​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.

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

Yavapai County Board of Supervisors
1015 Fair Street
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: September 4th Supervisors Meeting, Hearing No. 7, Solar Ordinance  
 
Chairman and Supervisors,
 
AriSEIA has previously submitted three prior letters and two rounds of redlines on prior versions of the draft ordinance. Our third round of redlines is included here as Attachment A. We also plan to attend the September 4th meeting.
 
Acreage Caps and Setbacks 
Our major issues continue to be related to the acreage cap and setback requirements spelled out in Section 608(F). A cumulative acreage cap is unnecessary and conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. Yavapai County spans 8,125 square miles, equating to 5.2 million acres. A 12,000-acre cap represents only 0.23% of Yavapai's total area. In comparison, Eloy’s 2023 solar ordinance includes an 11,744-acre cap, or 16% of the city’s incorporated area, and introduces a process for increasing this cap.[1]
 
An acreage cap conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. The Energy Element of the Comprehensive Plan “promotes the use of clean energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels.”[2] The Plan is intended to “identify policies and practices that increase the use of renewable energy sources.”[3] It goes on to say that “[t]hrough the Energy Element, the County can encourage the efficient use of energy and promote clean, renewable energy production.”[4] Finally, the Plan also says the County will “[a]dvocate for the development of renewable energy sources that are not water intensive.”[5] Solar uses very little water. We included data on water usage for solar in our July 26th letter to the County.
 
The acreage cap on solar development in Yavapai County will deter our member companies from applying for waivers if they do not already own land, due to increased business risk. This restriction hampers the County's economic development and grid reliability. As shown in our economic impact assessment, even a 200 MW project could generate over $200M in economic activity and create hundreds of construction jobs.

Moreover, a cap might lead to a rush to build, potentially compromising project quality. We recommend removing the cap and evaluating projects on a case-by-case basis. You can still reject projects that aren't suitable for the County, regardless of acreage. If you keep an acreage cap, we recommend adding language, like that of Eloy, to increase the cap when needed without a modification to the entire ordinance.

The setbacks continue to be a concern as they are too large and overly complicated. We recommended specific parameters for buffer zones in Attachment A. If the Board keeps all of the setbacks as is, we recommend increasing the per project acreage cap to 5,000 acres.
​
Waiver Provision
The waiver provision located in Section 608(D)(2)(g) requires two levels of review. As is currently written, the waiver provision allows the Development Services Director veto authority over a waiver and then also provides that same authority to the Board. We recommend only the Board have that level of discretion over these projects. We recommend revising the language to say, “If the waiver request proposal is deemed to be complete and in compliance with the above tenets by the Development Services Director, the waiver request will be submitted for consideration as part of the final application to the Board of Supervisors.”  

Grid Reliability
The utilities anticipate very significant load growth over the next decade. That load growth requires additional generation. That generation improves reliability for everyone in Arizona, regardless of the county they live in. Outages like have been seen in California and Texas will not spare Yavapai County. We are all in this together. Whether or not a project solely benefits the community next to it is not the primary factor. Everyone in Arizona benefits from electricity that was generated from somewhere else. Yavapai County residents get power from wind turbines and coal plants in New Mexico and solar panels in California and hydropower from the pacific northwest and gas plants in Maricopa County. We have an interconnected grid and that geographic diversity of resources makes the grid more reliable. It is not cloudy or still everywhere at once. It is not hot or cold everywhere at once. This is an asset. The utilities cannot just build solar in Pinal and Maricopa Counties. We all benefit from generation and geographic diversity
 
Renewables Misinformation 
Over the course of this process, we have heard significant disinformation stated about renewable energy. We have included a fact sheet on Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal as Attachment B.[6] Columbia Law School’s Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles is included as Attachment C.[7] We have attached a battery safety fact sheet as Attachment D.[8] And our economic assessment as to the financial benefit to the County from even a single solar and storage project is included again as Attachment E.[9]
 
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Eloy, Az., Code of Ordinances Code § 21-3-1.39(B) (2024).

