The Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission voted Thursday to recommend denial of two zoning requests that would have allowed the Valley Farms Energy Center, a 160-acre solar energy and battery storage facility, to move forward east of Coolidge.
The proposed project by NextEra Energy Resources would have installed a 10-megawatt solar generation facility with battery energy storage at the northwest corner of East Bartlett Road and North Clemens Road. The site plan showed solar arrays on the east side of the property, with transmission lines and battery storage on the west side. The project included a 100-foot setback around the entire property perimeter, exceeding the minimum required by 50 feet.
The proposal included photovoltaic modules with solar trackers, a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), electrical collection systems, a switchyard to connect with the existing Abel to Randolph 230 kV transmission line, and related infrastructure including fencing, access driveways, and drainage facilities.
Previous Rejection and Approval
This marks the second time the project has faced opposition from the Planning Commission. Two years ago, the Commission recommended against a comprehensive plan amendment for the site, but the Board of Supervisors ultimately approved it unanimously, changing the land designation to “Green Energy Production.”
The current application sought to rezone the property from General Rural to Industrial (I-3) with a Planned Area Development overlay to permit solar generation while restricting other industrial uses.
Battery Storage Concerns Dominate Discussion
Fire risk associated with the battery storage system emerged as a central concern during the meeting. Josh Adams, an engineering manager for NextEra, testified about battery safety, explaining that according to the American Clean Power association, “the rate of failure for battery energy storage systems or battery cells is one in 10 to 40 million cells.”
When questioned about the company’s own experience, Adams acknowledged NextEra had experienced one incident, which was “isolated and contained to the container in which it happened.”
The safety approach described by Adams focused on containment rather than suppression. He explained that firefighters are specifically instructed not to attempt to extinguish battery fires because of the danger involved. “If you put the fire out and the thermal runaway continues, then you have [hydrogen] gas buildup, and that’s where it actually becomes a danger,” Adams explained. The safest approach is to allow the fire to burn itself out while maintaining a safe perimeter.
Recent major battery storage incidents have raised concerns about safety. The Gateway Energy Storage fire in California (May 2024) burned for five days, centered in one of seven buildings at the 250-megawatt site. The Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility incident (January 2025) resulted in researchers finding increased heavy metals in nearby soils, with testing showing higher concentrations of nickel, manganese, and cobalt. In September 2024, a fire at the Escondido SDG&E facility caused evacuations and school closures that affected thousands of people.
According to research, lithium-ion battery fires release toxic substances including hydrogen fluoride (a highly toxic gas that can cause severe respiratory and skin damage), carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and particulate matter containing heavy metals like lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese, which can pose serious health and environmental risks.
Vice-Chairman Robert Klob suggested relocating the battery storage to the center of the property rather than its proposed location near property lines. “By putting it that close… we have the road directly to the west, we have the road on the north,” Klob said, questioning the placement. Project representatives indicated they would consider the relocation during the site planning process.
NextEra’s Industry Leadership
Ralph Pew, representing the applicant, emphasized NextEra Energy Resources’ extensive experience in the renewable energy industry. “NextEra has been in business in the renewable energy side for at least 25 years,” Pew noted. “They have projects all across the country in 41 states and Canada.”
NextEra is the world’s largest generator of renewable energy from the wind and the sun. In Arizona alone, the company operates three battery storage sites, five utility-scale solar projects, and 32 distributed energy projects. Pew stated that “in 2023 NextEra paid three point two million dollars in property taxes for the sites” across Arizona.
During the meeting, Josh Adams noted that NextEra adheres to evolving safety standards for battery storage systems. Adams explained that the company follows multiple layers of industry codes, including NFPA 855 (the standard for installation of stationary energy storage systems), UL 9540 (safety testing standard for battery energy storage systems), and UL 1973 for battery management systems. Adams also referenced industry data showing that “since 2018 there has been a 97% decrease in the frequency of events” related to battery storage failures, attributing this improvement to advances in technology and enhanced codes and standards. He mentioned that he personally sits on task groups for the NFPA 855 standard, helping to develop safer practices for the industry.
Economic Impact Disputed
Local residents questioned the economic benefits of the project. Deborah Bagnall claimed “this power goes to California, it goes to other states, it’s not going to benefit our area.”
Infrastructure and Development
Pew emphasized the importance of the project for regional energy infrastructure, stating that reliability is “critical to development” and necessary to attract businesses. He argued the project would provide “grid stability, affordability, and availability,” making the area more attractive for commercial and industrial development.
North-South Corridor Conflict
A significant point of contention involved the planned North-South corridor highway, which could potentially run through the property. Phil Garthright, Senior Planner for the City of Coolidge, stated that he had checked the Pinal GIS website just the day before the meeting and “the preferred alignment is still running directly through the property.”
Ashley Johnson, project manager for NextEra, countered that they had been “in active communications with ADOT” who had “taken our project location into consideration and have advised us to move forward as we normally would.”
Coolidge Representatives Voice Opposition
Representatives from the City of Coolidge spoke against the project. Tom Bagnall, a Coolidge City Council member, told the commission, “The city has been very loud, and the neighboring folks in the county have also said we don’t want any more solar.”
Bagnall added, “All the folks that are here today telling us that we need this don’t live here… The folks that are here against this, they live here and they live in the Coolidge area. That’s what counts.”
Phil Garthright noted that the proposal “does not conform to our voter-approved General Plan of November 2024” and conflicts with Coolidge’s land use designations for the area, which call for business, commerce, and neighborhood uses.
Property Rights and Family Decision
Property owner Greg Wuertz defended his family’s right to sell the land for solar development. “This is our retirement deal,” Wuertz told the commission, explaining that none of his four children or six grandchildren wanted to continue farming.
“We don’t particularly like the way farming is gone lately. It’s an insurance-based deal, and you don’t really get to farm,” Wuertz said. “This is San Carlos property that’s for sale, and it don’t have much water, so you can’t really farm it.”
Kirk McCarville, who was hired by the Wuertz family to market their property as a broker, noted that Wuertz “has enough water for 300 [acres]. He’s only farming about 700 acres of this property,” adding that “there’s no more water coming from the Colorado River.”
Looking Ahead
The Commission’s recommendation for denial now moves to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, who will make the final decision. According to discussion at the meeting, this typically takes four to six weeks. Given that the Board previously overruled the Commission’s recommendation against the comprehensive plan amendment, the project could still be approved despite Thursday’s vote.
As Vice-Chairman Klob noted at the meeting’s conclusion, “We are a recommending body. This project will now track to the Board of Supervisors for their review.”
