|
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) Dear Community Development Staff, The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide continued comments on the City of Surprise draft Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) ordinance. AriSEIA is the statewide trade association representing solar, energy storage, and electrification companies operating across Arizona. We have previously provided written comments to the City on November 14, 2024, and February 18, 2024, and appreciate the City’s ongoing engagement on this important topic. After reviewing the most recent draft ordinance, we respectfully submit the following comments. While we acknowledge improvements in certain areas, several significant issues remain unresolved. These issues relate to scope, applicability, internal consistency, technical alignment with nationally adopted standards, and practical implementation. 1. Applicability and Scope of the Ordinance The draft ordinance does not clearly and unambiguously limit its applicability to utility-scale, grid-connected battery energy storage systems. As written, the ordinance does not expressly exclude behind-the-meter residential or commercial battery systems. This creates material ambiguity as to whether the ordinance could apply to:
Zoning ordinances are interpreted based on their plain language. Reliance on enforcement discretion to narrow applicability is insufficient and exposes the City to appeals, inconsistent enforcement, and potential legal challenges. AriSEIA has raised this concern in prior letters, and it remains unaddressed. The ordinance should clearly state that it applies only to utility-scale, grid-connected battery energy storage systems and does not apply to residential or commercial behind-the-meter installations. This clarification is essential to avoid unintended consequences and ensure the ordinance functions as intended. 2. Zoning Classification and Use Category The ordinance establishes a standalone “BESS” zoning district and use category. This approach unnecessarily isolates energy storage from other forms of energy infrastructure that are often complementary in generating electricity and improving grid reliability. AriSEIA recommends that the zoning district and use category be titled “Energy,” rather than “BESS,” and that utility-scale solar generation be included as a permitted or accessory use within the same category. This approach is consistent with Maricopa County and other Arizona jurisdictions and avoids the need for future piecemeal amendments as energy technologies continue to evolve. 3. Setbacks, Including the 1,500-Foot Residential Setback The proposed 1,500-foot setback from residential properties remains a significant concern. This setback is not supported by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, peer jurisdiction practices, or empirical safety data. Nationally, BESS-specific setbacks typically range from 50 to 150 feet.[1] In addition, the ordinance does not consistently specify from what point setbacks are measured. Where setbacks are imposed, they should be measured from the BESS structures themselves to the nearest residential dwelling unit, not from property lines or from an overall project boundary that may include solar generation. Excessive setbacks that are not tied to adopted safety standards unnecessarily constrain site availability, reduce project feasibility, and do not provide demonstrable safety benefits. 4. Internal Container Separation Distances The draft ordinance requires a 10-foot separation between battery containers. This requirement exceeds NFPA 855, which allows a 3-foot separation for remote facilities. Deviation from nationally adopted fire codes without a technical justification creates inconsistency, increases costs, and does not improve safety. Separation between containers should be governed by NFPA 855, not by a locally imposed standard that is more than three times more restrictive. 5. Noise Standard The ordinance imposes a maximum noise level of 60 dBA at the nearest existing dwelling unit. This threshold is unusually low for utility or industrial infrastructure and is often equivalent to ambient background noise levels in urban and suburban environments. The ordinance does not distinguish between daytime and nighttime operations, does not account for existing ambient noise, and does not explain why battery energy storage systems should be subject to a more restrictive standard than other permitted infrastructure uses. If a noise standard is retained, it should be aligned with the City’s general noise ordinance, allow for mitigation, and reflect real-world operating conditions. 6. Perimeter Walls, Landscaping, and Associated Setbacks The ordinance requires perimeter walls and landscaping and further requires these features to be set back 150 feet from other property lines. This requirement lacks a clear nexus to safety, aesthetics, or land-use compatibility. Perimeter walls do not improve fire safety, and landscaping setbacks of this magnitude do not enhance screening or community protection. Instead, they significantly reduce developable area and may render otherwise suitable parcels unusable. In addition, the ordinance does not provide flexibility for circumstances where walls and landscaping are unnecessary for aesthetic purposes or where irrigation is not advisable due to water conservation concerns. AriSEIA recommends adding administrative flexibility allowing staff to approve alternative perimeter treatments, including fencing without walls or reduced landscaping, where visual impacts are minimal, water use should be avoided, or site conditions warrant an alternative approach. Similar provisions have been successfully adopted by Buckeye and Maricopa County. 7. Timing and Sequencing of Required Plans and Studies The ordinance requires multiple plans and studies, including emergency mitigation plans, noise studies, security plans, commissioning plans, and decommissioning plans, but does not clearly specify when each must be submitted or approved. This lack of clarity creates uncertainty for applicants and staff and may result in unnecessary delays or duplicative submissions. AriSEIA recommends the following clarifications:
8. Waivers and Administrative Flexibility The ordinance limits the ability to modify or waive provisions to City Council action only. This approach is unnecessarily rigid and inconsistent with how similar ordinances are administered elsewhere. AriSEIA continues to recommend inclusion of an administrative waiver or modification process that allows staff to approve reasonable deviations when a project meets the ordinance’s safety and compatibility objectives. This flexibility improves outcomes without compromising public safety. Conclusion AriSEIA supports reasonable, data-driven regulation of battery energy storage systems. However, the current draft ordinance includes provisions that are internally inconsistent, not aligned with nationally adopted standards, and insufficiently clear as to scope and applicability. Addressing the issues outlined above will result in an ordinance that is safer, clearer, more defensible, and more workable for the City, applicants, and the community. We appreciate the opportunity to continue engaging with the City of Surprise and look forward to working collaboratively toward an ordinance that reflects best practices and supports responsible energy infrastructure development. Respectfully submitted, 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. 
