Navajo County
100 East Code Talkers Drive
South Highway 77
Holbrook, AZ 86025
 
RE: Comments on Navajo County’s Analysis of Anticipated Adverse Community Impacts from Renewable Energy Development in Navajo County
 
Dear Navajo County Board and Staff,

AriSEIA appreciates the opportunity to review the County’s recent whitepaper entitled “Analysis of Anticipated Adverse Community Impacts from Renewable Energy Development in Navajo County.” The renewable energy industry recognizes that responsible development requires collaboration with local governments, transparent information sharing, and proactive mitigation of genuine impacts. However, several assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions within the whitepaper require clarification, correction, or reframing to ensure that resulting policy decisions are grounded in accurate data, reflect renewable specific realities, and appropriately balance local benefits and risks. We offer the following overarching concerns and recommendations.

1. The whitepaper conflates impacts of fossil-fuel boomtowns with renewable energy development.
Much of the document relies on case studies from oil and gas boomtowns, man camps, fracking regions, and resource extraction economies in states such as North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas. These industries produce rapid population surges, volatile economic cycles, and development patterns that are entirely different from modern utility scale solar and wind construction. Renewable projects do not create similar workforce influxes, do not rely on temporary housing compounds, and do not involve heavy industrial activity that contributed to the crime and public health outcomes cited in the whitepaper. There is no analog in renewable development to oilfield man camps, drilling pads, or round the clock extraction cycles. Renewable construction workers also do not generate long term population increases. The whitepaper cites studies documenting sexual assault spikes, domestic violence reports, major crime growth, and large scale evictions in oil shale regions, but these effects should not be projected onto renewable development without evidence showing the same causal mechanisms. For these reasons, AriSEIA recommends that the County remove or clearly distinguish fossil fuel boomtown research from renewable specific planning.
  
2. The County’s cost estimates rely on worst-case assumptions and attribute generalized growth pressures exclusively to renewable developers.
The whitepaper assigns more than $4.1 million in first-year costs and $2.3 million in recurring annual costs to renewable energy development, including expanded court staffing; increased public defense and prosecution resources; broad public-health programs; new housing-subsidy infrastructure; countywide economic-development staffing; comprehensive water modeling; recreation master planning and land inventories; a new revolving loan fund; and substantial additions to code enforcement, building inspection, and emergency management operations. Many of these items represent baseline county responsibilities, long-term planning obligations, or government modernization priorities rather than impacts created by individual renewable projects. AriSEIA fully supports reasonable mitigation measures tied directly to documented project-caused impacts, but the cost categories identified in the whitepaper extend far beyond proportional, legally defensible cost causation. Development Agreements cannot be used to backfill countywide underfunding or to finance unrelated planning activities. It is critical that the County distinguish between baseline governmental needs and actual project-attributable impacts, rely on project-specific impact studies rather than generalized countywide assumptions, and align expectations with the approaches taken by other Arizona counties, none of which resemble the magnitude or scope of the costs proposed here.

3. Assertions about crime, substance use, and public safety strain rely on generalized national datasets, not Navajo County–specific data.
The whitepaper suggests that renewable construction may cause increases in sexual assault, domestic violence, impaired driving arrests, drug related arrests, behavioral health emergencies, overdose risks, and court caseloads. However, no Arizona county with significant renewable development has experienced these impacts. Arizona has constructed more than six gigawatts of utility scale solar and multiple wind facilities in the past decade, and counties such as Maricopa, Pima, La Paz, Cochise, Mohave, and Yuma have not documented public safety or public health crises linked to renewable construction workforces. Before imposing large public safety contributions, the County should provide empirical evidence from Arizona demonstrating a causal link between renewable construction and the anticipated impacts. It is also important to distinguish between temporary traffic related impacts, which can be mitigated, and unsupported assumptions about increases in violent or substance related crime. A mitigation framework must be based on evidence rather than extrapolation from unrelated industries.

4. Housing assumptions are overstated and not tailored to actual project workforce plans.
The whitepaper assumes that every project will bring approximately 250 workers who rent locally, absorbing roughly 11% of the County’s available rental stock and doubling impacts when projects overlap. These assumptions do not reflect the substantial variation in workforce size, housing practices, or contractor models across renewable developers. AriSEIA recommends that the County require project-specific housing plans rather than rely on a static estimate of 250 in-county renters for every project regardless of technology, schedule, labor model, or contractor practices.

5. The County’s request for a single developer to cover $650,000 annually for law enforcement is disproportionate.
The whitepaper proposes that the first renewable developer entering a Development Agreement contribute $650,000 annually to fund 5 permanent law enforcement positions, while later developers would not be responsible for similar obligations. This approach is unprecedented in Arizona. A.R.S. § 11-1101 requires that development agreements be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and tied to the impacts of the specific development. Conditioning approval on a recurring and long term financial obligation borne by only 1 developer, particularly when that obligation is not directly linked to the proportional impacts of the project, raises significant concerns under § 11-1101 because it exceeds the scope of what a development agreement may lawfully require. The proposal also conflicts with the County’s statement that no single developer should bear the full burden of countywide impacts. A proportional and time limited approach is more consistent with statutory requirements and with common practice in Arizona.

