|
Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 1015 Fair Street Prescott, AZ 86305 RE: November 6th Board of Supervisors Meeting, Hearing No. 4, Section 608 Solar Facilities Zoning Ordinance Chairman and Supervisors, AriSEIA recommends that the Board of Supervisors delay a vote on the revised Solar Ordinance because:
Additionally, this Ordinance is in conflict with economic development opportunities in the County and water conservation. Even a single solar project would generate ~$16.8 million in tax revenues during the life of the project and the total economic output from a single project over its life would be ~$201 million.[1] Solar uses much less water than other types of electricity generation and less water than alternative land uses.[2] This Ordinance is essentially a de fact solar moratorium. It includes a cap on solar development of 10,000 acres in a county with more than five million acres; thereby limiting solar development to a fraction of a percent of the County’s land, a restriction that does not appear to exist for any other industries. Additionally, numerous issues from our initial letters and redlines are still outstanding:
Additional comments on the final draft are included as Attachment A. Comprehensive Plan The Ordinance as drafted is inconsistent with the Yavapai County Comprehensive Plan. Arizona law establishes baseline requirements for county comprehensive plans including the “planning for energy use that: encourages and provides incentives for the efficient use of energy [and] identifies policies and practices for greater use of renewable energy.”[3] Arizona law requires the comprehensive plan’s purpose and effect “shall be primarily as an aid to the county planning and zoning commission and to the board of supervisors in the performance of their duties.”[4] “The zoning ordinance and all rezonings and zoning regulations amendments under this article shall be consistent with and conform to the adopted comprehensive plan.”[5] The 10,000 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.”[6] The Plan is intended to “identify policies and practices that increase the use of renewable energy sources.”[7] 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.”[8] Finally, the Plan also says the County will “[a]dvocate for the development of renewable energy sources that are not water intensive.”[9] The acreage caps are arbitrary and will inhibit, not promote, solar development in Yavapai County. Additionally, the onerous and unreasonable setbacks are also at odds with the Comprehensive Plan. Waiver Provision The waiver clause in Section 608(D)(2)(g) stipulates a two-tier review process. Presently, this clause grants veto power to both the Development Services Director and the Board. We suggest limiting this discretion solely to the Board for these projects. We propose rephrasing the language to state: “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.” Bureau of Land Management (Federal Land) Almost 75% of Yavapai County is public land, with nearly half of that being federal land. The Ordinance conflicts with the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) updated 2012 Western Solar Plan.[10] The BLM oversees over 19 million acres of public land for utility-scale solar production, including in Arizona. The updated 2024 Plan emphasizes locating solar projects within 15 miles of existing or planned transmission corridors to minimize environmental and cultural impacts.[11] Yavapai County contains BLM's section 368 energy corridor, ideal for solar development due to its proximity to transmission lines, as well as significant planned transmission zones.[12] Conclusion There are numerous outstanding legal considerations for the County before it moves forward with this Ordinance, including conflicts with its own Comprehensive Plan and the relationship between the Ordinance and State and Federal land. Please either modify the per project acreage cap and eliminate the aggregate County acreage cap or postpone the vote until these issues can be resolved. Respectfully, Autumn Johnson Executive Director AriSEIA (520) 240-4757 [email protected] [1] See Attachment B. [2] See Attachment C. [3] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-804(B) (4) (a-b) (2024). [4] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-804(A) (2024). [5] Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-811(A) (2024). [6] 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). [7] Id. (emphasis added). [8] Id. (emphasis added). [9] Id. at 108 (emphasis added). [10] Natural Resources Defense Council, BLM’s Solar Plan: Balancing Efficiency, Flexibility, and Conservation, Aug. 27, 2024, available here https://www.nrdc.org/bio/josh-axelrod/blms-solar-plan-balancing-efficiency-flexibility-and-conservation#:~:text=With%20the%20FPEIS%2C%20the%20BLM,accelerating%20the%20clean%20energy%20transition. [11] Id. [12] U.S. Department of the Interior, Solar Programmatic EIS Proposed Plan in Arizona, Aug. 2024, available here https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200540728/20118384/251018364/Final%20Solar%20PEIS%20Proposed%20Plan%20Arizona%20map.pdf. See Attachment D. 
0 Comments
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.
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] |
AriSEIA NewsKeep up with the latest solar energy news! Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
|
||
RSS Feed
The Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association (AriSEIA) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit trade association representing the solar, storage, and electrification industry, solar-friendly businesses, and others interested in advancing complementary technologies in Arizona. The group's focus is on education, professionalism and promotion of public policies that support deployment of solar, storage, and electrification technologies and renewable energy job growth and creation. |
FOLLOW Us |
Copyright © 2019 AriSEIA - All Rights Reserved