Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 4, Sections 436–446) (Draft 5v10)
 
Commissioners and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to continue working with Apache County on the development of a renewable energy ordinance. AriSEIA previously submitted a detailed comment letter on December 3, 2025, addressing definitions, applicability, setbacks, agency coordination, decommissioning, and other foundational provisions. AriSEIA also submitted supplemental comments on January 12, 2026 responding to revisions in Draft 5v8 and identifying several remaining technical and administrative concerns.
 
County staff has clearly engaged with stakeholder feedback in several areas. In particular, the revision allowing removal of subsurface infrastructure to approximately three (3) feet during decommissioning represents a practical and environmentally responsible improvement. AriSEIA appreciates this change and the County’s willingness to incorporate input. After reviewing the most recent draft ordinance, several additional issues remain that warrant clarification or revision prior to adoption. The most significant remaining issues are outlined below.
 
Applicability and Definition of Utility-Scale Projects 
The ordinance currently defines a “utility-scale solar energy project” as a facility with the actual or planned ability to generate at least one (1) megawatt of electricity. This threshold is far too low for purposes of a land use ordinance designed to regulate major infrastructure. A one-megawatt trigger would capture numerous smaller commercial and agricultural systems that are not functionally equivalent to large utility generation facilities. Schools, farms, warehouses, and community-scale solar installations frequently fall within this size range and should not be subject to a regulatory framework intended for large-scale generation projects.
 
In addition, the definition excludes systems that do not feed residual power into the electrical grid. This phrasing does not align with the Arizona Corporation Commission’s treatment of distributed generation and could unintentionally capture projects that primarily serve on-site load but export occasional excess energy.
 
If Apache County intends to regulate major infrastructure differently from smaller commercial or community-scale systems, the distinction should be meaningful and administrable. AriSEIA strongly recommends increasing the applicability threshold to at least twenty (20) megawatts and removing language tied to whether a project exports residual power to the grid. Size and primary project purpose provide a clearer and more workable distinction.
 
Section 439 – Fire Protection and Emergency Response 
The current language requires approval of a fire protection plan “prior to construction” while the following sentence requires that a copy of the approval be submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application. These two provisions are inconsistent with one another. If approval must be submitted with the Conditional Use Permit application, the approval would necessarily occur much earlier than construction.
 
Fire protection plans are typically developed during the engineering phase of a project and submitted during the building permit process when final layouts, equipment specifications, and access plans are known. Requiring full approval at the Conditional Use Permit stage may be premature and could require repeated revisions as project design evolves. The ordinance should clarify that fire protection plans will be submitted and approved at the building permit stage rather than as a prerequisite to the Conditional Use Permit application.
 
Section 439 – Wildlife Protection and Agency Coordination 
AriSEIA understands the County’s interest in ensuring coordination with state and federal agencies. However, the current language creates the possibility that a single non-responsive outside agency could prevent a Conditional Use Permit from being scheduled for hearing. Under the ordinance as drafted, the absence of a response from an outside agency could indefinitely delay County consideration of an application. This would create a situation where third-party inaction effectively prevents a hearing from occurring, raising due process concerns. A more workable approach would allow the County to proceed with scheduling a hearing if an agency does not respond within a defined period. AriSEIA recommends that if an agency has not responded within thirty (30) days of a request for review, staff may schedule the item for a hearing with a note in the staff report indicating that the agency response was not received. Any agency concerns can then be addressed during the public hearing process.
 
Section 439 – Permits and Agency Coordination 
The ordinance also states that building permits may not be issued until the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors concur that all outside agency conditions have been satisfied. Building permits and grading permits are administrative approvals issued by County staff based on compliance with established technical criteria. These approvals do not typically return to the Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Supervisors for review.
 
Requiring additional Board or Commission concurrence for routine administrative permits would create unnecessary procedural complexity and could delay project construction even after land use approvals have been granted. This provision should be revised to clarify that building and grading permits are administrative determinations handled through standard County permitting procedures.
 
Section 441 – Solar Project Setbacks 
The most recent draft does not incorporate earlier recommendations to align solar setbacks with those used in other Arizona jurisdictions. In fact, the setback requirement adjacent to Agricultural-General zoning appears to have increased.
 
