City of Buckeye
Planning & Zoning
530 E. Monroe Ave.
Buckeye, AZ 85326
 
RE: City of Buckeye Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Ordinance (3.2.2 Use-Specific Standards, Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and Solar Generation Station)
 
Dear Mr. Wingard and Ms. Woods and Planning and Zoning Staff,
 
AriSEIA appreciates the opportunity to submit this second set of feedback on the proposed BESS section of the ordinance.
 
Definitions
The applicability section specifying that the ordinance only applies to utility-scale BESS facilities is important; as is the fact that the ordinance is not retroactive. It would be helpful to also make the applicability of the ordinance only to utility scale BESS clear in the definitions section on page 89.
 
Similarly, the definition of “solar generation station” should be clear that it applies only to utility scale solar arrays. You can have residential and commercial/industrial ground mounted solar systems and they can export their excess power to an “off-site electric utility provider.” You could make this clearer by setting a threshold for the size of the project (for example over 100 MW) or you could make it clear that none of the power from the project is intended for on-site usage.
 
Setbacks
Tying the ordinance to the most recent versions of UL 9540 and NFPA 855 is recommended. The American Planning Association found the national setback average for BESS-specific setbacks used distances of 50-150 feet from property lines.[1] While the NFPA recommends 100’, we recommend no more than 150’ based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures Battery Energy Storage Systems policy.[2] All electricity generation and energy storage creates some amount of risk. However, battery incidents represent only 2% of battery installations.[3] Setbacks for batteries should not be more onerous than setbacks for other energy storage devices, such as those that contain fossil fuels. The setbacks should be measured from the BESS equipment, not the BESS property line.
 
Height
Both solar and BESS allow height increases to be approved by the P&Z Commission.  The height max is set at 55’, but it can go up to 120’ when set back from the property boundary.  Sometimes it is beneficial to have taller poles – that reduces the amount of ground disturbance.  We would suggest that the text be changed to state that additional height may be approved as part of the site plan process. We do not recommend creating a separate P&Z approval process solely for height.  The height should be considered as part of the site plan. Additionally, site plan approvals should be able to obtain extensions. 
 
Waiver Provision
The current ordinance draft covers the primary land use matrix for all zoning districts in Buckeye. The ordinance should include a waiver provision in the event a project proposal conflicts with some component of the permitted ordinance uses but is otherwise an ideal site. The City of Eloy Solar and BESS Ordinance includes such a provision.[4] We recommend adding language such as that included in 21-3-1.39(B) of Eloy’s ordinance.
 
Other
While it is good that the City is looking at ways to specifically permit BESS, it needs to be clarified that the new procedures– in particular the CUP requirement in the AG and R1-43 zoning districts – apply only to “stand-alone” BESS.  An approved solar project should be able to include BESS as an accessory use by-right without an additional CUP process.
 
In the “ownership changes” section, we recommend making the 30 days longer or adding a grace period before voiding all BESS project approvals.
 
The location of the project should be taken into consideration when it comes to perimeter walls and landscaping. How remote a project is or other attributes of the surrounding environment may reduce the need for a specific wall height, type of wall, or landscaping.
 
Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to continuing to engage with the
City on this ordinance as the stakeholder process progresses.
 
Respectfully,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, P.10 (Mar. 2024), available here https://planning-org-uploaded-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf

[2] City of Phoenix, Battery Energy Storage Systems, April 2023, available here https://www.phoenix.gov/firesite/Documents/205.20A%20Battery%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems.pdf.

[3] California Public Utility Commission, Energy Storage Procurement Study: Safety Best Practices, 2023, available
here https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/energy-storage/2023-05-
31_lumen_energy-storage-procurement-study-report-attf.pdf.

[4] Eloy Ordinance, 21-3-1.39, available here https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/eloyaz/latest/eloy_az/0-0-0-9381.

City of Surprise
Community Development
16000 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
 
RE: City of Surprise Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Ordinance (Chapter 106, Article X, Sec. 106-10.22)
 
Dear Mr. Abrams and Community Development Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is the State’s solar, storage, and electrification trade association. We are active on energy policy issues at every level of government in Arizona. We have previously engaged on the City of Eloy, Mohave County, City of Buckeye, Town of Chino Valley, and Yavapai County solar/storage ordinances. Between Option 1 and Option 2, we prefer Option 2. However, we recommend the City consider an Option 3. Namely, we think the ordinance should be split between battery energy storage systems (BESS) and hazardous materials. The setbacks for those different types of facilities should be different and combining them increases fear and misinformation about BESS and clean energy broadly. Additionally, the definitions need to be modified and should be clear that they do not apply to solar or to distributed generation or storage. Finally, we continue to recommend the setbacks be based on evidence and best practices. We recommend that the City reduce the BESS 1,500’ setback from residential property (B) requirement to 150’. We also recommended adding a waiver provision to the Article.
 
