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:

• Residential battery systems installed in garages or attached structures,
• Commercial batteries paired with rooftop solar at small businesses,
• Batteries installed for onsite resiliency or backup power.

 
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:

• Commissioning plans should be required prior to building permit issuance.
• Emergency mitigation, noise, security, and decommissioning plans should be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• The ordinance should allow updates to plans when technology-specific details are not available at earlier stages.

 
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.

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 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.