It is unclear what objective this larger setback is intended to achieve. Setbacks adjacent to residential zoning districts can provide meaningful protection for nearby homes. However, extensive setbacks adjacent to undeveloped Agricultural-General land provide little public benefit while significantly reducing the amount of land available for project development. If the County wishes to maintain an Agricultural-General setback, AriSEIA recommends limiting the requirement to situations where the adjacent Agricultural-General parcel contains a permitted residential structure at the time the renewable project obtains building permits. This approach would protect occupied residences without unnecessarily restricting development adjacent to vacant agricultural land.
 
Section 443.C – Complaint-Triggered Board of Supervisors Hearings 
The ordinance continues to allow any individual complaint during project operations to trigger a hearing before the Board of Supervisors. This threshold is extremely low and would likely result in repeated hearings triggered by individual complaints, regardless of whether a violation has occurred. As drafted, the ordinance provides no opportunity for County staff to evaluate the validity of a complaint before scheduling a Board hearing.
 
County development services staff should be allowed to review and investigate complaints in the first instance. Only if staff determines that a violation may exist or that the issue cannot be resolved administratively should the matter be elevated to the Board of Supervisors. Without such a review process, opponents of a project could repeatedly trigger hearings and place ongoing operational matters on Board agendas indefinitely, effectively turning the Board into a day-to-day zoning enforcement body.
 
Section 439 – FAA and FCC Compliance 
The new FAA and FCC compliance provisions generally move in a constructive direction. However, the complaint provisions associated with this section again place significant weight on a single reported incident. The primary focus should be on technical studies submitted during the application process demonstrating compliance with Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission requirements. Once a project is operational, it can be extremely difficult to isolate the cause of a single interference incident, particularly in areas where multiple potential sources exist. The ordinance should focus on pre-construction studies and compliance certifications rather than complaint-driven enforcement tied to individual reported events.
 
Section 448 – Development Agreements 
The ordinance introduces a new section referencing development agreements. Arizona law already authorizes counties to enter development agreements, and Apache County code already provides the authority necessary to use those tools where appropriate.
 
It is therefore unclear what purpose this section is intended to serve or what additional authority it creates. If the intent is simply to acknowledge that development agreements may be used in certain circumstances, the section may be unnecessary. If the County intends to require development agreements for certain projects, that requirement should be clearly explained so that applicants understand when such agreements may apply.
 
Additional Observations 
In reviewing the most recent draft, AriSEIA also notes several areas where the language may inadvertently extend beyond the scope of renewable energy facilities. For example, certain provisions appear broad enough to capture transmission infrastructure or interconnection facilities that are typically regulated through separate state and federal processes. Ensuring that the ordinance clearly distinguishes between generation facilities and transmission infrastructure will help avoid regulatory overlap and jurisdictional confusion.
 
Conclusion 
AriSEIA appreciates the County’s continued engagement and the improvements already incorporated into the draft ordinance. The revisions to the decommissioning provisions demonstrate that productive dialogue is occurring and that stakeholder input is being carefully considered.
 
The remaining issues identified above primarily involve procedural clarity, administrative feasibility, and alignment with established renewable energy development practices. Addressing these concerns will help ensure that the ordinance protects County interests while remaining workable for projects that can bring economic development and tax revenue to Apache County. AriSEIA welcomes continued dialogue with County staff and the Board of Supervisors and remains available to provide examples from other Arizona jurisdictions or to assist in refining ordinance language where helpful.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 

Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 4, Sections 436–446) (Draft 5v8)
 
Commissioners and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide additional comments on Apache County’s revised draft renewable energy ordinance. AriSEIA previously submitted a detailed comment letter dated December 3, 2025, addressing foundational issues related to definitions, siting criteria, setbacks, noise standards, agency coordination, and decommissioning. This letter is intended to supplement that prior submission and to respond specifically to new or revised provisions in the current draft, as well as to areas where our earlier concerns remain unresolved.
 
AriSEIA represents Arizona’s solar, storage, and electrification industry and regularly works with counties and municipalities across the state on renewable energy siting, zoning, and land-use standards. We support the County’s goal of establishing clear, enforceable requirements that protect public health, safety, and environmental resources while enabling responsible renewable energy development. Several aspects of the revised draft reflect thoughtful engagement. However, as currently written, a number of provisions remain unworkable, internally inconsistent, or disconnected from established engineering, environmental, and land-use practice. These issues risk creating unnecessary barriers to projects that are otherwise compatible with Apache County’s planning objectives.
 
