a final draft. This may require delaying the final vote on this item past September 4th. In Eloy and Mohave County, we spent closer to 6-8 months working on the ordinance.
 
Further, AriSEIA would like to alleviate the concerns that some Supervisors have expressed to date about the toxicity of solar panels and the fire risk of both solar and battery storage. We have included an excerpt from Columbia Law School’s article: Rebutting 33 False Claims about Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles as Attachment B.[1] There is also a very helpful video available as to potential toxicity to soil or water that we recommend.[2] Tim Kreis,[3] the City of Phoenix’s Assistant Fire Chief, presented on the safety of lithium-ion batteries at the Arizona Technology Council E-Mobility and Clean Energy Summit held on June 27th.  Batteries used for electric vehicles and energy storage have less fires than other types of batteries found in the home. We recommend Yavapai County reach out to him with additional questions. Firefighter safety has been addressed by several organizations including Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) and the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), resulting in guidelines involving solar products; IAFF, UL and IREC have all developed related training. Finally, we have attached the American Clean Power Association’s fact sheet on utility scale storage safety as Attachment C.
 
Section 501: (3) ground mounted PV panel height.
 
·         We recommend a minimum height of 20’ for ground mounted parking structures with solar at full tilt.
 
Section 501: (6) cap for small scale battery storage in residential. 

• It should refer to the International Residential Code (IRC).  This would allow it to follow the code updates as they come out.
• The limitation of 80 kWh should not apply if the IRC is used.  The 2021 IRC, Section 327.5, allows up to 80 kWh of ESS, unless the system is installed in accordance with Sections 1206.1 through 1206.9 of the International Fire Code (IFC).
• Sections 1206.1 through 1206.9 of the IFC allows larger ESS to be installed.  It does not apply to just multi-family or commercial/industrial use.  It can be used in single family residential dwellings for larger ESS installations.

Section 608: (D) Solar Facility Use Permits

• (D)(2)(l)(4) we talked with two Line Siting attorneys and a member of the Line Siting Committee and we understand that this section is in conflict with the intent of the Line Siting statutes (Article 6.2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes). The Line Siting Committee was specifically established to provide a single venue in which to evaluate transmission impacts.[4] Also, if the ordinance is intended to apply to federal lands, that would also be preempted. Further, what does “other permits related to the solar facility mean”? Finally, permits should be permitted to be pursued in parallel to reduce delay.   

Section 608: (F) Development and Performance Standards

• (F)(1)(a) the maximum development area of three thousand 3,000 acres is very limiting, we suggest >5,000.
• (F)(1)(b) we advocate for removal of the cumulative acreage maximum for all solar facilities located within Yavapai County, but at the very least match what other jurisdictions are doing e.g., the City of Eloy allows for 16% of their total incorporated area v. the 0.15% Yavapai is proposing here.
• (F)(1)(c) we propose 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile instead of more than one mile from incorporated town/city limits.
• (F)(1)(d) we recommend removal of the more than one mile from airports requirement. Anti-glare solar panels are not shown to impact airport activity.
• (F)(1)(f)(1) this is too vague. What “resources” are being contemplated?
• (F)(1)(f)(8) the restriction on development of areas with 25%+ canopy density of woody or cactus species is too low.
  • We typically only see revegetation requirements, not restrictions on developing in areas with a certain perennial coverage. Restrictions are typically reserved for areas with sensitive plants or riparian vegetative communities. We propose replacing this restriction with a requirement for a restoration plan or stipulations (mitigation) to restore back to 25% cover instead.
• (F)(2) Setbacks
  • (F)(2)(a) the setback from any lake, creek, perennial or intermittent stream, river, major tributary, riparian areas, wetlands, seeps, or FEMA floodplain should be 50’-100’.
    • Minor tributaries have a setback of 150’ is also too high.
  • (F)(2)(d) a 500’ setback from “federally managed lands” is unnecessary given there are project on federally managed lands.
  • (F)(2)(g) the slope grade is reasonable, but the distance from the slope is too high, especially if a project complies with the drainage plan requirements.
  • (F)(2)(i) 50-100 feet from a significant scenic, historic, cultural, or archeological sites is reasonable, but how is “significant” defined?  
  • (F)(2)(j) we recommend setbacks of 50’ from public road rights-of-way.
  • (F)(2)(k) 50-75’ setbacks from all property lines is reasonable.
• (F)(8)(c) we confirmed this is already included within the Line Siting requirements and would be redundant.
• (F)(9) We recommend striking “Additional lightning after approval of the Use Permit may require an amendment to the Use Permit” and make clear that lighting plans are preliminary. It is atypical to provide this level of detail (especially if binding) at this stage of permitting
• (F)(10) Noise levels are too low due to battery HVAC units, which usually emit 85dB 3’ away. We suggest increasing to 65dB.

Section 608: (K) Substations

• (K)(1)(a) Substations should be permitted 100’ from any residences. A more onerous requirement will inevitably make the gen-ties longer, which will be more onerous visually and have greater land use impacts.
• (K)(1)(b) severely limits flexibility in design and where substations can be sited, which may result in inefficient electrical design e.g., longer gen-ties and more impacted land. The location of the substation is highly project-specific and depends on the project’s design and POI. This requirement should be removed.

Section 608: (M) Decommissioning and Reclamation

• (M)(1)(e) projects typically need more than 12 months for decommissioning (typically takes as long to decommission as to construct). 24 months is more reasonable or the ordinance should provide flexibility based on project size.
• (M)(5) should be 12 months instead of 6 for a project to be abandoned.

 
Respectfully, 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] The full article can be found here. Toxicity of solar panels is address as False Claim #2, available here https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change.

[2] Are Solar Farms Toxic? Experts Say No, available here https://youtu.be/9f_p1a_S17A?feature=shared.

[3] Tim Kreis’ bio can be found here https://www.phoenix.gov/fire/about-us/executive-staff.

[4] Session Law 1971, Ch. 67, § 1, at pp. 180–183, available here https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/20971?keywords=session%20laws%201971&highlights=eyIwIjoibGF3cyIsIjEiOiJzZXNzaW9uLCIsIjIiOiJzZWN0aW9uIiwiMyI6InNlc3Npb24uIiwiNCI6IjE5NzEpIiwiNiI6InNlc3Npb24iLCI3IjoibGF3cywiLCIxNSI6IjE5NzEsIn0=.

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.

Download PDF

---