0 Comments
City of Mesa
20 E. Main Street Mesa, AZ 85201 RE: Comments on Item 7 of the December 1 Agenda Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, On behalf of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA), I urge you to reject the proposed 1,000 foot setback for battery energy storage systems (BESS) in Agenda Item 7. AriSEIA is Arizona’s solar, storage, and electrification trade association, and we previously submitted detailed BESS comments to the City in our October 15, 2025 letter. A 1,000 foot setback is arbitrary, unsupported by data or national standards, and would function as a de facto moratorium on BESS in Mesa at the very moment when the region is facing record peak demand and rapidly rising electricity bills. Arizona’s three largest utilities have all set new peak demand records in recent summers, and Salt River Project expects continued significant load growth over the coming decade.[1] These conditions require more flexible, dispatchable resources, not fewer. When this ordinance was before the Planning and Zoning Board, the 400 foot setback already under consideration was too large. Every member of the public who testified spoke against it and urged you to follow national standards instead. Yet, staff has proposed increasing the setback to 1,000 feet. That change moves Mesa even further away from evidence based practice. National guidance and emerging practice in other jurisdictions point in a very different direction. The American Planning Association’s Zoning Practice review of BESS ordinances found that BESS specific setbacks in adopted codes are typically in the range of 50 to 150 feet from property lines.[2] In addition, The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855, the national consensus standard for installation of stationary energy storage, and related guidance used by fire professionals recommend a 100 foot separation between large outdoor BESS and nearby buildings or public ways to manage worst case thermal and blast scenarios.[3] Many jurisdictions address BESS separation primarily through adoption of NFPA 855 and the International Fire Code, combined with project specific review by the fire authority that can consider technology type, enclosure design, fire barriers, and egress. Maricopa County provides a good example of this approach. County staff initially proposed a 500 foot separation between BESS and existing off site residences, but after hearing from fire experts and stakeholders, the Planning and Zoning Commission advanced an ordinance that dropped the 500 foot residential separation.[4] In other words, the County chose not to create a second, much larger layer of BESS specific zoning setbacks on top of the fire code. By contrast, a 1,000 foot setback from BESS equipment to homes, churches, and similar uses in Mesa would: • Push viable sites so far from load that projects become infeasible or uneconomic. • Single out BESS for treatment that is far more restrictive than other critical energy infrastructure, such as substations. • Effectively ban standalone BESS projects in most of the City while still allowing other, higher risk facilities at much closer distances. Mesa does not need to reinvent the wheel. There are several defensible paths available to the Council that are protective of public safety and aligned with best practice: 1. Follow the Maricopa County model and rely primarily on the fire code. Mesa can remove the BESS specific separation requirement from the zoning text and allow the adopted fire code, which incorporates NFPA 855 requirements and related standards, to govern separation distances, fire protection features, and emergency response planning, with project specific review by Mesa Fire and Medical. 2. If the Council decides to retain a numeric setback, it should align with national standards. A maximum of 100 feet from BESS equipment to property lines is consistent with NFPA 855 guidance and with conditions used in Maricopa County approvals. This distance should always be measured from the BESS structure itself and not from the property line of the BESS parcel. 3. If the Council wants an additional margin of comfort, it should not exceed 150 feet. Buckeye has already adopted a 150 foot standard, based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures for BESS and NFPA guidance.[5] A 150 foot limit would still be conservative relative to many jurisdictions yet it would remain within the range documented by the American Planning Association. Adopting a 1,000 foot setback would place Mesa well outside the mainstream of BESS regulation, chill investment in energy storage, and worsen the very reliability and affordability challenges your residents are already facing. A more measured, standards based approach is both safer and more practical. For these reasons, AriSEIA respectfully asks the Council to reject the proposed 1,000 foot setback in Agenda Item 7, remove the BESS specific separation requirement from the zoning text or, at most, replace it with a setback no greater than 100 to 150 feet that is tied to NFPA 855 and Mesa’s adopted fire code. Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work on policies that keep Mesa safe, reliable, and affordable while enabling clean energy investment. Respectfully, /s/ Autumn T. Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] Pinal County, Board of Supervisors meeting, Sept. 10, 2025, available here https://pinalcountyaz.new.swagit.com/videos/355087?ts=230. Utility Dive. “Arizona utilities hit new peak demand during extreme heat.” July 2023. Available at: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/arizona-utilities-peak-demand-heat-wave/686198/ [2] American Planning Association. Zoning Practice: Regulating Battery Energy Storage Systems. March 2024. Available at: https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Zoning-Practice-2024-03.pdf [3] National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 855: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems. 2023 edition. UL. UL 9540A Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems. [4] Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission. Public Hearing on Text Amendment TA2024001 (Battery Energy Storage Systems). November 6, 2024. [5] City of Buckeye. Zoning Code, Article 3: Use Regulations. Battery Energy Storage Systems standards adopted October 21, 2025. City of Mesa Development Services 55 N. Center Street Mesa, AZ 85201 RE: City of Mesa Draft BESS Ordinance (Section 11-31-37) Council Members, Planning and Zoning Board Members, and 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, Navajo County, Apache County, Town of Gila Bend, City of Surprise, and Yavapai County solar/storage ordinances. Applicability AriSEIA recommend that Mesa look at the pending Buckeye BESS ordinance as an example. We further recommend significant changes to B(1)(a) and B(2)(b). As written, this ordinance will potentially apply to many commercial and industrial distributed generation projects. 1 MW is much too small, if the ordinance is meant to only apply to utility scale projects. We recommend you not have any size threshold and instead just state that the ordinance applies only to utility-scale BESS projects, such as is seen in Buckeye’s ordinance (Section 3.2.2(1)): “The requirements of this Section shall apply to all utility-scale BESS facilities permitted, installed, or modified after the effective date, excluding general maintenance and repair. Utility-scale BESS facilities constructed or installed prior to the effective date are not required to meet the requirements of this Chapter.” Alternatively, you could state that the ordinance does not apply to distributed generation projects with on-site battery energy storage. If the City feels it is imperative to include a size threshold, we recommend only doing it in B(1) and not B(2). And it should be 5 MW, not 1 MW. Further, the limitation in B(2)(b)(ii) is problematic because it would preclude commercial and industrial customers from participating in any forthcoming virtual power plant programs offered by the utilities to their business customers. Instead of “exclusively,” it should say “primarily.” Additionally, restrictions in B(1)(a) and C(1) to general and heavy industrial are too limited and may actually create a de facto moratorium on BESS within the City of Mesa. Engineers from Arizona utilities, including Salt River Project (SRP), have publicly spoken about the importance BESS technologies play in ensuring continued electrical service in the Valley amid growing demand. SRP expects electricity demands will grow 6% per year for the next decade, compared against the 2% yearly growth seen from 2015-2025.[1] To keep pace with this demand, SRP will have to double—and possibly triple—its capacity. Given those electricity demand needs, it is absolutely critical to leverage a variety of technologies, including BESS. We recommend all industrial, including light industrial, be eligible for BESS. Setbacks Tying the ordinance to the most recent versions of UL 9540 and National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 855 is recommended. Currently, Mesa has a drafted setback of 400 feet in Section F(2)(a).[2] The American Planning Association found the national setback average for BESS-specific setbacks was 50-150 feet from property lines.[3] While the NFPA recommends 100’, we recommend no more than 150’ from the structures (not the property line) based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures Battery Energy Storage Systems policy.[4] Also, the setbacks should be measured from the BESS equipment, not the BESS property line. This would align Mesa’s ordinance with national standards, improve regulatory defensibility, and ensure that safety requirements scale appropriately with actual risk rather than imposing arbitrary limits that could either under- or over-regulate BESS facilities. Additionally, modern BESS projects are subject to new and updated safety standards and codes that have addressed and corrected issues found in earlier system design. 