Our principal concerns are outlined below:
 
1. Applicability and Definition of “Utility-Scale”
 
The ordinance defines “utility-scale” facilities as projects of 1 megawatt or greater. As we noted in our December 3, 2025 letter, this threshold is far too low and would subject small commercial, agricultural, and community-scale systems to a regulatory framework designed for major infrastructure. A 1-megawatt trigger would sweep in behind-the-meter systems serving schools, farms, warehouses, and other non-utility users that do not function as utility-scale generation.
 
If the County wishes to regulate large infrastructure differently from smaller projects, the distinction should be meaningful. AriSEIA strongly recommends increasing the applicability threshold to at least 20 megawatts and explicitly treating projects below that level as community-scale or commercial facilities regulated under ordinary zoning and building codes.
​
2. Noise Standards and Cumulative Setbacks
 
Consistent with our December 3, 2025 comments, the ordinance continues to establish an absolute noise limit of 55 dBA without accounting for existing ambient conditions and pairs that limit with multiple, overlapping distance-based setbacks. While 55 dBA may appear modest, it is approximately equivalent to ordinary conversation and does not reflect how sound is typically evaluated in rural, agricultural, or infrastructure-adjacent environments.
 
When combined with fixed setbacks, this approach creates a cumulative regulatory structure that is not tied to measurable impact and will effectively preclude development on large portions of otherwise suitable land. If the County’s objective is to protect residential quiet enjoyment, that objective is best achieved through a single, objective noise standard or an ambient-plus methodology, rather than through layered perimeter buffers that operate as de facto prohibitions. Noise compliance should be the primary protection for residences, not secondary to multiple distance formulas.
 
3. Wind Setbacks and Project Boundary Buffers
 
The requirement that wind turbines be set back at least 1.5 times total tower height from the project boundary remains substantially more restrictive than typical safety-based standards. When applied to parcel boundaries rather than to occupied structures or sensitive receptors, this requirement functions as a land-use exclusion zone rather than a public safety measure.
Industry practice generally relies on fall-zone setbacks closer to 1.0–1.1 times tower height, paired with noise standards to protect nearby residences. We recommend revising boundary-based setbacks to reflect safety-driven distances and eliminating redundant buffers that unnecessarily reduce buildable area.
 
4. Solar Standards, Scope, and Setbacks
 
As noted in our prior letter, the ordinance contains internal inconsistency by stating that distributed generation is excluded while later applying provisions to “commercial” solar projects rather than to “utility-scale” facilities. “Commercial” is not a defined scale category and could be interpreted to capture schools, warehouses, farms, and other behind-the-meter systems. All solar provisions should be expressly limited to “utility-scale solar energy projects” to avoid unintentionally regulating distributed or mid-scale generation.
 
The ordinance’s 500-foot setback from “major and scenic highways” is not tied to any demonstrated safety or operational concern. At a minimum, the County should remove “major” from this category, limiting any such provision to designated scenic highways only. Solar setbacks should reflect established fire and access standards rather than roadway classifications. A 100-foot setback is consistent with National Fire Protection Association guidance and widely used in Arizona. Visual impacts are more appropriately addressed through design standards and site-specific mitigation rather than through arbitrary distance thresholds that increase land use, grading, and cost.
 
Importantly, extensive setbacks for solar do not serve a safety function in the way they do for battery energy storage systems or other infrastructure. Solar setbacks are generally aesthetic in nature and are often set based on the underlying zoning district or local land-use context. For example, in the City of Eloy, solar setbacks are 75 feet and increase to 100 feet where a project is adjacent to residential zoning. We agree that 100 feet is a reasonable recommendation, but the critical point is that there is no safety basis for a larger setback. The same standard should apply to setbacks from Agricultural-General zoning, which should be reduced from 150 feet to 100 feet.
 
Visual impacts are more appropriately addressed through design standards and site-specific mitigation rather than through arbitrary distance thresholds that increase land use, grading, and cost. We do not believe screening or landscaping requirements are necessary here.
 
Additionally, solar panels and related infrastructure should not be painted. Painting solar equipment is not standard practice, is unnecessary, and introduces avoidable cost. If the County wishes to address appearance, a more appropriate standard would be a commitment that solar infrastructure will be non-reflective, rather than a mandate to paint equipment.
 