[2] Comprehensive Plan Update 2023, Yavapai County Government, Section 8.0, P.101, available here https://www.yavapaiaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/development-and-permits/development-services/documents/yavapai_cty_comp_plan.pdf (emphasis added).

[3] Id (emphasis added).

[4] Id (emphasis added).

[5] Id. at 108 (emphasis added).

[6] American Clean Power, Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal, August, 30, 2022, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2022/08/ACP_FactSheet_SolarDisposal_220830.pdf.

[7] Columbia Law School, Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles, False Claim #3 Solar Panels Generate Too Much Waste and Will Overwhelm Our Landfills, P.4, available here https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change.

[8] American Clean Power, Energy Storage Leading on Safety, December 2023, available here https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2023/12/ACP_Energy-Storage-Leading-on-Safety_FactSheet.pdf.

[9] AriSEIA, Yavapai County Solar (Example Project) Economic Impact and Tax Revenue, July 2024, available here https://www.ariseia.org/myths-busted.html. 

​Yavapai County Development Services
1120 Commerce Drive
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: August 8th Planning and Zoning Meeting: Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sections 501 & 608
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA previously submitted a letter and redlines on the first draft of the ordinance on June 10th, we submitted a second letter on July 11th, and this letter includes redlines on the second draft as Attachment A. We only had four business days between receiving the second draft of the ordinance and the deadline for comments on the final draft. We encourage you to take more time with this ordinance and not vote to send it on to the Board on August 8th.
 
Our two largest concerns continue to be the acreage caps and the setback requirements found in Section 608(F). The acreage caps are arbitrary. 3,000 acres per project is too low. We recommend 5,000 acres per project, if you feel you need a cap at all. There should be no cumulative cap on acreage development in the County. The 8,000 acre cap is in conflict with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2023. The Energy Element of the Comprehensive Plan “promotes the use of clean energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels.”[1] The Plan is intended to “identify policies and practices that increase the use of renewable energy sources.”[2] It goes on to say that “[t]hrough the Energy Element, the County can encourage the efficient use of energy and promote clean, renewable energy production.”[3] Finally, the Plan also says the County will “[a]dvocate for the development of renewable energy sources that are not water intensive.”[4] Solar uses very little water. We have included some data on lifecycle water uses of various electric generating resources in Figures 1 and 2 below.
 
The acreage cap will limit solar development in Yavapai County. Our member companies have confirmed that they will not apply for a waiver in a jurisdiction with a cap, if they do not already own land, because it is simply too risky. This limits the economic development opportunities of the County, as well as the electric reliability of our grid. As the economic impact assessment we provided reflects, even a smaller (200 MW) project would bring more than $200M in economic activity to the County over the life of the project, as well as hundreds of jobs during construction.
 
A cap could also result in a race to build projects and not result in the best projects being built. We encourage you to remove the cap entirely and review these projects qualitatively on a case-by-case basis. If a project is not a good fit for the County you can deny it, regardless of how many acres are or are not being utilized for solar within the County.
 
The setbacks continue to be a concern, as well. They are simply too large. We recommended specific parameters for buffer zones in our July 11th letter and in our redlines in Attachment A. Section 8.5.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need to mitigate some of the environmental impacts of large scale energy projects, such as solar. The Plan says that “the County finds it preferable for utility-scale projects to be sited as close as practical to existing transmission lines and power substations.”[5] The numerous restrictions, including onerous setbacks reduce the plausibility of this stated preference.
 
Finally, given the tight turnaround time in between rounds of comments, we were not able to research and answer Commissioners’ questions regarding vehicle to grid storage, off grid systems, or wildfire shutoffs. However, we have included information as to the waste generated by solar panels. I have also included a fact sheet on Solar Panel Recycling and Disposal as Attachment B. Columbia Law School’s Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles, False Claim #3 is also included as Attachment C.[6] While solar produces a small amount of waste, relative to other waste streams (see Figures 3 and 4 below), considerable effort is being spent to reduce its waste. The national Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has a PV recycling program[7] and the Department of Energy (DOE) is also working on innovative ways to reduce waste.[8] AriSEIA has member companies that work on refurbishment and recycling of solar panels, as well as second life utilization of lithium-ion batteries.
 
