Key Points
- Commission Decision: On September 18, 2025, the Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-3 to recommend denial of both a rezoning request and a special development plan needed for the 2,149-acre Cactus Flower Solar Project south of Eloy.
- Project Size: The proposal called for a large solar farm capable of producing 270 megawatts of electricity, paired with a battery storage system of the same size.
- Developer: The project was brought forward by Cactus Flower Solar, LLC, a subsidiary of Cypress Creek Renewables, one of the nation’s largest solar and battery developers.
- Key Concerns: Commissioners and residents raised issues about fire safety, weed control, flood risks, possible heat effects on crops, and whether the project would actually bring much tax money to local communities.
- Economic Impact: Developers said the project could bring $50 million in tax revenue over its lifetime and 400 temporary construction jobs, but commissioners questioned whether most of the money would stay local.
- What’s Next: The proposal now heads to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, which will decide whether the project moves forward.
Planning and Zoning Commission denies applications for 2,149-acre solar facility south of Eloy
The Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-3 to recommend denial of both a rezoning request and planned area development overlay for the proposed Cactus Flower Solar Project during their September 18, 2025 meeting. The project would span south of Eloy, seeking to build a 270-megawatt solar generation facility with a 270-megawatt battery energy storage system.
Project Details and Location
The project proposed by Cactus Flower Solar, LLC, a subsidiary of Cypress Creek Renewables, would be located approximately eight miles south of Eloy. The facility would include photovoltaic solar arrays with bifacial panels on single-axis trackers, a battery energy storage system, an operations and maintenance building, and internal gravel access roads.
The development would connect to the regional grid via an approximately 13-mile transmission line interconnecting with APS’s Tat Momoli-Saguaro 230 kV line. According to the applicant’s presentation, the project “abuts an already approved solar development, Eloy Solar” to the east. The nearby Sonak Solar project was also previously approved at the zoning level but has not yet submitted site plans for development.
Attorney Peter Furlow, representing the applicant, explained that the project would generate power for APS, which serves multiple Pinal County communities. According to a recent Pinal Post report on the county’s energy crisis, APS projects a 40% increase in demand over the next six years, stating it “took nearly 140 years to reach today’s demand levels” but expects “this to increase by 40% in the next six years.”
About Cypress Creek Renewables
Cactus Flower Solar, LLC is owned by Cypress Creek Renewables, a solar and storage company that develops, finances, owns, and operates renewable energy assets across the United States. The company has developed 12 gigawatts of solar and storage projects nationwide and currently owns 2.4 gigawatts spanning 13 states, representing one of the largest operating solar and storage portfolios in the U.S.
Agricultural Challenges Drive Alternative Land Use
The applicant cited water shortage issues as a primary driver for the solar development. Due to inadequate groundwater and reduced Central Arizona Project water allocations, local farmers are struggling to maintain agricultural operations. The land is currently used for agriculture by multiple landowners including Toone Family Ltd Partnership #3, Stambaugh Farms LLC, Curtis 1035 LLC, and Gordita L.P.
Fire Safety Concerns and Emergency Response
Fire safety emerged as a major discussion point, particularly regarding the battery energy storage system. The applicant met with Eloy Fire Department on September 9, 2025, to discuss emergency response protocols. Eloy Fire would provide service with approximately a 12-minute response time to the project site.
Commissioner Scott referenced past solar-related fires, asking about response procedures. “So the Storey Solar one, that’s because the solar provider there chooses to mow the weeds down to six or eight inches, and probably caught some reflection off something and started a fire,” Scott explained, inquiring about vegetation management plans.
Scott cited anecdotal examples of fires at other facilities. He noted that Storey Solar and another facility had “inverter fires,” while McMickin “out in City of Surprise had a battery fire.” Scott emphasized that fire departments need comprehensive emergency response plans covering both types of incidents – inverter fires from solar equipment and battery storage system fires.
Weed Management and Environmental Concerns
Vegetation management generated extensive discussion, with commissioners expressing concerns about both fire prevention and soil sterilization. The project includes a noxious weed management plan as required by stipulations, but questions arose about the methods to be used.
The applicant indicated they would use glyphosate-based herbicides for weed control, stating these break down naturally and don’t sterilize soil. However, Commissioner Scott pressed for clarification on whether contact herbicides or soil sterilization methods would be employed, citing concerns about long-term agricultural viability.
Attorney Peter Furlow explained that the company’s approach prioritizes soil preservation since Cypress Creek operates projects nationwide on agricultural leases. “Anything we do on the property, it’s able to be restored to agricultural use afterwards,” Furlow said. He noted they would use herbicides “purposely with the agricultural use in mind so that we are not sterilizing or ruining the soil in any manner.”
Residential Properties and Zoning Compliance
Two existing single-family homes are located on project parcels, along with one accessory structure. Under Industrial I-3 zoning, these residences would require special use permits to remain. The applicant noted that these homes would not be occupied during construction or operation, with final decisions dependent on lease agreements with current landowners.
The closest residential structure outside the project area is approximately 5,500 feet away, far exceeding the typical 100-foot separation requirement for battery storage systems.