5. Use of Setback Areas
 
The ordinance requires setback areas to remain in their “existing vegetative state,” which effectively prohibits productive land uses such as grazing or agriculture. As we previously noted, setbacks are intended to provide separation between infrastructure and receptors, not to freeze land use in perpetuity. Setback areas should be permitted for compatible uses such as agriculture, grazing, stormwater management, pollinator habitat, and other low-impact activities so long as safety and access are maintained.
 
6. FAA, FCC, and Transmission Facilities
 
Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission compliance requirements are relevant to wind turbine height, lighting, and potential signal interference. These requirements are not applicable to solar facilities and should be expressly limited to wind energy projects where required by federal law.
 
In addition, transmission lines, interconnection facilities, and utility-owned distribution infrastructure should not be regulated as part of a renewable “facility” under this ordinance. Such infrastructure is already subject to separate state and federal frameworks. At a minimum, the ordinance should exclude transmission and interconnection facilities beyond the project boundary from local setback and siting requirements.
 
7. Wildlife Protection and Agency Coordination
 
Several wildlife-related provisions continue to raise the concerns outlined in our December 3, 2025 letter:
 

• Design mandates to prevent nesting or perching reflect outdated, wind-specific concerns and are not applicable to solar.
• References to “wind guidelines” should apply only to wind projects.
• Requirements that agency letters be received before scheduling a Conditional Use Permit hearing risk allowing third-party agencies to indefinitely delay County review. Where an agency does not respond within a reasonable period, documentation of a good-faith effort to consult and submit required materials should satisfy the requirement.

 
Coordination is appropriate. External agency non-responsiveness should not function as a veto over County land-use authority.
 
8. Interconnection Agreements and Power Purchase Agreements
 
As we previously advised, the requirement for executed interconnection or power purchase agreements prior to issuance of any building or construction permits remains unworkable. Interconnection agreements are often finalized only after land-use approvals, and power purchase agreements are commercial contracts that may not exist at the construction-permit stage.
 
We further recommend that the County stop short of requiring formal “documentation” of these agreements. Negotiations and drafts frequently involve confidential business terms, and written requirements of this type are uncommon. If the County wishes to understand project status, a narrative discussion of overall development progress within the CUP application should be sufficient.
 
9. Perimeter Fencing
 
Rigid fencing requirements can interfere with wildlife movement, agricultural use, and site-specific safety design. Fencing should be risk-based and tailored to site conditions, with flexibility for agricultural compatibility and wildlife passage where appropriate.
 
10. Signage
 
The signage provisions are extremely restrictive. It may be in the County’s best interest to allow for increased signage during construction for safety and site management purposes, including for construction zones, equipment movement, spill kits, muster points, and other health and safety needs. The ordinance should distinguish between permanent signage and temporary construction and safety signage.
 
11. Conditional Use Permit Reviews and Transfers
 
The ordinance requires that projects be reviewed every sixty (60) months. As written, the scope and purpose of this review remain unclear. If retained, this provision must be limited to an administrative compliance review only, with no authority to modify conditions absent demonstrated non-compliance.
 
We also reiterate our recommendation that the ordinance expressly allow partial assignment of Conditional Use Permits to accommodate common project financing and ownership structures.
 
12. Complaints, Inoperability, and Enforcement
 
As discussed in our prior submission, allowing a single complaint to trigger a public hearing sets an unreasonably low threshold. Enforcement mechanisms should be tied to documented non-compliance rather than the mere filing of a complaint.
 
The definition of “inoperable renewable energy generation facility” should be revised to exclude planned or temporary non-operation, including curtailment, repowering, maintenance, or other downtime coordinated with the Community Development Director.
 
The complaint response and hotline provisions also require clarification. The ordinance should specify at what point in the project life cycle the hotline must be available and should include a good-faith standard, requiring reasonable efforts to respond and resolve issues without treating unresolved or frivolous complaints as automatic violations.
 
13. Joint Agency Review
 
Provisions conditioning County permitting on the approval or satisfaction of state or federal agencies continue to present the concerns raised in our December 3, 2025 letter. The ordinance should require submittal and good-faith consultation with applicable agencies, with agency input considered where provided, but should not require final approval as a prerequisite to County action.
 
14. Decommissioning Timelines and Standards
 
As previously stated, the requirement to commence decommissioning within thirty (30) days is not reasonable for utility-scale facilities. We continue to recommend a minimum of twelve (12) months to initiate decommissioning, with defined milestones to ensure timely and accountable progress.
 