At the August 8th meeting we encourage you to slow the pace of the ordinance so that the Staff has time to incorporate the feedback received in the next version. We still recommend a joint stakeholder working session to discuss any outstanding redlines. When the ordinance is ready for a vote, we strongly recommend that it not include a countywide acreage cap.
  
Respectfully,
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Comprehensive Plan Update 2023, Yavapai County Government, Section 8.0, P.101, available here https://www.yavapaiaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/development-and-permits/development-services/documents/yavapai_cty_comp_plan.pdf (emphasis added).

[2] Id (emphasis added).

[3] Id (emphasis added).

[4] Id. at 108 (emphasis added).

[5] Id. at 105.

[6] Columbia Law School, Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles, False Claim #3 Solar Panels Generate Too Much Waste and Will Overwhelm Our Landfills, P.4, available here  

[7] SEIA National PV Recycling Program, available here https://www.seia.org/initiatives/seia-national-pv-recycling-program.

[8] DOE, Beyond Recycling: Reducing waste from Solar Modules Before They’re Even Made, March 5, 2024, available here https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/beyond-recycling-reducing-waste-solar-modules-theyre-even-made. 

Yavapai County Development Services
1120 Commerce Drive
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: July 18th Planning and Zoning Meeting Agenda Item No. 6: Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sections 501 & 608
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA previously submitted a letter and redlines on the first draft of the ordinance on June 10th. We also submitted an economic impact study of utility scale solar in Yavapai County on June 14th. This study is attached here as Attachment A for your convenience. We do plan to attend the Planning and Zoning meeting on July 18th and will also submit another round of redlines once the second draft of the ordinance is available. In the interim, below are some additional comments as to the first draft.
 
Additionally, AriSEIA would encourage you to consider holding a working session open to all interested stakeholders before the next Planning and Zoning meeting on this topic. Both Eloy and Mohave County held such a meeting and it was incredibly valuable in coming to a final draft. This may require delaying the final vote on this item past September 4th. In Eloy and Mohave County, we spent closer to 6-8 months working on the ordinance.
 
Further, AriSEIA would like to alleviate the concerns that some Supervisors have expressed to date about the toxicity of solar panels and the fire risk of both solar and battery storage. We have included an excerpt from Columbia Law School’s article: Rebutting 33 False Claims about Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles as Attachment B.[1] There is also a very helpful video available as to potential toxicity to soil or water that we recommend.[2] Tim Kreis,[3] the City of Phoenix’s Assistant Fire Chief, presented on the safety of lithium-ion batteries at the Arizona Technology Council E-Mobility and Clean Energy Summit held on June 27th.  Batteries used for electric vehicles and energy storage have less fires than other types of batteries found in the home. We recommend Yavapai County reach out to him with additional questions. Firefighter safety has been addressed by several organizations including Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) and the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), resulting in guidelines involving solar products; IAFF, UL and IREC have all developed related training. Finally, we have attached the American Clean Power Association’s fact sheet on utility scale storage safety as Attachment C.
 
Section 501: (3) ground mounted PV panel height.
 
·         We recommend a minimum height of 20’ for ground mounted parking structures with solar at full tilt.
 
Section 501: (6) cap for small scale battery storage in residential. 

• It should refer to the International Residential Code (IRC).  This would allow it to follow the code updates as they come out.
• The limitation of 80 kWh should not apply if the IRC is used.  The 2021 IRC, Section 327.5, allows up to 80 kWh of ESS, unless the system is installed in accordance with Sections 1206.1 through 1206.9 of the International Fire Code (IFC).
• Sections 1206.1 through 1206.9 of the IFC allows larger ESS to be installed.  It does not apply to just multi-family or commercial/industrial use.  It can be used in single family residential dwellings for larger ESS installations.

