Mesa Council debates battery storage regs

Mesa is looking at regulations for new battery storage sites and it’s not sitting well with industry lobbyists.

City Council last week introduced code amendments that include a 1,000-foot separation between a battery energy storage system, or BESS, and residential districts. The item is on Monday’s agenda for final action. Council did not support the other option, a 400-foot separation.

“It would be the largest passed ordinance for BESS setback in the state if you move forward with even the 400 let alone the 1,000, which would be an extreme outlier,” said Autumn Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association at the Dec. 1 council meeting.

“We recommend you move forward with something more aligned to national standards. According to the American Planning Association, 50- to 150-foot setback is the national average.”

Johnson added that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommended a 100-foot separation.

“We believe that the city’s proposal of 1,000 feet is arbitrary and not supported by any national standards and will impede energy development within the city,” she said, adding the requirement “will impact grid reliability and affordability for everyone, including the residents of Mesa.”

Planning staff originally proposed a 400-foot separation but after hearing from stakeholders, changed it to 1,000 when it hit the Planning and Zoning Board. The board on a 3-1 vote changed it back to 400 feet Oct. 22, with Chairman Benjamin Ayers calling the 1,000 feet “heavy handed.”

The proposed 400-foot separation from churches, parks, schools and other sensitive uses remained untouched.

Cepand Alizadeh, representing Arizona Technology Council, praised Mesa’s track record for embracing renewable energy technologies.

“Mesa needs the energy and the jobs that come with it as utilities must double or even triple the energy that they are going to need over the next 10 years,” he said, adding that even the city’s own fire marshal has detailed how safety protocols have evolved for battery energy storage systems.

“Let us move forward with a change that is more reasonable, what the NFPA 855 recommends, and that’s a standard that’s been developed with help of engineers, architects, insurance professionals and others,” he continued.

“By doing so, we’ll ensure that Mesa remains a hub for renewable energy innovation and has the energies it needs for decades to come.”

Matt Quinn, a fire protection consultant with Fire and Risk Alliance, said that as a career firefighter he teaches that 100 feet is the clearance requirement.

“I train fire departments throughout the country and internationally and the 1,000 feet there’s no justification for a clearance of that size,” Quinn said.

The amendments would also allow BESS in general industrial and heavy industrial districts with the approval of a planned area development overlay, similar to regulations for data centers.

The proposed changes also include development standards, create land definitions for BESS and established criteria for principal use – greater than 5,000 kilowatts – and accessory use, less than 5,000 kilowatts.

Accessory uses would be permitted in agricultural, residential, commercial, employment and downtown districts and would not have to comply with the standards in the proposed ordinance.

Resident Mary Maybeno was the sole resident to speak out against allowing these facilities near homes.

“They have unique fire hazards. They say these newer lithium batteries are lower risk but if they do catch fire, they are extremely difficult to put out – so difficult, in fact, generally they let it burn itself out,” she said.

Maybeno questioned the air pollutants emitted from these facilities and asked what the blast radius is if an explosion were to occur, adding, “I don’t think anybody knows.”

Although the city is proposing that these facilities perform an initial sound study, Eastmark residents are already complaining about the constant hum of data centers, Maybeno said.

“I don’t know how environmentally friendly all this is in the long run because the batteries that have to be disposed of are still ignitable and classified as hazardous waste,” she added.

“Would any one of you want to live 400 feet or even 1,000 feet away from a rather ugly development even if a fence is built around it?”

Planning Director Mary Kopaskie-Brown addressed the issue of noise and battery disposal, stating they would be part of a required decommissioning plan.

“Anytime a BESS facility is put in place, they will have to develop a decommissioning plan and they will have to submit that as part of their requirements to the fire marshal,” she said.

Kopaskie-Brown added the City of Surprise has proposed a 1,500-foot setback from residential property.

“I don’t know if they’ve adopted that yet,” she said. “But I just wanted to say that in Arizona, there are other people looking beyond just that 100 feet. The challenge that we have is there is no standard there. …It really is kind of all over the place.”

City Fire Marshal Shawn Alexander said that Mesa firefighters are trained to manage incidents at these facilities.

