Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surprise commissioners urge staff to revisit proposed 1,500-foot BESS setback after public hearing
Summary
At a work session on May 21, 2026, staff presented a proposed zoning text amendment to create a BESS overlay with a proposed 1,500-foot residential setback; a lengthy public comment period and commissioners’ discussion led the commission to direct staff to rework the setback, with many members favoring an evidence-based distance closer to 100–300 feet (NFPA/industry norms cited).
Staff presented a zoning text amendment to add a Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) overlay to the Surprise Land Development Ordinance and proposed a 1,500-foot separation from existing dwelling units as a location criterion. Chris of the Community Development Department said the buffer was based on prior evacuation-area models and was intended to protect residents’ health and safety.
An extended public comment period followed. Industry representatives—Jeremy Aiken (BayWa), Matthew Ragsdale (Key Capture Energy), James Jackson (NexaR/NEAR), and Sarah Ngo (counsel for NextEra Energy Resources)—and trade groups (Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, Arizona Technology Council) argued the 1,500-foot buffer is “extraordinarily restrictive” and recommended setbacks aligned with nationally recognized standards (many cited 50–150 feet and NFPA guidance). Mike Johnson, a Surprise landowner, told the commission a 150-foot residential setback and 50-foot property-line setback would balance safety and feasibility; he added that a 1,500-foot requirement would rule out most feasible sites.
Fire-safety consultants and local fire representatives described the industry’s operational response and testing: sensors for hydrogen, heat and smoke; multiple redundant alarms; intermittent water application to adjacent containers rather than active firefighting suppression; and plume studies showing little to no detectable contaminants beyond facility fence lines in large-scale tests cited. James Caulfield of Fire Risk Alliance stressed that plume analyses and data should guide evacuation and response plans.
Commissioners pressed staff and consultants on rationale and evidence. Several commissioners (including Perry, Everett, Holland, Leonard and Bash) called the 1,500-foot separation prohibitive and urged an evidence-based approach tied to plume studies, on-site design, and the NFPA standard. Commissioner Everett explicitly recommended a 100-foot standard consistent with NFPA guidance; other commissioners discussed combining a standard on-site setback (150 feet) plus an additional zoning buffer (100 feet) to reach an effective 250-foot separation.
Staff clarified process details: the overlay would be established by rezone (Type 3), followed by a Type 1 site-plan review; the 1,500-foot radius would be measured against existing dwelling units at the time of application (not retroactive); and the draft mirrored other code sections on noise and 'substantial conformance' to avoid administrative changes after approval. Staff asked for clear direction on setback distance, and commissioners directed staff to revisit the draft ordinance’s setback language, noise standard wording, and the approval process ahead of city council hearings.
No final vote was taken on the zoning text amendment at this meeting. Staff reported the Planning and Zoning Commission’s feedback will inform the city council work session and public hearings scheduled in June.