Likewise, the requirement for “complete removal… regardless of depth” remains environmentally unsound and technically unnecessary. Removal to a defined depth, commonly approximately three (3) feet below grade, with appropriate surface restoration, is the prevailing standard and should be adopted here.
 
The ordinance’s mandate for complete subsurface removal is also counterproductive to the County’s environmental objectives. In many cases, full extraction of large turbine foundations and similar infrastructure can only be achieved through highly disruptive methods, including blasting or comparable techniques. Requiring such disturbance would result in substantially greater soil disruption, habitat damage, erosion risk, and surface impacts than leaving material in place below a reasonable depth and restoring the site. The County should eliminate this absolute removal requirement and instead adopt a standard that allows for partial removal to a defined depth, consistent with industry practice and environmental best management principles.
 
Financial assurance should be based on net decommissioning cost, accounting for salvage value and updated engineering estimates.
 
15. Preferred Siting Criteria
 
Finally, preferred siting criteria should include commercial and operational viability, in addition to visual, environmental, and locational factors. Proximity to transmission, constructability, and the ability to secure interconnection and offtake are legitimate planning considerations that help ensure projects can actually be built and operated as intended.
 
Conclusion
 
As a supplement to our December 3, 2025 letter, AriSEIA respectfully requests that Apache County revise the ordinance to ensure:
 

• Applicability thresholds that meaningfully distinguish utility-scale projects from community-scale and distributed generation;
• Noise standards and setbacks tied to measurable impacts rather than cumulative exclusion zones;
• Solar provisions limited to utility-scale facilities and consistent with National Fire Protection Association safety standards;
• Agency coordination based on submittal and good-faith consultation rather than mandatory approval; and
• Decommissioning requirements that are environmentally sound, technically feasible, and structured around a twelve-month initiation period with defined milestones.

 
AriSEIA welcomes continued engagement with County staff and the Commission and is available to provide model language or examples from other Arizona jurisdictions.
Respectfully submitted,
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

Apache County
75 W. Cleveland
St. Johns, AZ 85936
 
Re: Comments on Proposed Renewable Energy Ordinance (Article 4, Sections 436–446)
 
Commissioners and Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is a nonprofit trade association representing Arizona’s solar, storage, and electrification industry. AriSEIA participates regularly in proceedings at the Arizona Corporation Commission and frequently work with Arizona counties and municipalities on renewable energy siting and land-use issues. Our engagement has included jurisdictions such as Maricopa, Yavapai, Mohave, and Navajo Counties, as well as cities like Buckeye, Surprise, Chino Valley, Gila Bend, Eloy, and Mesa. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft renewable energy ordinance under consideration in Apache County.
 
Section 436–437: Purpose, Applicability, and Definitions
Sections 436 and 437 establish the scope and terminology that govern the ordinance. Several areas appear to require clarification to support clear administration and to prevent unintended inclusion of facilities that are not utility-scale projects. Definitions in these sections distinguish utility-scale facilities by whether they “feed residual power into the electrical grid as defined by the Arizona Corporation Commission.” This phrasing does not align with the Commission’s current treatment of distributed generation and may lead to uncertainty for smaller commercial systems or medium-scale projects. AriSEIA recommends removing this language and instead distinguishing facilities based on size and primary use. The definition of “setback distance” for solar as “from one to two edges of a solar photovoltaic system” is also unclear and may lead to inconsistent interpretation. A more precise approach would reference the nearest edge of arrays or associated equipment to the applicable property or right-of-way boundary. Battery energy storage systems, which frequently co-locate with solar projects, are not defined in these sections, and AriSEIA recommends adding a definition or clarifying how they are treated for purposes of this ordinance.
 
Section 438: Preferred Criteria
Section 438 identifies preferred siting criteria related to visual resources, proximity to transmission, habitat, distance from population centers, existing land uses, and terrain. Some of the terminology implies that these factors function as requirements. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that these criteria provide guidance rather than mandatory thresholds, allowing the County to consider the overall suitability of a site even when not all criteria are met.
 