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 again 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 infrastructure, such as substations. ACP’s model BESS ordinance is included as Attachment B. Noise Sound restrictions for BESS should not be different than those for other land uses. E(4) requires an initial sound study before the project is developed and G requires a mitigation plan should the noise level exceed the level when there was no development. Alternatively, at the applicant’s election, we recommend capping the decibel level of the project from the nearest residence. In a residence you would have normal conversation at 60 dB, a vacuum at 70-85 dB, an AC unit or TV at 70 dB. AriSEIA recommends the City not require a noise level less than 65 dB from the nearest residence if the ambient noise is below that. BESS Spacing Any BESS spacing in F(3) should only be 3 ft. The NFPA 855 sets its threshold at 3 feet between individual BESS units. NFPA 855 allows for adjustment upward or downward based on site-specific hazard data, including through written agreements with adjacent property owners, provided that such agreements are reviewed and accepted by the City and supported by the site’s hazard mitigation analysis (HMA). This mechanism allows jurisdictions to maintain safety standards while accommodating site-specific conditions and product design innovations. Mesa’s suggestion to increase cabinet spacing over and above the requirements of the fire code are not without consequences. Projects that require more internal spacing will require more land for development. Consequently, these projects will become bigger in area and be costlier to develop. This will come back to Mesa citizens in the rates they pay for electricity. (F)(4) requires that all fire access drives and drive aisles within the BESS facility be paved and (F)(6) requires full site screening with opaque walls or fences extending one foot or greater from the top of the equipment. By exceeding NFPA’s safety recommendations, these proposed requirements impose significant costs and potentially jeopardize project feasibility without a commensurate increase in safety. Instead, the ordinance should align these standards with NFPA 855 and (1) allow drive aisles to be made of aggregate all-weather surfacing and (2) only require partitions to be one foot higher than BESS units. Undergrounding In F(8), the City appears to require undergrounding of distribution and transmission lines. AriSEIA recommends that whether lines are undergrounded or not be left to the BESS Facility, the utility, and the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) Power Plant and Line Siting Committee (if applicable), as the ACC has a policy on undergrounding that disfavors it, as it can be excessively costly.[9] 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.[10] We recommend adding language such as that included in 21-3-1.39(B) of Eloy’s ordinance. A waiver provision gives the city the flexibility when special circumstances and safety demand. Other Additionally, there is an error in the nameplate capacity definition. We recommend an updated definition such as, “NAMEPLATE CAPACITY: The maximum rated power output that a battery energy storage system (BESS) or facility can discharge or receive under specific conditions designated by the manufacturer. It is also referred to as rated capacity or peak capacity, and is expressed in megawatts (MW) or kilowatts (kW) for power. The associated energy capacity, sometimes referred to as nameplate energy capacity, represents the total amount of energy the system can store or deliver over time, expressed in megawatt-hours (MWh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh).” As discussed above, the NFPA 855 provides recognized industry best practices for BESS. Incorporating NFPA 855 by reference into this ordinance will provide Mesa with clear, nationally recognized metrics on maximum system capacity, hazard mitigation, emergency response, and decommissioning. NFPA 855 requires the following submittals and by incorporating NFPA 855, Mesa will be requiring each of these:
City on this ordinance as the stakeholder process progresses. Respectfully, Autumn Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] Pinal County, Board of Supervisors meeting, Sept. 10, 2025, available here https://pinalcountyaz.new.swagit.com/videos/355087?ts=230. [2] This setback is in addition to further setbacks between the BESS installation and its own project boundary. [3] 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 [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] Arizona Corporation Commission, Decision No. 79140, P.3, L.2-6, Oct. 4, 2023, available here https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000209995.pdf?i=1760388397879. [10] 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 (3.2.2 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.
|
AriSEIA NewsKeep up with the latest solar energy news! Archives
January 2026
Categories
All
|
||||||||||
RSS Feed
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit trade association representing the solar, storage, and electrification industry, solar-friendly businesses, and others interested in advancing complementary technologies in Arizona. The group's focus is on education, professionalism, and promotion of public policies that support deployment of solar, storage, and electrification technologies and renewable energy job growth and creation. |
FOLLOW Us |
Copyright © 2019 AriSEIA - All Rights Reserved