Glossary
It is unclear why there are multiple definitions for battery storage and additional definitions for energy storage. The ordinance should keep the first definition for BESS. Energy Production should be completely removed from the glossary and title as the ordinance applies to storage and not generation, such as solar. Nothing in the glossary pertains to manufacturing. The definitions for Battery Storage and Manufacturing, Energy Production and Storage Facilities, and Energy Storage Facilities are redundant. The section on Hazardous Material should be a separate ordinance. The glossary should be clear that the ordinance only applies to utility/grid scale projects and not any distributed, behind the meter projects, such as residential or commercial.
 
Setbacks
The setbacks in (A) and (B) should be from the structure, not the property line. If the intent of the setback is for evacuation purposes, it makes sense to only measure from a dwelling unit. The 1,500 setback in (B) is not based on a setback from any other jurisdiction, a recommendation from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), or best practices. The American Planning Association found the national setback average for BESS-specific setbacks used distances of 50-150 feet from property lines.[1] The BESS 1,500’ setback requirement is significantly above BESS setback standards in other jurisdictions and will restrict clean energy development in the City of Surprise. While the NFPA recommends 100’, we recommend no more than 150’ based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures Battery Energy Storage Systems policy.[2] In the event the City will not consider the most conservative end of the range based on a nationwide review, we recommend no larger than a 500’ setback, commensurate with subsection (A).
 
The American Clean Power Association (ACP) provides a helpful FAQ that covers questions about battery safety and air emissions.[3] ACP also has a Claims v. Facts one-pager on battery safety, included again as Attachment B. “It should also be noted that the average emissions rates of equivalent masses of plastics exceed those of batteries.”[4] Additionally, sampling was done by the Environmental Health Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the Moss Landing incident and “no threat to human health or the surrounding environment” was found.[5] All electricity generation and energy storage creates some amount of risk. However, battery incidents represent only 2% of battery installations.[6] Setbacks for batteries should not be more onerous than setbacks for other energy storage devices, such as those that contain fossil fuels.
 
In (B) we agree that any setback required should be from the dwelling unit like the Yavapai County ordinance, not the lot line. And it should be measured from the actual BESS structures, not an overall project site that might also include solar.
 
Waiver Provision
The Ordinance should include a waiver provision in the event a project proposal conflicts with some component of the Ordinance, but is otherwise an ideal site. The City of Eloy Solar and BESS Ordinance includes such a provision.[7]
 
We have attached a draft Option 3 as Attachment A. Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to continuing to engage with the City on this Ordinance as the stakeholder process progresses.
 
Respectfully,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, P.10 (Mar. 2024), available here https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf.

[2] City of Phoenix, Battery Energy Storage Systems, April 2023, available here https://www.phoenix.gov/firesite/Documents/205.20A%20Battery%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems.pdf.

[3] American Clean Power Association, Energy Storage: Safety FAQ, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2023/07/ACP-ES-Product-4-BESS-Safety-FAQs-230724.pdf.

[4] Consolidated Edison and NYSERDA, Considerations for ESS Fire Safety, Feb. 9, 2017, at iii, available here https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Project/Nyserda/files/Publications/Research/Energy-Storage/20170118-ConEd-NYSERDA-Battery-Testing-Report.pdf.

[5] County of Monterey, Air Quality Testing Information and Process During Moss Landing Fire Incident, Sept. 30, 2022, available here https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/9345/1336.

[6] California Public Utility Commission, Energy Storage Procurement Study: Safety Best Practices, 2023, available here https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/energy-storage/2023-05-31_lumen_energy-storage-procurement-study-report-attf.pdf.

[7] Eloy Ordinance, 21-3-1.39, available here https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/eloyaz/latest/eloy_az/0-0-0-9381. 