Section 439: General Development Standards
Section 439 outlines development standards for renewable energy projects, and several provisions could benefit from clarification. The requirement that collector lines be placed underground except in certain narrow circumstances may create feasibility challenges in rural or rugged terrain and may not always be necessary to address environmental or land-use impacts. AriSEIA recommends allowing undergrounding “to the extent reasonably practicable,” with overhead construction permitted where engineering, environmental, or cost factors justify. The section addressing nesting birds and raptor perching on solar or wind structures may also be difficult to implement as written, since perching and nesting cannot be entirely prevented. A more workable approach would be to require reasonable measures to minimize collision risks and unnecessary perching opportunities, consistent with wildlife agency guidance. Section 439 also requires an Arizona Game & Fish Department letter prior to scheduling a CUP hearing, which could delay the process if agency response times extend. AriSEIA recommends allowing proof of consultation to satisfy the requirement with a defined response window. The ordinance also requires executed interconnection agreements or power purchase agreements prior to issuance of building permits. Solar project development timelines typically involve finalization of these agreements after local land use approvals. AriSEIA recommends allowing documentation of progress toward interconnection and offtake, such as applications, draft agreements, or term sheets, instead of requiring fully executed contracts. Finally, the ordinance authorizes third-party consultant review at the applicant’s expense without clear limits. AriSEIA recommends including a reasonable-cost standard, a mutually agreed not-to-exceed amount for routine review, and qualifications ensuring consultants have utility-scale renewable experience.
 
Section 440: Termination, Decommissioning, and Bonding
Section 440 describes decommissioning obligations and financial assurance requirements. The bond structure appears to allow only upward adjustments for inflation and does not account for salvage value. AriSEIA recommends calculating bond amounts based on net decommissioning costs, including salvage offsets, and allowing the amount to adjust upward or downward based on updated engineering estimates. The requirement that decommissioning begin within thirty days after CUP revocation or expiration may not be workable for large facilities. AriSEIA recommends allowing six to twelve months to initiate decommissioning, accompanied by defined milestones to ensure timely progress.
 
Section 441: Noise Requirements and Mitigation Measures
Section 441 establishes noise limits and related procedures. AriSEIA recommends simplifying Section 441.A.1 by replacing the current phrasing with the following industry standard: “Audible noise due to project operations shall not exceed 55 dBA as measured at the exterior of any legal residence, school, library, or hospital in existence at the time of approval of the Conditional Use Permit.” The ordinance language as written does not align with how sound assessments are conducted. The recommended revision reflects standard acoustic methodology and was confirmed through consultation with external sound specialists. AriSEIA also recommends adopting this single objective standard in place of the more complex formulation currently included in Section 441.A.1 in order to improve clarity and ease of enforcement.
  
Section 442: Setbacks
Section 442 establishes setback requirements for wind and solar facilities. With respect to Section 442.B.2, AriSEIA recommends aligning setbacks for occupied residences with the noise limits established in Section 441.A rather than relying on fixed distance-based setbacks. Distance-based standards can prevent participating landowners from using their own property and may create unnecessary financial harm. A sound-based approach provides a more meaningful method for protecting residential quiet enjoyment and is widely used within the renewable energy industry. Differential noise limits may also be applied to distinguish between participating and non-participating occupied dwellings, such as 45 dBA for non-participating residences and 55 dBA for participating residences, with the latter consistent with the standard already established in Section 441.A. AriSEIA further recommends clarifying that Section 442.B is drafted for wind facilities only and that solar should not be regulated within this subsection, since the structure and terminology of 442.B do not apply to solar development.
 
Section 442.B.4 requires clarification regarding whether the setback applies to contiguous parcels that are also participating in the project. Solar facilities routinely place panels and equipment across internal property lines, and applying an external setback to those internal boundaries would make common solar layouts infeasible. A setback range of fifty to one hundred feet is more consistent with typical solar development practices. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that contiguous participating parcels within a unified project boundary are not subject to internal setbacks and that solar setbacks should reflect distances commonly used in the industry. AriSEIA also recommends removing solar from Section 442.B.4 entirely.
 
Section 442.C imposes a tower-height-based setback from public rights-of-way. That method does not correspond to solar technology and can result in setbacks larger than necessary. AriSEIA recommends removing solar from this subsection and creating a separate solar-specific setback from public rights-of-way. A setback of fifty to one hundred feet is generally workable for solar facilities. AriSEIA recommends explicitly distinguishing between wind and solar to prevent the application of wind-based formulas to solar installations.
 
Section 442.F relates to interference with communications but does not describe how the County will determine whether interference exists or how compliance will be evaluated. The lack of procedural detail creates uncertainty regarding baseline conditions, assessment methods, and expectations for mitigation. AriSEIA recommends clarifying the evaluation process, including how baseline measurements will be established, what criteria will apply to assess interference, and how mitigation will be implemented if required.
 
