Surprise council weighs new battery storage overlay zone after safety, siting debates

City staff on June 2 presented a proposed zoning text amendment to create a battery energy storage (BES) overlay district for the City of Surprise, outlining a process that would require neighborhood outreach, a Planning & Zoning recommendation and final city council approval.

The staff presentation explained two different distances the ordinance would regulate: a 150‑foot on‑site setback measured from battery cabinets to the property line, plus an external separation from the property line to existing residential dwellings. Staff said its initial approach used a 1,500‑foot separation but that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended reducing that to 100 feet; combining the 150‑foot on‑site setback with a 100‑foot external separation would yield about a 250‑foot buffer from battery cabinets to existing homes.

"We started with a 1,500 foot separation," staff said, noting the commission favored a 100‑foot separation and that the draft would be revised to clarify exceptions for commercial rooftop solar battery installations and other details.

The city’s public safety representatives urged caution. The fire chief, who is serving as interim deputy city manager, said the department’s original 1,500‑foot recommendation came from Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) guidance used for large‑scale evacuation planning after serious incidents such as the McMicken event. He said the department remains open to expert input but that "public safety must remain the primary consideration in any decision involving these battery energy storage systems."

Third‑party fire consultant James Caulfield (Fire and Risk Alliance) told council that modern testing and training have informed response tactics and that NFPA guidance and large‑scale testing play central roles in determining safe operational distances. "NFPA recommends a 100 feet setback for these," he said, describing testing showing single‑container thermal events do not necessarily propagate to adjacent containers when standards are followed.

Utilities and industry representatives urged clearer, specific numeric standards in the ordinance. Supand Alazada of the Arizona Technology Council thanked staff for engaging stakeholders and urged Surprise to adopt standards that support economic growth while maintaining safety. Anna Smith of APS said an excessively large setback "far exceeds NFPA recommendations" and could make regulation quickly obsolete as technology advances; she offered APS expertise to refine the safety language. Ben Clough of APS said the utility typically sees sites with at least a 100‑foot setback and open setback space rather than a block wall immediately surrounding cabinets.

Council members pressed staff and experts on key details: why staff initially proposed 1,500 feet; how NFPA 55, the 2024 International Fire Code and ERG differ; whether the overlay could be applied in infill/residential areas; and whether the ordinance should be limited to utility‑scale sites by megawatt capacity. One council member asked that the ordinance include a clear numerical threshold so the rules apply to larger, utility‑scale projects and not to hospitals, commercial rooftop backup batteries or small commercial installations.

Councilman Milton and others discussed a threshold of around 5 megawatts as a possible way to distinguish utility‑scale BES from smaller systems; APS representatives said their procurement typically involves projects of 10 megawatts and larger, and council members asked staff to consider a specific capacity number in the ordinance language.

Staff also walked council through the code items the proposed overlay would require from developers: a project narrative and preliminary site plan, neighborhood meeting, hazardous materials plans and monitoring, noise studies, security and surveillance plans, commissioning and decommissioning plans, and administrative site plan review with the requirement that substantial deviations from what was approved at zoning would return to council for review.

No formal action was taken. Staff said it would incorporate council feedback, provide clearer numeric criteria (setback/decibel thresholds and a potential megawatt cutoff), and return the revised draft to Planning & Zoning and council. The panel said it would provide contact information for outside experts to help council members with technical questions before the next session.

What happens next: staff will update the draft ordinance to reflect the council’s direction and to clarify technical definitions and thresholds, return it to Planning & Zoning for recommendation, and then bring it back to council for a final decision on the proposed overlay zone.