Section 608: (D) Solar Facility Use Permits

• (D)(2)(l)(4) we talked with two Line Siting attorneys and a member of the Line Siting Committee and we understand that this section is in conflict with the intent of the Line Siting statutes (Article 6.2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes). The Line Siting Committee was specifically established to provide a single venue in which to evaluate transmission impacts.[4] Also, if the ordinance is intended to apply to federal lands, that would also be preempted. Further, what does “other permits related to the solar facility mean”? Finally, permits should be permitted to be pursued in parallel to reduce delay.   

Section 608: (F) Development and Performance Standards

• (F)(1)(a) the maximum development area of three thousand 3,000 acres is very limiting, we suggest >5,000.
• (F)(1)(b) we advocate for removal of the cumulative acreage maximum for all solar facilities located within Yavapai County, but at the very least match what other jurisdictions are doing e.g., the City of Eloy allows for 16% of their total incorporated area v. the 0.15% Yavapai is proposing here.
• (F)(1)(c) we propose 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile instead of more than one mile from incorporated town/city limits.
• (F)(1)(d) we recommend removal of the more than one mile from airports requirement. Anti-glare solar panels are not shown to impact airport activity.
• (F)(1)(f)(1) this is too vague. What “resources” are being contemplated?
• (F)(1)(f)(8) the restriction on development of areas with 25%+ canopy density of woody or cactus species is too low.
  • We typically only see revegetation requirements, not restrictions on developing in areas with a certain perennial coverage. Restrictions are typically reserved for areas with sensitive plants or riparian vegetative communities. We propose replacing this restriction with a requirement for a restoration plan or stipulations (mitigation) to restore back to 25% cover instead.
• (F)(2) Setbacks
  • (F)(2)(a) the setback from any lake, creek, perennial or intermittent stream, river, major tributary, riparian areas, wetlands, seeps, or FEMA floodplain should be 50’-100’.
    • Minor tributaries have a setback of 150’ is also too high.
  • (F)(2)(d) a 500’ setback from “federally managed lands” is unnecessary given there are project on federally managed lands.
  • (F)(2)(g) the slope grade is reasonable, but the distance from the slope is too high, especially if a project complies with the drainage plan requirements.
  • (F)(2)(i) 50-100 feet from a significant scenic, historic, cultural, or archeological sites is reasonable, but how is “significant” defined?  
  • (F)(2)(j) we recommend setbacks of 50’ from public road rights-of-way.
  • (F)(2)(k) 50-75’ setbacks from all property lines is reasonable.
• (F)(8)(c) we confirmed this is already included within the Line Siting requirements and would be redundant.
• (F)(9) We recommend striking “Additional lightning after approval of the Use Permit may require an amendment to the Use Permit” and make clear that lighting plans are preliminary. It is atypical to provide this level of detail (especially if binding) at this stage of permitting
• (F)(10) Noise levels are too low due to battery HVAC units, which usually emit 85dB 3’ away. We suggest increasing to 65dB.

Section 608: (K) Substations

• (K)(1)(a) Substations should be permitted 100’ from any residences. A more onerous requirement will inevitably make the gen-ties longer, which will be more onerous visually and have greater land use impacts.
• (K)(1)(b) severely limits flexibility in design and where substations can be sited, which may result in inefficient electrical design e.g., longer gen-ties and more impacted land. The location of the substation is highly project-specific and depends on the project’s design and POI. This requirement should be removed.

Section 608: (M) Decommissioning and Reclamation

• (M)(1)(e) projects typically need more than 12 months for decommissioning (typically takes as long to decommission as to construct). 24 months is more reasonable or the ordinance should provide flexibility based on project size.
• (M)(5) should be 12 months instead of 6 for a project to be abandoned.

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

[1] The full article can be found here. Toxicity of solar panels is address as False Claim #2, available here https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=sabin_climate_change.

[2] Are Solar Farms Toxic? Experts Say No, available here https://youtu.be/9f_p1a_S17A?feature=shared.

