AriSEIA Submits Comments on Chino Valley Solar Ordinance

Town of Chino Valley
Development Services
1982 Voss Drive
Chino Valley, AZ 86323
 
RE: Request to Amend the Town of Chino Valley Unified Development, Chapter 4 General Regulations (Section 4.33, Utility Scale Solar Photovoltaics Facilities)[1] on the January 7, 2025 agenda as D.1.
 
Council, Commissioners, 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, City of Surprise, Mohave County, and Yavapai County solar/storage ordinances. We recently became aware of this pending ordinance draft 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 comments primarily highlight concerns with setbacks, acreage limits, the lack of a waiver provision, and a few other technical concerns.
 
Acreage Caps and Setbacks
The cumulative maximum acreage cap and setback requirements will inhibit solar development. Chino Valley spans approximately 40,000 acres. The current proposed cap of 3,800 acres at E(3)(a) is only 9.5% of Chino Valley. For comparison, the City of Eloy’s 2023 solar ordinance includes a cap at 16% of the city’s incorporated area and introduces a process for increasing the cap.[2] We recommend eliminating the cap, but at the very least increasing it. The Chino Valley cap combined with other siting requirements such as three miles between facilities and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) siting specifications would unnecessarily impair solar development.
 
The American Planning Association found the national setback average for BESS-specific setbacks used distances of 50-150’ from property lines.[3] The BESS setback requirement of one mile or more in E(2)(b) is significantly above BESS setback standards in other jurisdictions and will restrict clean energy development in the City.[4] We recommend a 150’ BESS setback based on the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures Battery Energy Storage Systems policy.[5] The American Clean Power Association (ACP) provides a helpful FAQ that covers questions about battery safety and air emissions.[6] 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.”[7] 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.[8] All electricity generation and energy storage creates some amount of risk. However, battery incidents represent only 2% of battery installations.[9] Setbacks for batteries should not be more onerous than setbacks for other energy storage devices, such as those that contain fossil fuels.
 
The draft also states that solar panels must maintain a minimum of 1,320’ setback from any developed residential property in E(2)(c). We recommend the same residential 100’ setback to adjacent dwelling structures as we recommended to Yavapai County and not residential property lines.[10]
 
We are concerned about the implications of the three mile minimum distance between solar projects in E(2)(a)(i). Chino Valley is only ten miles wide. This setback is three times larger than the setback for Yavapai County. Larger setbacks have unintended consequences. Unnecessary setbacks can exacerbate visual impacts and zoning issues. If a particular area is closer to critical infrastructure, like transmission lines, arbitrary setbacks will impede ideal projects. There may be other projects that meet all other requirements and are ideal from a wildlife or residential perspective but are within closer proximity to other solar projects. The setback between different utility scale solar projects should be 500’ or less.
 
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.[11] We recommend adding language such as that included in 21-3-1.39(B) of Eloy’s Ordinance.
 
Noise
The draft restricts noise post-construction below 55 dB during the day and 40 dB at night and requires developers to submit a noise study pre- and post-construction at F(9)(b). Manufacturer documentation showing BESS noise levels should be sufficient. This requirement is inconsistent with other land uses. Chino Valleys’ Unified Development Ordinance, Title XIII, Chapter 131, Noise Generally, makes no mention of noise dB and Title XV, Land Usage, does not mention construction or post-construction noise limits.[12] We have recommended noise parameters for Yavapai County at 65 dB. Battery HVAC units usually emit 85 dB three feet away and can be in the 60/65 dB range at the boundary of the project.[13] We recommend that Chino Valley either eliminate the noise restriction or increase the dB limit to 65 dB.
 
Slope and Panel Height
We recommend changing the maximum slope grade from 5% to 8%. Yavapai County’s ordinance is 8% in F(1)(e)(5).[14]  
We recommend increasing the fifteen foot height cap to twenty feet in D(6)(d). Yavapai County’s height cap as seen in Section 608 Solar Facilities (F)(3)(a) is twenty feet. Restricting solar panel height negatively impacts agrivoltaics activities such as cattle grazing or crop cultivation.[15]
 
Other
There appears to be a typo in D(10)(a) creating confusion as to how many days or years a developer shall prepare and submit a decommissioning and reclamation plan. It currently says, “within one year days of decommissioning.” Additionally, it is unclear why D(5)(a) requires all utility buildings and equipment to be screened by a seven foot concrete wall.
 
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] See Town of Chino Valley Unified Development Ordinance, Chapter 4.33 General Regulations (2024), available here https://chinovalleyaz.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1231/files/agenda/14572. [hereinafter Ordinance].

[2] Eloy, Az., Code of Ordinances Code § 21-3-1.39(B) (2024); see also AriSEIA’s 4th Letter to Yavapai County on Solar Ordinance, Aug. 30, 2024, available here https://www.ariseia.org/news/ariseia-sends-4th-letter-to-yavapai-county-on-solar-ordinance.

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

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

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[10] AriSEIA, Yavapai County Solar Facilities Ordinance Draft Letter, June 10, 2024, F(2), available here https://www.ariseia.org/uploads/1/3/8/5/138583971/yavapai_solar_ordinance_letter_6.10.2024.pdf.

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

[12] Chino Valley, Unified Development Ordinance, Title XIII, Chapter 131; Title XV Land Use, 2024, available here https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chinovalley/latest/chinovalley_az/0-0-0-3578.

[13] AriSEIA, Yavapai County Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sections 501 & 608 Letter, July 26, 2024, F(10), available here https://www.ariseia.org/uploads/1/3/8/5/138583971/yavapai_county_letter_7.26.2024.pdf.

[14] Yavapai County, Section 608 Solar Facilities, Dec. 04 2024, F(1)(e)(5), available here https://www.yavapaiaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/development-and-permits/development-services/documents/news/sec-608-solar-facilities-approved-11-6-24-in-effect-12-4-24-watermarked.pdf.

[15] Id. at F(3)(a).c

chino_valley_ordinance_letter_12.2024.pdf
File Size:	1631 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---