“We are used to dealing with thermal runaway events,” he said. “Granted, we have not had a utility scale project of this size to this point, but we have had dozens and dozens of battery-involved fires in the last several years. We’ve seen this increasing as batteries become more popular.”

According to Alexander, there is a potential for these batteries to go into thermal runaway or uncontrollable, self-heating that results in a fire or explosion but that the “newer technology batteries are less likely” to do so.

He noted that several facilities in the Valley can take a damaged cell and grind it into its component parts so that there is no longer a hazard.

Councilman Rich Adams asked about requiring companies to put up a decommissioning bond because “the theory being maybe the company that establishes the BESS facility is long out of business 15 years from now and it’s time to decommission,” he said.

“So, are we going to require a decommissioning bond or is that a conversation for a later time?”

City Attorney Jim Smith responded that staff has already started to look into it and ultimately, it’s a conversation for a later time.

Councilwoman Dorean Taylor asked why sensitive uses such as schools and churches were at 400 feet separation when 1,000 feet was proposed for residences.

“A church would have people in it, a park would have people in it,” Taylor said. “Can you help me understand that one a little bit?”

Kopaskie-Brown explained that people are “in their home day after day.

“It’s something that they’re going to be exposed to on a consistent basis. If you’re in a church, you’re at a park, you’re at a school, it’s a more intermittent type of use. It’s that quality of life for people as they’re using their backyard on a day-to-today basis.”

Vice Mayor Scott Somers, a former Phoenix firefighter, said he was not as bothered with the 400-foot separation for sensitive uses, which are typically daytime use.

“Folks are awake,” Somers said. “They’re alert. I’ve had the opportunity, unfortunately, to have to do evacuations of various buildings, to evacuate a church, to evacuate a school. “

Councilwoman Alicia Goforth asked if there were any existing neighborhoods where a BESS facility could be built if Council approved the 400-foot separation.

Kopaskie-Brown said the city’s only BESS facility was the Signal Butte energy storage project under construction at least 400 feet away from a residential project.

Two other BESS projects were proposed, one on a lot close to a church and another at a location where a multifamily residential zoning district was within 400 feet, she added.

Mayor Mark Freeman, a retired Mesa fire captain paramedic, did not see a need to change the setback for sensitive uses.

“I’m supportive of just how the ordinance is written right now, and if we need to make some changes in the future, we can,” he said.

Freeman wanted to move both the 400-foot and the 1,000-foot setbacks to Monday for discussion as two council members were not at last week’s meeting.

“We don’t know where a BESS system may go in each of our districts,” Freeman said.

Somers disagreed, saying, “We can establish through any zoning whatever distance we feel is necessary for the safety and the health of my community and all three of these are in my community. So, I’m standing up for them.

“Who in this room has fought a fire on the scale of a BESS system with that many batteries? I’ve seen these things. I’ve fought these fires. I know the toxins that they put through. …I could pull up any number of cities and states and counties that have it from 100 feet to a mile in separation.”

Somers acknowledged the need for these facilities but he didn’t want them up against anyone’s fence.

“I will support 400 feet away from the sensitive uses because I think we can manage that,” he said. “But I believe that 1,000 feet from houses is the right thing to do. And if we find out that there’s been more studies, more tests, safer batteries, we can always bring that back down.

“But once we say it’s 400 feet, we’ve just given them the right to do 400 feet. Period. Can’t change it. Can’t go back.”

Freeman and Goforth voted to introduce the 400-foot separation but couldn’t get the support from Adams, Somers and Taylor.

Adams, Taylor, Somers and Goforth then voted to advance the 1,000-foot separation from residences, which Freeman opposed.

Duff, who attended the council study session Dec. 4, signaled her intent to vote against the 1,000-foot separation.

She said she researched the distance for BESS from residential uses with peer municipalities and discovered that in Los Angeles it was 100-300 feet; San Francisco, 200-500; Phoenix, 200-300 feet and New York City, 200-500 feet.

The proposed 1,000 feet distance Mesa was considering would make the city less competitive, Duff said.

“It is affecting our energy costs and our economic development,” she said.

Duff added that she understands being careful to protect residential “but 1,000 feet is equivalent to three football fields” and was “excessive.”

“That is wasted land,” Duff continued. “It’s going to just sit there. It has no contributing factor to our city or to our energy demands.”