6. Renewable energy brings substantial economic benefits not acknowledged in the whitepaper.
The whitepaper characterizes renewable development as a “net drain” on the County, but it does not account for the substantial economic and community benefits these projects generate. Construction wages and local spending provide immediate economic activity. Long-term landowner income supports rural economic stability. Renewable development enhances grid reliability for residents and businesses, supports statewide job creation, and strengthens supply chains. Local contractors benefit from transportation, concrete, materials, and trade opportunities. Transmission upgrades associated with renewable development often provide broader system benefits. Arizona law values renewable generation equipment at 20% of its depreciated cost under A.R.S. § 42-14155. Although this lowers assessed valuation, renewable projects still provide substantial lifetime property tax revenue. Many rural counties also negotiate supplemental payment structures through Development Agreements, which the whitepaper does not address. A balanced, data-driven benefits section would provide a more accurate and complete picture of renewable development’s role in supporting county and statewide economic goals. See attachment A.

7. Recommendations for a constructive path forward, including limits on fees
AriSEIA offers the following framework:

1. Require project-specific impact analyses rather than generalized countywide projections.
2. Base mitigation on demonstrable, proportionate impacts, not speculative correlations to oil and gas boomtowns.
3. Create a unified, transparent Development Agreement template that:
   • Applies evenly to all developers
   • Focuses on traffic, road impacts, emergency coordination, and construction-period needs
   • Excludes unrelated long-term county planning costs
4. Establish voluntary community-benefit discussions that are negotiated rather than set via prescriptive dollar amounts unsupported by evidence.
5. Ensure that any fee or contribution is one-time, not annual, and set at a reasonable level that does not dissuade renewable development or undermine statewide grid reliability and electric affordability. A recurring annual charge of the magnitude proposed in the whitepaper creates uncertainty, threatens project viability, and conflicts with Arizona’s broader economic and energy objectives.
6. Convene a working group with industry, county officials, and local stakeholders to refine methodologies.

AriSEIA stands ready to participate in such a process.
​
Conclusion
AriSEIA deeply values its partnership with Navajo County and supports reasonable, evidence-based planning for renewable growth. However, the whitepaper’s assumptions overstate risks, misapply fossil-fuel impact studies, and attribute broad county underfunding to individual renewable projects. A more tailored, data-driven approach will better support both successful project development and long-term community well-being. We welcome continued dialogue and are available to meet with staff and the Board to refine an equitable, lawful, and mutually beneficial mitigation framework.
 
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
​

Navajo County
100 East Code Talkers Drive
Holbrook, AZ 86025
 
RE: Navajo County Zoning Ordinance Update, Article 12: Renewable Energy
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Community Development Staff,

The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the draft zoning ordinance for renewable energy facilities in Navajo County. AriSEIA is a nonprofit trade association representing the solar and storage industries across Arizona. We advocate for thoughtful, streamlined, and effective land use policies that enable renewable energy development while respecting community values and local priorities. We have previously engaged on the City of Eloy, Mohave County, City of Buckeye, Town of Chino Valley, Yavapai County, City of Surprise, and Apache County solar/storage ordinances.

We commend the County’s efforts to develop a regulatory framework for renewable energy and offer the following comments and recommendations to improve clarity, reduce unintended burdens, and ensure alignment with industry standards and legal precedents.

I. General Legal and Process Concerns
1. Entitlements Should Not Require BOS Approval to Transfer

We recommend against the provision requiring Board approval for the transfer or assignment of an approved Special Use Permit (SUP). Land use entitlements run with the land—not the landowner—and cannot be subject to reassignment approvals. Requiring discretionary approval for every property transfer introduces legal uncertainty and would significantly chill investment. If the original conditions remain in effect and are adhered to by the new owner, no additional approval should be required.

2. Clarity on the Relationship Between SUPs and Development Agreements
The draft appears to treat Development Agreements and SUPs as overlapping but does not clearly delineate the requirements for each. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Development Agreement will incorporate requirements from Section 1201(2)(u). Greater clarity is needed to avoid duplicative or conflicting obligations.

II. Comments on Draft Article 12 – Section 1201 (Solar and General Renewable Energy)
3. Impervious Surface Designation
We strongly urge the County to clarify that solar arrays are not considered impervious surfaces and are exempt from the Maximum Lot Coverage standards in A-General (50%) and RU-20 (3%) zones. The definition of “impervious” should be revised or clarified to exclude structures like solar arrays, particularly when vegetation or non-compacted soils are preserved beneath the panels.

4. Underground Collection Line Requirement (1201(2)(d))
We recommend flexibility in the siting of collection lines. While undergrounding may reduce some visual impacts, it can increase cost and site disturbance. These lines typically run within the array footprint and are low-profile. Allowing above-ground options where appropriate could reduce environmental disruption and construction costs.