Section 443: Use of CUP, Terms, and Pre-Application Requirements
Section 443 sets out conditions for the use of a Conditional Use Permit, establishes the timing and nature of CUP review, and details requirements for pre-application and application submittals. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that the five-year review described in Section 443.B is administrative in nature and that the CUP is intended to remain valid for the full life of the project unless the County identifies material non-compliance. This clarification would help ensure that the review process does not inadvertently function as a reopening of project entitlements. The ordinance also requires an extensive set of pre-application materials, including noise assessments, glare analysis, a visual resources inventory, public outreach, and various technical studies. AriSEIA recommends scaling these requirements based on project size so that smaller facilities are not subject to the same analytical and administrative requirements as significantly larger projects.
 
Within the application requirements set forth in Section 443.E, AriSEIA recommends allowing applicants to record memorandums of lease rather than full lease documents for wind or solar projects. Memorandums protect confidentiality of commercial terms and participant identities while still satisfying the County’s documentation and recording needs. AriSEIA recommends making clear within Section 443.E that memorandums of lease or participation are acceptable for submittal so that applicants are not required to disclose sensitive or proprietary contractual information.
 
Section 443.E also requires a visual resources inventory but does not define the term “visual resources” with sufficient specificity for consistent application. AriSEIA recommends that the County provide additional explanation of what constitutes a visual resource for purposes of review. Clear criteria or examples would allow applicants to understand the areas the County considers sensitive, such as scenic corridors, public viewpoints, or culturally significant landscapes. The County may also consider supplying applicants with a map or list of identified visual resources so that project design can account for these considerations early in the process. Providing such definitions or mapping within the materials referenced in Section 443.E would promote consistency and transparency in the review process.
 
Section 443.E further requires notice to “nearby” landowners as part of the public outreach process, but the ordinance does not define what distance or relationship qualifies as “nearby.” AriSEIA recommends defining this term so that notice obligations are clear and uniformly applied. Options include defining nearby landowners as all adjoining property owners or as all owners within a defined buffer such as one half mile. Providing a clear definition within the context of Section 443.E would help ensure predictable and consistent application of the outreach standard.
 
Section 444: Suspension and Revocation of CUP
Section 444 defines conditions under which a CUP may be suspended or revoked, including a definition of “inoperable” facilities based on generating less than one megawatt of electricity for 360 days. This threshold does not reflect how utility-scale facilities operate, particularly during periods of curtailment. AriSEIA recommends instead defining inoperability based on the absence of meaningful energy production over a sustained period, with exceptions for force majeure events or necessary repairs and modernization. Any decommissioning obligations triggered by revocation should align with the recommended decommissioning initiation window described in Section 440.
 
Section 445: Joint Agency Approvals
Section 445 discusses coordination with state and federal agencies. AriSEIA recommends clarifying that County review need not be delayed solely because other agencies operate on longer timelines, provided that the County has sufficient information to evaluate local land use impacts. Any additional requirements imposed by those agencies can be incorporated later as CUP conditions when appropriate.
 
Section 446: Public Outreach
Section 446 establishes extensive outreach obligations, including mailed notice to property owners within one mile of the project boundary, notice along access routes, notice to community officials within three miles, requirements for public meetings, the creation of a project website, and the maintenance of a project hotline with monthly complaint summaries. AriSEIA recommends considering a tiered outreach structure or aligning notice distances with existing Apache County standards so that smaller or medium-scale projects are not subject to burdensome requirements disproportionate to their impact. Notices directed at municipalities or unincorporated communities should be clarified to ensure they are directed to governmental officials rather than interpreted to require notice to every household. AriSEIA also recommends specifying whether mailed notice is required for each resident within a municipality if any portion of that municipality falls within the one half mile buffer. Without clarification, the language could be interpreted to require notice to every resident of a town rather than to boundary-adjacent landowners or municipal officials, which would create unrealistic outreach burdens. AriSEIA further recommends permitting the hotline requirement to be satisfied through existing complaint resolution processes used by developers or utilities, provided that the County receives appropriate summaries. Additional clarifications regarding evaluation of communications interference, standardization of waivers, and distinctions between solar-specific and wind-specific requirements would support consistent administration.
 
Thank you for considering these comments. AriSEIA welcomes the opportunity to continue engaging with staff and the Commission and are available to provide additional technical information or examples from other jurisdictions as needed.
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]