Cochise County weighs zoning guardrails for utility-scale solar amid budget strains

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors and the county’s planning staff on Feb. 11 held a joint work session to review how the county should regulate incoming utility-scale solar projects and protect residents from potential long-term costs.

Chair opened the session by framing the stakes: Cochise County faces declining state-shared revenue and an aging population that reduces the local tax base, creating pressure to find new revenue sources without raising property taxes. “We are not growing economically,” the chair said, and the county needs options that generate revenue while “minimally impacting the quality of life of our residents.”

Planning and development staff outlined current land-use authority and the tools available to the county. Staff said many solar projects are permitted either by right in industrial zones or through a special-use authorization that allows site-specific conditions. Those conditions can include drainage and soil reports, water budgets, cultural resource surveys, visual-impact analyses, fire-prevention plans, and decommissioning and restoration plans with independent cost estimates.

“Utility scale solar is taxable in Arizona,” staff noted, describing a hypothetical example: a 300-megawatt solar facility with battery storage on a 2,300-acre site could produce substantial centrally assessed equipment value and, under one projection, roughly $455,000 annually to the county. Staff and supervisors cautioned that such projections depend on equipment valuation, depreciation and the project’s operating life.

Board members pressed staff on enforcement and financial protections after recounting past problems with projects that failed to meet mitigation commitments. One supervisor urged a bonding mechanism so reclamation funds are posted “on day one” to cover worst-case remediation costs if a company abandons a site. Staff described existing requirements for financial assurance that must be updated at least every five years and said counties can require additional, site-specific assurances during permitting.

Supervisors and planning commissioners also raised environmental and safety concerns: the need for soil testing before, during and after construction; capture and testing of runoff to detect photovoltaic chemical leaching; dust, drainage and vegetation management; and fire risks from battery-storage systems. Staff said the county can require site studies and tailored conditions and can enforce compliance through code-enforcement provisions tied to special-use authorizations.

Several supervisors recommended stronger applicant vetting to avoid fraudulent proposals, noting prior cases where permits were sought by entities without a verifiable local presence. Staff said permit submittals typically include stamped plans and landowner sign-off and recommended adding verification steps—such as corporate filings or third-party credit reports—into the application packet.

The presentation also tied the zoning conversation to the county’s comprehensive-plan update (CP24 20 45), which emphasizes siting projects in lower-conflict areas, protecting natural and cultural resources, encouraging public engagement and maximizing local economic benefits. Staff proposed drafting clear, readable ordinance language and consulting fire districts, farmers, ranchers and other local stakeholders before introducing text amendments.

No formal action was taken; staff will return with draft ordinance language, recommended permit conditions and an implementation plan that includes public hearings. The county scheduled a follow-up work session for Feb. 19 to preview the next regular meeting agenda and asked staff to bring more detailed cost and enforcement analyses.