5. Fence Height Discrepancy (1201(2)(r))
The draft permits fences up to 8 feet in height for renewable energy projects, but the general zoning standards cap fence/wall height at 7 feet. This inconsistency should be resolved to avoid ambiguity in enforcement.

6. Decommissioning Bond Timing and Beneficiaries (1201(2)(s))
We recommend phasing the decommissioning bond over the first 10 years of operation, with full bonding (minus salvage value) required by year 10. This balances financial feasibility with long-term accountability. Additionally, we urge the County to designate a single bond beneficiary—typically the County—to streamline administration and avoid disputes.

7. Tribal Consultation Guidance (1201(2)(v))
We request that the County provide clear expectations for what constitutes adequate tribal consultation. This includes what documentation will be accepted and what level of engagement is required.

8. Public Communication Requirements (1201(2)(x))
The requirement for lifetime responsiveness to inquiries is operationally unfeasible. We suggest limiting real-time responsiveness to the construction phase. For long-term operations, we propose a 24/7 emergency hotline, a publicly available online form, and a monthly response requirement for general inquiries.

9. Public Outreach and Project Changes (1201(2)(u))
We request clarity on whether the outreach described in 1201(2)(u) is a prerequisite to the public hearing process and what happens if key project features change after notifications are sent to surrounding landowners. A mechanism for reasonable updates should be included.

10. Avoid Regulatory Overreach into Federal or State Jurisdiction (1201(2)(j), 1201.1)
The ordinance appropriately avoids regulating projects on federal or state land but then attempts to impose technical standards (e.g., on experimental components or wildlife policy) outside the County’s expertise. Sections referencing FAA, USFWS, and other federal authorities should defer to their standards rather than impose independent criteria.

11. Problematic Language and Ambiguities
We recommend removing vague or subjective standards such as “minimal visual impact,” “low wildlife habitat value,” or “maximum extent possible.” These terms lack clear metrics and create enforcement risk. More appropriate phrasing would be “to the maximum extent feasible” with reference to applicable regulatory guidance.

12. Feedback Cards and Tabulated Results (1201(2)(u)(ii))
The ordinance calls for tabulating community feedback, but such data often reflects opposition bias due to self-selection. It should be considered informational, not determinative.

13. Decommissioning Enforcement (1201(2)(aa)(ii))
The ordinance should include standard cure period language to protect against subjective enforcement or abrupt bond forfeiture. This provides fairness and legal clarity in the event of a dispute.

III. Comments on Draft Article 12 – Section 1202 (Wind-Specific Provisions)
14. Noise Standards (1202(1)(a) & (b))
We recommend adopting standard sound thresholds of 45 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day, based on EPA guidance. The “baseline plus 5 dBA” approach is difficult to measure and legally risky due to inconsistent baseline data.

15. Low-Frequency Noise (1202(1)(c))
We strongly recommend removing all references to low-frequency noise. There is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence supporting its health impacts, and this provision responds to misinformation rather than substantiated risk.

16. Wind Turbine Setbacks (1202 generally)
The proposed setbacks are excessive and unsupported by public health data, effectively amounting to a ban on wind development. AriSEIA has provided the below table of commonly accepted setbacks that maintain public safety while allowing viable project siting. 

Occupied Community Buildings
Nearest Structure
2.1x tip height (meters)

Participating Residences
Nearest Structure
1.1x tip height (meters)

Non-Participating Residences
Nearest Structure
2.1x tip height (meters)

Non-Participating Property Lines
Property Line
1.1x tip height (meters)

Public Road Rights-of-way
Centerline+60 feet
1.1x tip height (meters)

Setback from publicly managed lands
Property Line
2.1x tip height (meters)

County Roads
Center Line+30 feet
1.1x tip height (meters)

Overhead communication lines
Centerline+50 feet
1.1x tip height (meters)

Shadow Flicker
Tower Base
30 (hrs/yr at receptor)

Transmission and Distribution lines
Centerline+50 feet
1.1x tip height (meters)

Railroads
Centerline+50 feet
1.1x blade length (meters)

Public use areas/buildings, office buildings
Nearest Structure
1.1x tip height (meters)

Boundaries of Incorporated Communities
Boundary Line
1.0 (mile)

O&G pipelines
Center Line+30 feet
1.1x blade length (meters)

Sound emissions - daytime
Tower Base
55 (dBA)

Sound emissions - nighttime
Tower Base
45 (dBA)

Ice-Throw Setback
Tower Base
1.1x tip height (meters)
 
IV. Final CommentsThis draft ordinance includes several constructive elements but also introduces significant risks of legal challenge, development delays, and regulatory overreach. AriSEIA urges the Commission and/or Board to revise the ordinance to ensure clarity, legal consistency, and feasibility for renewable energy developers while maintaining appropriate community safeguards. We remain available to support the County in this process and provide additional detail upon request.

Thank you for your consideration.

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