[3] Tim Kreis’ bio can be found here https://www.phoenix.gov/fire/about-us/executive-staff.

[4] Session Law 1971, Ch. 67, § 1, at pp. 180–183, available here https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/nodes/view/20971?keywords=session%20laws%201971&highlights=eyIwIjoibGF3cyIsIjEiOiJzZXNzaW9uLCIsIjIiOiJzZWN0aW9uIiwiMyI6InNlc3Npb24uIiwiNCI6IjE5NzEpIiwiNiI6InNlc3Npb24iLCI3IjoibGF3cywiLCIxNSI6IjE5NzEsIn0=.

Yavapai County Development Services
1120 Commerce Drive
Prescott, AZ 86305
 
RE: Redlines of the May 13, 2024 Solar Facilities Ordinance Draft
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA is the State’s nonprofit solar, storage, and electrification trade association. We are active at all levels of government in Arizona, working to advance renewables policy. We worked heavily on Eloy’s 2023 ordinance and are currently working with Mohave County and Pinal County on similar processes. We have been in touch with Matthew Blake and Jeremy Dye regarding the Yavapai County solar ordinance. We attached our redlines as Attachment A to this letter and plan to attend the June 19, 2024 meeting. While we are in the process of completing an economic impact analysis with Elliott Pollack for Yavapai County, it is not yet complete. Therefore, we have attached our equivalent study for Mohave County as Attachment B for your reference.
 
You will note, Attachment A has numerous edits. The Yavapai ordinance is the first we have seen that would include distributed generation (i.e. residential and commercial solar). We would encourage you to reconsider its inclusion in an ordinance that appears to be targeted at utility scale development. Our largest concern for the utility scale portion of the ordinance is that it appears to unfairly single out and target solar development with restrictions that are not applicable to any other land uses. Our overall feedback is that solar should not be subject to restrictions that are not applicable to other types of development. There are also provisions we believe violate Arizona law, namely regarding the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
 
Our two other largest concerns have to do with the caps on the acreage of projects and the cap on solar development in the County in F(1), as well as the setbacks for solar projects in F(2). We also have concerns about the technical feasibility of some of the storage (BESS) components of the ordinance.
 
We encourage you to hold a stakeholder meeting and invite residential and commercial installers, as well as utility scale developers to discuss the feasibility of the provisions of this ordinance before moving further. Thank you for your time and consideration.
 
Respectfully,
  
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission
Development Services Department
P.O. Box 7000
Kingman, AZ 86402
 
RE: April 10th  Planning and Zoning Meeting, Agenda Item 17, Evaluation of a Request to Amend the Mohave County Zoning Ordinance Section 12.2, Energy Overlay (E) Zone; Section 37.4, Special Uses, and Section 37.U, Energy Projects.
 
Supervisors, Commissioners, and Staff,
 
AriSEIA is the State’s nonprofit solar, storage, and electrification trade association. We are active at all levels of government in Arizona, working to advance renewables policy. We worked heavily on Eloy’s 2023 ordinance and are currently working with Yavapai County and Pinal County on similar processes. We spoke to the Mohave County Board of Supervisors when the Moratorium was passed last fall. We also presented an economic impact analysis completed by Elliott Pollack and have included that here as Attachment B for your convenience.
 
We have also attached redlines of the proposed Ordinance here as Attachment A. We encourage you to make a few small modifications before submitting this to the Board of Supervisors for a vote. However, when the final version is voted on, we encourage you to replace the existing Moratorium with the new ordinance as soon as possible.
 
Our two biggest concerns with the proposed Mohave Ordinance are the one mile buffer zone and the amount of time (12 months) that triggers decommissioning. We suggest a quarter mile buffer zone and a force majeure clause for decommissioning, as there are reasons why there may be a 12+ month delay that are not the result of abandonment.
 
We would be happy to participate in any stakeholder process the County implements to finalize this Ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration.
 