​City of Buckeye
Planning & Zoning
530 E. Monroe Ave.
Buckeye, AZ 85326
 
RE: City of Buckeye Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Ordinance (3.2 Use-Specific Standards, (D) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS))
 
Dear Mr. Wingard and Ms. Woods and Planning and Zoning Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is the State’s solar, storage, and electrification trade association. We are active on energy policy issues at every level of government in Arizona. We have previously engaged on the City of Eloy, City of Surprise, Mohave County, City of Chino Valley, and Yavapai County solar or BESS ordinances. We only became aware of this pending ordinance draft recently and apologize that our comments were not provided to you earlier in your process. We very much hope to continue to be engaged with the City as this process progresses. Our primary comments for the purposes of this letter pertain to the setback from residences and the lack of a waiver provision. We recommend that the City reduce the BESS 1,320’ setback from residential property requirement to 150’. We also recommended adding a waiver provision to the ordinance.
 
Setbacks
The American Planning Association found the national setback average for BESS-specific setbacks used distances of 50-150 feet from property lines.[1] The BESS 1,320’ setback requirement is significantly above BESS setback standards in other jurisdictions and will restrict clean energy development in the City of Buckeye.[2] We recommend 150’ based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures Battery Energy Storage Systems policy.[3] The American Clean Power Association (ACP) provides a helpful FAQ that covers questions about battery safety and air emissions.[4] ACP also has a Claims v. Facts one-pager on battery safety, included here as Attachment A. “It should also be noted that the average emissions rates of equivalent masses of plastics exceed those of batteries.”[5] Additionally, sampling was done by the Environmental Health Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the Moss Landing incident and “no threat to human health or the surrounding environment” was found.[6] All electricity generation and energy storage creates some amount of risk. However, battery incidents represent only 2% of battery installations.[7] Setbacks for batteries should not be more onerous than setbacks for other energy storage devices, such as those that contain fossil fuels.
 
In (D)(3)(a) we recommend the setback measure from the dwelling unit or residence and not the residential property line.
 
Waiver Provision
The current ordinance draft covers the primary land use matrix for all zoning districts in Buckeye. The ordinance should include a waiver provision in the event a project proposal conflicts with some component of the permitted ordinance uses but is otherwise an ideal site. The City of Eloy Solar and BESS Ordinance includes such a provision.[8] We recommend adding language such as that included in 21-3-1.39(B) of Eloy’s ordinance.
 
Other
We appreciate the applicability of the plan excluding existing BESS general maintenance and repair in (D)(2). We would recommend considering National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855 for minimums on mitigating risks associated with BESS.[9]
 
Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to continuing to engage with the
City on this ordinance as the stakeholder process progresses.
 
Respectfully,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, P.10 (Mar. 2024), available here https://planning-org-uploaded-
media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf

[2] We have included our Maricopa County economic impact study as Attachment B and our water analysis as
Attachment C.

[3] City of Phoenix, Battery Energy Storage Systems, April 2023, available here https://www.phoenix.gov/firesite/Documents/205.20A%20Battery%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems.pdf.

[4] American Clean Power Association, Energy Storage: Safety FAQ, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-
content/uploads/gateway/2023/07/ACP-ES-Product-4-BESS-Safety-FAQs-230724.pdf.

[5] Consolidated Edison and NYSERDA, Considerations for ESS Fire Safety, Feb. 9, 2017, at iii, available here
https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Project/Nyserda/files/Publications/Research/Energy-Storage/20170118-ConEd-
NYSERDA-Battery-Testing-Report.pdf.

[6] County of Monterey, Air Quality Testing Information and Process During Moss Landing Fire Incident, Sept. 30,
2022, available here https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/9345/1336.

[7] California Public Utility Commission, Energy Storage Procurement Study: Safety Best Practices, 2023, available
here https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/energy-storage/2023-05-
31_lumen_energy-storage-procurement-study-report-attf.pdf.

[8] Eloy Ordinance, 21-3-1.39, available here https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/eloyaz/latest/eloy_az/0-0-0-9381.

[9] NFPA, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems, 2023, available here https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-855-standard-development/855.

