Battery energy storage systems must now be located at least 1,000 feet from residences in Mesa.
The Mesa City Council approved the regulation in a 6-1 vote on Jan. 12.
Battery energy storage systems capture and store electrical energy in rechargeable batteries for later use.
They help keep the electric grid reliable, especially when paired with solar and wind energy, but fires within battery energy storage systems can be extremely dangerous and difficult to control.
The new regulation has been heavily debated, with supporters arguing it is necessary to protect residential areas where residents may not be able to evacuate quickly, while opponents say it could hinder economic growth and development and that a shorter setback could provide comparable safety.
Jenn Duff, council member for District 4, voted against the regulation, saying the 1,000-foot setback is excessive.
She suggested a shorter distance like between 100 and 400 feet, to better align with existing regulations for churches, schools and businesses.
“I’ll be voting no on it,” Duff said at the council meeting. “I think the 1,000 feet is excessive.”
Duff said she believes it would be best to revisit the regulation in the future so the council can review data and determine a shorter distance that still maintains safety.
“I understand there appears to be support at City Council to pass it. Knowing it will likely be approved, I’d like to consider bringing it back at another time when we have more time to look at studies and other effects, and to consider shortening that distance,” she said.
Councilmember Richard Adams of District 1 acknowledged Duff’s concerns, but said he believed the ordinance should move forward as currently proposed.
“I’m sympathetic towards Councilmember Duff’s concerns. I’m also aware that a lot of the data out there is a moving target, and it would be nice if there were some solid numbers that I could feel comfortable with,” Adams said. “The parties involved here have come to an agreement, and they’ve come to that agreement to my knowledge not under duress. So I think for their benefit this should move forward as it’s presented.”
Adams also suggested reviewing battery energy storage systems and setback distances over time, noting that more data will become available as the technology evolves.
“We should also continue to look at the issues surrounding battery energy storage systems, the distances involved, with the understanding that there is a lot of data out there that should be considered as technology advances,” he said.
City Manager Scott Butler said he would not oppose bringing the issue back to the council for re-evaluation, but that he supports moving forward with the current regulation for sites that need clear rules in place now.
“I feel good about the fact that we’ve found a path forward for the sites that are under discussion currently,” Butler said.
Vice Mayor Scott Somers said he supported the new regulation and felt that it was the best decision for Mesa.
“1,000 feet isn’t for every community. Every community has different tolerances. It’s what’s right for Mesa now,” he said.
Somers added that the setback is especially important for residents who may not be able to evacuate quickly.
“Having that 1,000 feet from someone’s home where they can’t always evacuate quickly is the right measure to do,” he said.
David Winstanley, a resident of District 6 and retired director of engineering at Honeywell Aerospace, said he has concerns about battery energy storage systems.
Drawing on his experience investigating battery fires on airplanes, he said, “No testing was ever discussed by those quoting expert agencies who define such municipal and other building codes. We learned in our investigations that theory and prior experience is not adequate for battery fires because fault progression and unintended consequences always occur.”
While new fire safety technologies are intriguing, they are not required by code, so the 1,000-foot setback remains the safest option, a factor opponents of the regulation are overlooking, Winstanley said.
“Yes, there are new technologies for minimizing battery fire hazard, and as an engineer, I am very intrigued, but these are not specified in your current city code. Therefore, that’s not a relevant discussion at this point,” he said.
Those who need the ordinance immediately can work within its current rules, but he encouraged the council to plan for future revisions as technology and testing advance, Winstanley said.
“It is my understanding that those who have the immediate need of this ordinance can live with it as written. Therefore, I urge you to vote yes on this ordinance keeping the 1,000 feet and come back to it and revise it to minimize development impact when the technology and especially the testing is codified and understood.”
Kyle Whittier of NextEra Energy Resources said they believe the current ordinance is overly restrictive and could make it harder for utilities to deliver energy.
“Provisions like the zoning-district restriction and the 1,000-foot step back from residential zoning not only add cost to the customer but harm the ability of the electric utilities to provide the needed energy to power homes, businesses, schools and hospitals,” Whittier said.
Autumn Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, warned that Mesa’s rule could influence other cities across the state.
“This is just for Mesa, and I understand that, but it will be copied by other jurisdictions, and that’s really the problem,” she said. “That being copied throughout the state will make electricity prices more expensive and it will make our grid less reliable. Mesa does not need to chart an entirely new path when standards-based paths already exist.”
The ordinance passed, but city officials said they plan to revisit the rules in the future to review new data and technology. City Manager Butler said the timing of that review will be coordinated with the council.
“We can certainly work with council to determine what would be the appropriate time to bring this back,” he said.
To voice your opinion on this story, connect with us at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here