Economic Impact and Tax Revenue
Commissioner Tom Scott, who serves on both Pinal County and Coolidge planning and zoning boards, noted the broader context: “There’s currently 40,000 acres of solar already approved in this county. So to put that into English, you know, how big is 40,000 acres? 40,000 acres is 62 square miles.”
The economic benefits discussion revealed complex taxation issues. According to the applicant’s estimates, the project would generate approximately $50 million in lifetime tax revenue. However, Commissioner Scott challenged these figures based on his research of existing solar projects.
“The millions and millions of dollars that are promised, they just don’t show up,” Scott stated. “The money’s being paid, but the problem is, the money gets paid to the state and then the state reallocates where that money goes.”
Scott explained that the money gets paid to the state and then redistributed rather than staying with local communities, with some portion going toward state education funding requirements. He noted that existing solar projects in Coolidge show minimal direct local benefit despite initial projections.
Regarding employment, the project would create an estimated 400 construction jobs over 12-18 months, with 4-6 permanent positions for operations and maintenance. However, Scott expressed skepticism based on local experience: “Whoever the contractor is or contractors, they for the most part bring their own folks out here. They do get some day labor out of the local people.”
Commissioner Gary Pranzo questioned the scale of land conversion needed to meet regional energy demands. Using an estimated ratio of approximately 5 acres per megawatt, he asked how much of the county would ultimately be dedicated to solar development, but received no definitive answer.
Environmental and Agricultural Impacts
Commissioner Scott disputed claims about limited environmental impact, describing temperature increases he said he has observed in areas with existing solar installations. Scott made vague references to academic research, mentioning “University of Arizona or Arizona State did a larger study” about solar heat effects and “a climatologist out of ASU that just got his PhD that says to the contrary,” though he provided no specific study names or details that could be independently verified. “The evening highs or the early morning highs are higher than normal, plants tend to be affected in a negative way,” Scott observed, referencing general agricultural knowledge about how elevated nighttime temperatures can impact crop yields. Later in the public comment section, resident Brenda Hiscox identified Dr. Joshua White as the ASU climatologist, though no specific research papers were cited by name.
Tom Bagnall, a Coolidge city councilmember speaking as a resident surrounded by solar installations, testified about environmental impacts he has observed: “I have noticed the temperature change, and when we have our storms, our storms seem to kind of go around us most of the time. So there’s heat there, and it’s creating a problem.” Bagnall described how his family’s 200 pecan trees, which had thrived for years, began failing as solar projects were built nearby. “The temperature was raising so much that they weren’t dormant and then the yields went down,” he explained, adding that his wife eventually abandoned the pecan operation due to “the drought and the increased heat and everything else.” No scientific studies were referenced to support the claimed environmental effects.
The project proponents acknowledged the facility would use minimal water compared to the significantly higher water usage of agricultural or residential development.
Public Participation and Opposition
Despite extensive notification efforts, the January 2025 neighborhood meeting attracted only two attendees, both of whom supported the project. The Eloy Chamber of Commerce provided a letter of support, though no official communication was received from the City of Eloy itself.
Public comment during the hearing included passionate opposition from Brenda Hiscox, who described experiencing “solar fatigue” after five years of attending similar hearings. She referenced testimony from firefighter Perry Moser regarding battery fire risks and climatologist Joshua White’s research on heat island effects. Hiscox argued that utility-scale solar represents the “worst use of land” and advocated for smaller-scale residential and industrial solar, such as is used at Walmart, instead. She also raised concerns about battery storage safety, citing incidents like Moss Landing in California where fires burned for days and resulted in a class action lawsuit over lithium exposure in residents’ blood.
Flood Zone Concerns
The project site includes portions in FEMA Flood Zone A (covering 668 acres with a 1% annual chance of flooding) and Zone X (covering 1,480 acres with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding). Commissioner Scott warned developers about flood risks based on his 38-year county residence: “I’ve seen that property wiped out. I’ve seen that Santa Cruz wash get way out of its banks, you know, a mile wide in some places.”
The applicant acknowledged flood zone requirements would necessitate appropriate engineering and drainage planning during site plan review.
Commission Decision
Following extensive discussion, Commissioner Scott moved to deny both the rezoning request (PZ-013-25) and the planned area development overlay (PZ-PD-009-25). The motions to deny passed by identical 6-3 votes, with Commissioners Scott, Pranzo, Mooney, Hartman, Klob, and Chairman Mennenga voting for denial, while Commissioners Davila, Schnepf, and Lizarraga voted against denial.
What’s Next
The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation of denial concludes their role in the process. The Board of Supervisors previously approved a major comprehensive plan amendment for the site in October 2024, changing the land use designation to Green Energy Production.
During the meeting, Chairman Mennenga noted that additional development is planned for the area, mentioning a proposed data center and employment project south of Eloy that would come before the commission at a future hearing. This indicates the region may see increased development pressure in coming years, potentially making the solar versus other land use debate more complex.
The case represents the latest in a series of large-scale solar proposals in Pinal County, raising ongoing questions about balancing renewable energy development with agricultural preservation and community concerns.