City of Surprise
Community Development
16000 N. Civic Center Plaza
Surprise, AZ 85374
 
RE: City of Surprise Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Ordinance (Chapter 106, Article X, Sec. 106-10.22)
 
Dear Mr. Abrams and Community Development Staff,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is the State’s solar, storage, and electrification trade association. We are active on energy policy issues at every level of government in Arizona. We have previously engaged on the City of Eloy, Mohave County, and Yavapai County solar ordinances. We only became aware of this pending ordinance draft on November 6th and apologize that our comments were not provided to you earlier in your process. We very much hope to continue to be engaged with the City as this process progresses. Our primary comments for the purposes of this letter pertain to the setback from residences and the lack of a waiver provision. We recommend that the City reduce the BESS 1,500’ setback from residential property (B) requirement to 150’. We also recommended adding a waiver provision to the Article.
 
AriSEIA understands and is sensitive to the fact that the McMicken Battery Energy Storage System failure happened in Surprise and that many City Staff were personally involved and impacted. We believe that APS and local governments have learned greatly from that experience.[1]
 
Setbacks
The American Planning Association found the national setback average for BESS-specific setbacks used distances of 50-150 feet from property lines.[2] The BESS 1,500’ setback requirement is significantly above BESS setback standards in other jurisdictions and will restrict clean energy development in the City of Surprise.[3] We recommend 150’ based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures Battery Energy Storage Systems policy.[4] The American Clean Power Association (ACP) provides a helpful FAQ that covers questions about battery safety and air emissions.[5] ACP also has a Claims v. Facts one-pager on battery safety, included here as Attachment A. “It should also be noted that the average emissions rates of equivalent masses of plastics exceed those of batteries.”[6] Additionally, sampling was done by the Environmental Health Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the Moss Landing incident and “no threat to human health or the surrounding environment” was found.[7] All electricity generation and energy storage creates some amount of risk. However, battery incidents represent only 2% of battery installations.[8] Setbacks for batteries should not be more onerous than setbacks for other energy storage devices, such as those that contain fossil fuels.
 
In (B) we agree that any setback required should be from the dwelling unit, not the property line. However, the second half of that section makes it unclear from which we are measuring. What does “residential properties” mean when referencing PAD, R-1, R-2, or R-3? We recommend it measure from the dwelling unit or residence.
 
Waiver Provision
The current Ordinance draft covers the primary land use matrix for all zoning districts in Surprise. The Ordinance should include a waiver provision in the event a project proposal conflicts with some component of the Ordinance, but is otherwise an ideal site. The City of Eloy Solar and BESS Ordinance includes such a provision.[9] We recommend adding language such as that included in 21-3-1.39(B) of Eloy’s Ordinance.
 
Other
We appreciate the references to NFPA 855. We also appreciate the specificity of the site plan requirements in (G). Finally, it seems this is a discretionary process. It would be helpful to clarify on what basis a permit may be denied even if all requirements are met and whether there is any appeal process or ability to cure.
 
Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to continuing to engage with the City on this Ordinance as the stakeholder process progresses.
 
Respectfully,
Autumn Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] APS, McMicken Battery Energy Storage System Event Technical Analysis and Recommendations, July 18, 2020, available here https://www.aps.com/-/media/APS/APSCOM-PDFs/About/Our-Company/Newsroom/McMickenFinalTechnicalReport.pdf?la=en&hash=37F06DD16761765FD61DDA9AE7C9C4EF.

[2] American Planning Association, Zoning Practice, P.10 (Mar. 2024), available here https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf.

[3] We have included our Maricopa County economic impact study as Attachment B and our water analysis as Attachment C.

[4] City of Phoenix, Battery Energy Storage Systems, April 2023, available here https://www.phoenix.gov/firesite/Documents/205.20A%20Battery%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems.pdf.

[5] American Clean Power Association, Energy Storage: Safety FAQ, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2023/07/ACP-ES-Product-4-BESS-Safety-FAQs-230724.pdf.

[6] Consolidated Edison and NYSERDA, Considerations for ESS Fire Safety, Feb. 9, 2017, at iii, available here https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Project/Nyserda/files/Publications/Research/Energy-Storage/20170118-ConEd-NYSERDA-Battery-Testing-Report.pdf.

[7] County of Monterey, Air Quality Testing Information and Process During Moss Landing Fire Incident, Sept. 30, 2022, available here https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/Home/Components/News/News/9345/1336.

[8] California Public Utility Commission, Energy Storage Procurement Study: Safety Best Practices, 2023, available here https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/energy-storage/2023-05-31_lumen_energy-storage-procurement-study-report-attf.pdf.

[9] Eloy Ordinance, 21-3-1.39, available here https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/eloyaz/latest/eloy_az/0-0-0-9381.