Respectfully,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
 

There is a common misconception that solar projects do not contribute to the economy nor generate tax revenues for local governments. The report showed that in the first year during construction an estimated $1.1 million in tax revenues and 302 jobs would be created in the local economy from one sample project. In addition, over the life of the project, more than $28.1 million in tax revenue would be generated by personal property tax on equipment. These taxes would directly benefit the county, fire districts, school districts, and other special districts such as flood control, library, and education districts. All totaled, the example solar project would create over $442.5 million in economic activity within Mohave County during construction and 40 years of operations. Again, this is all from just one single project. Additional projects would result in proportional, additional revenue.

Line Siting Committee
Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007-2996
 
RE:      Obed Meadows CEC, Docket No. L-21254A-23-0184-00222
 
Chairman and Committee Members,
 
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) submits this letter in opposition to requiring a System Impact Study (SIS) in advance of obtaining a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC). The legal briefs of the applicant, Arizona Public Service (APS), and Tucson Electric Power (TEP) all agree that such a requirement is outside the authority of the Line Siting Committee. Further, such a requirement would needlessly delay gen-tie applications. The legislature via HB 2496 and the Commission via dockets RLS-00000A-23-0251 and ALS-00000A-22-0320 and the Governor’s Office via signature of HB 2496, have all indicated that the goal of the State of Arizona is to expedite these renewable energy projects, not add additional bureaucratic hurdles and delay. The Line Siting Committee has been issuing CECs without SISs and it is not clear why that would need to change now.
 
Testimony in this case, as well as the legal brief of APS, make clear that the absence of a SIS is not the fault of the applicant. There is a backlog of these studies, which is outside the control of renewable energy developers. Transmission Providers throughout the state of Arizona, including the state’s two largest utilities: APS and Salt River Project (SRP), are currently working through significant queue reforms to address interconnection backlogs. Proposed queue reforms will materially impact the timeline of interconnection studies, the requirements for projects to enter and stay in the interconnection queue, and the commercial expectations of projects when bidding into Request for Proposals (RFPs). Such queue reform is expected to introduce withdrawal penalties that will fundamentally change the way a project is developed, creating a new model whereby a project is incentivized to first acquire all its permits (including a CEC), obtain off-take, and then enter the interconnection queue. Having a SIS prior to filing for a CEC would be counter to the intent of queue reform, and a third-party power flow study would be expensive and redundant to already required utility interconnection studies. While the timeline around queue reform implementation is uncertain, FERC Order 2023 indicates an effective date is likely by the end of 2023 or in early 2024.
 
AriSEIA strongly advocates that the Line Siting Committee adhere to the purpose and intent of the Line Siting statute (A.R.S. 40-360.06); its prior decisions on applications that did not have a SIS; the clear intent of the legislature, Governor’s Office, and Commission to reduce Line Siting delay; and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) queue reform process and not require a SIS prior to obtaining a CEC. A requirement to have a SIS may have unintended consequences that limit the ability for projects to reach operations in a timely manner.
 
Sincerely,
 
/s/ Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]
​

Eloy City Council
595 N. C Street
Eloy, AZ 85131
 
RE: Opposition to Sections B and F(2) of the Revision of the City’s Zoning of Solar Generating and Storage Facilities
​
Dear Mayor and Council Members,

The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is an Arizona based nonprofit, focusing on policies that advance the adoption of solar, storage, and electrification. We are active at all levels of government in the state and represent organizations throughout the clean energy economy. I am writing to urge you to modify or eliminate Sections B and F(2) from updates to 21-3-1.39.

We previously submitted a letter to this body in February 2023 and have attended three meetings of the Council or Planning and Zoning Committee. We are encouraged by the City’s willingness to make modifications throughout this process. However, there are still two major areas of concern.

First, the City should not arbitrarily limit expansion of solar to 16% of City acreage. This number is not based on the public interest or any quantitative or qualitative assessment of appropriate solar development in Eloy. It is a duplication of a Coolidge requirement. This kind of restriction limits private property rights of landowners in Eloy, unnecessarily restricts economic development in the area, and risks grid reliability. With the peak records we are seeing broken this summer,[1] massive load growth in the state,[2] and increasingly hot weather,[3] Arizona’s utilities will need to build significant new infrastructure to keep the lights on in Eloy and around the state. Limiting that development on the front end is unnecessary. The City already has a process by which to approve projects and, if so desired, could keep the second half of Section B, without the 16% cap.

