​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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
​
Contact: Autumn Johnson
520-240-4757
[email protected]

Phoenix, AZ: Today, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) voted to uphold a fee on all Arizona Public Service (APS) solar customers. APS has nearly 200,000 solar customers, all of whom are paying 15% more than the rate increase approved for all residential customers this year. The ACC upheld the fees after granting a rehearing on this issue at the request of AriSEIA, Vote Solar, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. The ACC refused to consider key evidence in the record.

In January, the ACC surprised stakeholders by inserting a “grid access charge” into APS’ nearly completed rate case. AriSEIA argued the fee should be removed from the rate case decision, which was unheeded by the ACC. Therefore, AriSEIA and others immediately filed for reconsideration/rehearing, which was granted. After nearly a year of litigation, the ACC upheld the original decision after a number of abnormalities in the execution of the case, such as constraining the evidence to be considered, moving the hearing earlier after APS requested more time for adequate customer notice, an abbreviated briefing scheduled, and then scheduling the vote before the recommendation was even written.

​AriSEIA demonstrated at the hearing that based on a quantitative analysis of several national expert witnesses, APS had miscalculated the cost of service to solar customers. That miscalculation reflected that solar customers were not paying their fair share, when in fact, the inverse is true. Solar customers pay more than they should and actually subsidize non-solar customers.

APS testified that if the ACC eliminated the solar fees, the difference would be $.25 to residential customers. Despite the evidence, the ACC will penalize solar customers several dollars per month and approved an amendment to increase it in APS’ next rate case, which is anticipated to be filed in 2025.

“The evidentiary record makes it clear that solar customers are subsidizing non-solar customers and yet APS and the ACC continue to penalize solar customers with unfounded and discriminatory fees,” said Autumn Johnson, executive director of AriSEIA.

An appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals is likely in 2025.

The Judge issued a recommended opinion and order (ROO) upholding APS' discriminatory fee on solar customers. The vote by the Commission is on Tuesday, December 17th at 9am. The ROO as drafted fails to resolve many of the underlying issues that prompted a rehearing in the first instance. The ROO is inadequate for the following reasons:

1. The ROO makes it clear that despite comments made at the April procedural conference, in the October Procedural Order, and at the hearing, all of the many concerns regarding the site-load COSS were not considered in the decision[1]; therefore, no due process concerns have been alleviated.
2. The ROO falsely states that the Legacy Adjustment “bares no relationship to the GAC other than the same percentage increase,”[2] which is contrary to the testimony from the hearing.
3. The ROO completely fails to address any of Mr. Lucas’ testimony as to the calculation of the solar credit, which is a part of the site-load COSS. That analysis proved that solar customers are subsidizing non-solar customers, not the other way around.
4. The ROO misstates the Value of Solar decision. The decision as cited in the ROO did not find that the Net Metering Rules resulted in a cost shift to non-solar residential customers.[3] The decision specifically stated that the “the ratemaking implications of this separate class treatment are to be determined in each utilities’ rate case supported by a fully vetted cost of service analysis.”[4]
5. The ROO fails to address the arguments related to the Commission’s own Net Metering Rules,[5] despite the fact this issue was raised in AriSEIA’s request for rehearing and in its pre and post hearing briefs.
6. The ROO fails to address the fact that the infrastructure in place during the test year was designed and built to provide resource adequacy for solar customers’ delivered load only meaning that when solar customers paid their bills for delivered load, they paid all the costs incurred during the test year to provide them with resource adequacy. The evidence conclusively demonstrated that APS used delivered load, and not site load for planning purposes in the 2020 integrated resource plan (IRP) and before.[6]
7. The ROO fails to address the fact that the “risk” argument as articulated by Mr. McClain[7] is contrary to the risk analysis APS actually does as articulated in their IRPs.
8. The ROO misstates the “Challenging Parties’” positions, in that AriSEIA has never argued that solar customers are not partial requirements customers.[8] Instead, AriSEIA argued that being partial requirements customers alone is not a sufficient basis on which to base an additional charge.[9] There needs to be an evidentiary basis on which additional charges are warranted.
9. The ROO falsely states that solar customers are distinct from all other residential customers, without any analysis as to energy efficiency or electric vehicle (EV) customers. The ROO also admittedly does “not address the parties’ various arguments reflecting a deeper dive into the intricacies of those laws” pertaining to discrimination.[10]
10. The ROO, which was filed approximately 24 hours after reply briefs were due, does not seem to at all consider AriSEIA’s arguments in its Reply Brief.
11. The ROO falsely places the burden of proof on the intervenors,[11] when the entire issue on rehearing is whether APS’ fees are just and reasonable and discriminatory.

[1] Rehearing ROO at 22:8-9 and 30:20.
[2] Id. at 16:7-9.
[3] Id. at 39:10-13.
[4] Decision No. 75859 at 174:17-19.
[5] Rehearing ROO at 23:19-20.
[6] Id. at 26:14-15.
[7] Id. at 25:15-17.
[8] Id. at 22:17-19.
[9] Id. at 31:5-6. This is not a “keystone inquiry” and was not challenged by any party. What the Value of Solar decision says on this subject was covered extensively in the hearing.
[10] Id. at 32:2-4.
[11] Id. at 20:3-4.

AriSEIA filed its second and final brief today opposing APS' discriminatory fee on all solar customers. The recommended opinion and order is expected this week, because the ACC has indicated it will be vote on on 12/17.

AriSEIA filed its first post-hearing brief in the APS rate case rehearing. In the original rate case, APS imposed a new fee targeted only at solar customers. AriSEIA asked for a rehearing, which was granted. AriSEIA filed a pre-hearing brief, available here, and also filed its first of two post-hearing briefs. The reply brief is due next week. A vote is scheduled at the Arizona Corporation Commission on 12/17/24.

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. 

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:

• The Ordinance is in conflict with the County’s own Comprehensive Plan,
• The Draconis Project, which is in Chino Valley and not subject to the County’s Ordinance has created confusion as to the terms of the Ordinance, and
• County Staff has stated that the Ordinance and its numerous restrictions will apply on public land, which was never addressed during the stakeholder process.

 
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:

• The acreage caps are extreme both on a per project and on an aggregate basis,
• The setbacks are onerous and unreasonable, and
• The waiver provision creates veto power for a single County employee.

 
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. 

The Judge in the APS rate case rehearing on the grid access charge fees imposed against all APS solar customers asked parties to submit briefs before the hearing on whether or not the fees are just and reasonable and discriminatory. Read AriSEIA's position at the link above. The hearing starts on Monday, October 28th.

AriSEIA filed rebuttal testimony of our expert witness, Kevin Lucas, rebutting the testimony of APS, IBEW, and Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Staff, all who support opposing new fixed fees on all APS solar customers. Read the full filing above. The hearing commences October 28th.