Second, while we recommend no cap on the amount of storage per project, any cap should be based on capacity not lot size. Further, that cap should be closer to 10-20% of capacity, not 5% of lot size. This is also arbitrary, needlessly limits reliability, and impedes a growing technology prematurely. We recommend modifying Table 3-1-1 to remove the “Lot Coverage, Maximum” or modifying it to “Capacity Maximum” and 10-20%.

Finally, we would like to address some of the statements made over the course of this process that may be based on misunderstanding. Throughout the western interconnect, the grid is interconnected all over the western US. Power is produced and utilized all over the west. Power in Eloy comes from New Mexico and California, for example. Limiting renewables development in Eloy because the power is not used on site is counter to how the grid operates. We are seeing increasing local opposition to renewables development. Coolidge[4] set a limit previously and Mohave County[5] is considering a one-year moratorium. Columbia Law School has found more than 200 local restrictions specifically against renewables.[6] These projects can only be located in some geographic locations. Increased limitation impedes our ability to transition the grid, save water, reduce air pollution, and keep the lights on.

It has also been said that renewables projects do not “benefit residents” because the bulk of the tax revenue benefits the County and schools more than the City. However, the schools and County services do benefit residents. Residents work in the schools and send their kids to those same facilities. Personally, where I send my children for 1/3 of the day matters a lot to me as a resident. More funding correlates with better facilities and outcomes. Each of these projects contribute tens of millions of dollars to the local economy, several million of which does go directly to the City.

Eloy and Pinal County have very serious air quality and water quantity challenges. It is important to look at economic development opportunities wholistically. These challenges will limit the types of businesses and industries that choose to locate in Eloy. There are only so many industries that do not need water, for example. Renewables, including solar, are an ideal economic opportunity given the constraints of the local area. I have re-included data regarding the water usage and emissions of renewables for your convenience. Solar has no point source emissions and lower lifecycle emissions than fossil fuels. It also uses less water in operations and in its lifecycle than most other electricity generating technologies. Lastly, new companies are relocating to Arizona every day and many of them are doing so to help meet their clean energy goals. The national Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) tracks clean energy procurement on behalf of businesses in their Solar Means Business Report and the numbers are staggering. We encourage Eloy to not indicate to those businesses that they are closed for business.

Please reject Sections B and F(2) of the staff proposal. Thank you for your consideration to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Autumn T. Johnson
Executive Director
AriSEIA 
(520) 240-4757
[email protected]

[1] Daily Energy Insider, Arizona Public Service Breaks Own Peak Demand Record Seven Days Running, July 26, 2023, available here https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/40515-arizona-public-service-breaks-own-peak-demand-record-seven-days-running/.

[2] APS stated in its currently pending rate case that they are looking at a 40% increase in peak and a 60% increase in demand by 2031.

[3] Arizona Republic, July Earned Phoenix Hottest Month on Record for a US City, August 1, 2023, available here https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix-weather/2023/08/01/july-earned-phoenix-hottest-month-on-record-for-a-us-city/70505349007/.

[4] Coolidge Council Restricts New Solar, May 14, 2022, available here https://azbex.com/local-news/coolidge-council-restricts-new-solar/#:~:text=After%20nearly%20a%20year%20of,the%20list%20of%20approved%20uses..

[5] Mohave County Board Materials for August 7, 2023, available here https://lfportal.mohavecounty.us/bos/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=2038857&page=1&cr=1.

[6] Columbia Law School, Report Finds 228 Local Restrictions Against Siting, Wind, Solar, and Other Renewables, May 31, 2023, available here https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2023/05/31/report-finds-228-local-restrictions-against-siting-wind-solar-and-other-renewables-as-well-as-293-contested-projects/.