simplifying residential solar permitting
TRANSCRIPT
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTING: Cutting a Local Cost Culprit 1
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTINGCutting a Local Cost Culprit
WRITTEN BY MONIKA DARWISH
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTING: Cutting a Local Cost Culprit 2
The local permitting process accounts for a significant
portion of the cost of going solar today. Long waits, high
fees, excessive inspections, avoidable paperwork and non-
standard practices across different jurisdictions can all add
unnecessary costs to what should be a simple, transparent
process. By streamlining these processes, local governments
in Los Angeles County can make it easier and more cost-
effective for residents to invest in solar power.
SOFT COSTS AND CURRENT PERMITTING LANDSCAPE
In the past decade, the solar industry has achieved significant
cost reductions that have expanded access to rooftop solar
photovoltaics (PV). The cost of hardware (the PV modules,
racking system, inverters, and other balance-of-system costs)
fell $2.60 per watt from 2008 to 2012.1
In 2013, the State of California added over 2,600 megawatts
(MW) of solar PV; 2,300 MW from wholesale solar PV, and
300 MW from self-generation PV. Solar PV programs, codified
by Senate Bill 1 in 2006 (SB 1, Murray, Chapter 132), which set
a target for 3,000 MW of self-generation solar, are driving
much of the self-generation installation in California.2 Since
the start of the California Solar Initiative (see sidebar at right)
in 2007, the overall cost of a residential PV installation has
fallen from an average of $10.97 per watt CEC-AC to $5.49
per watt CEC-AC. These cost reductions have made it possible
for more Californians to lower their energy bills through clean,
renewable, solar energy. In fact, solar has become so much
more affordable that, in California today, low- and middle-
income consumers constitute over 70 percent of Californians
taking advantage of residential rooftop solar.3
However, to truly bring solar energy to scale and achieve the
goals of SB1, we need to continue to lower costs and remove
barriers to market participation. Given the dramatic drop in
balance of system costs, non-hardware “soft costs” (customer
marketing and acquisition, labor, overhead, and permitting)
represent an area where public policy can encourage continued
cost reductions and increased consumer solar adoption.
Recent analysis shows that in some cases soft costs account
for up to 64 percent of the total system price.4 The National
Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Tracking the Sun report found
that soft costs represent the most significant opportunity for
continued price reduction. Within the soft costs category,
Vote Solar and the Sierra Club have identified rooftop-solar
permitting as the cost culprit that can most effectively be
reduced through direct government intervention.
Unfortunately, the solar-permitting landscape today is
inefficient, as permitting requirements and costs vary
significantly across municipalities, referred to henceforth as
Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs). Over 18,000 AHJs
across the U.S. have established unique solar-permitting
requirements. These nonstandardized processes can add up
to 3.5 weeks of delay to residential solar-project construction
timelines. In fact, a 2012 survey of residential installers
spanning 12 states and representing 90 percent of the
residential solar market found that more than 1 in 3 installers
avoid selling in an average of 3.5 jurisdictions because of
associated permitting difficulties.5
Cutting red tape through standardized permitting, zoning,
metering, and interconnection processes can save an estimated
$0.24 per watt (or between $1,000 to $2,000) off the total cost
of a residential solar energy system, while boosting installer
competition by eliminating inconsistencies and creating a more
time-efficient process. The problem is significant enough that
streamlining permitting processes could boost solar market
growth by over 13 percent, generate 2,000 new jobs, and result
in $5.1 billion of net economic gain in California by 2020.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY: PERMITTING REPORT CARD
Los Angeles has tremendous rooftop solar potential. It is
estimated that over 5,536 MW worth of electricity from
Rooftop Solar Takes Off in CaliforniaCalifornia is the largest rooftop solar market in the
nation. Solar panels are installed on over 200,000
homes, businesses, and schools. The state’s massive
rooftop solar portfolio is to the result of ambitious
policy goals.
In 2010, Governor Jerry Brown launched a Clean
Energy Jobs Plan to realize the tremendous economic
benefits that accompany clean energy development.
A major portion of this plan, which is the nation’s most
aggressive, is dedicated to achieving 12,000 MW of
distributed generation, primarily through rooftop solar,
by 2020.
The rooftop solar boom in California has brought
tremendous social benefits to the broader public.
Since 2007, rooftop solar has helped create over
43,000 jobs in the solar industry, $10 billion dollars
in private investment, and the construction of 2,000
MW of clean energy (enough to power 19,877 homes,
businesses, non-profits, and government agencies
statewide) (Wise, 2013), the equivalent of four large
natural gas peaker plants. (CPUC Report)
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTING: Cutting a Local Cost Culprit 3
464,325 rooftop solar sites, of which 70 percent are single-
family homes, could be installed. Now is the time to streamline
the solar-permitting landscape in the county to help AHJs
prepare for what will be a massive solar influx in the near term.
To aid communities in designing effective and efficient solar-
permitting processes, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council,
Inc. (IREC) and Vote Solar have identified nine Residential
Solar Permitting Best Practices. In this report, Vote Solar and
the Sierra Club grade Los Angeles County on six of the best
practices, based on available data from Project Permit. The
Project Permit website (www.projectpermit.org) incorporates
data on current permitting practices from Clean Power
Finance’s (CPF) National Solar Permitting Database (www.
solarpermit.org), and scores municipalities on the nine solar
permitting best practices. Project Permit was developed in
2012 by Vote Solar and funded by the Department of Energy’s
SunShot grant program.
All AHJs require a building permit for residential solar PV
installations. However, some also require separate electrical
and fire permits, each of which can entail separate plan
check review and inspection processes. Presently, the Project
Permit scoring system focuses solely on the building permit
process and does not penalize cities for requiring separate fire
or electrical permits. These separate departmental permits
create redundancies that can result in higher fees and wait
times, which increase a homeowner’s overall cost to install
rooftop solar. We strongly discourage AHJs from requiring
multiple permits, and future reports may penalize cities for
this redundancy.
DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
When collecting data for the Project Permit database in the
cities of Los Angeles County, Sierra Club interns first did an
initial search of the building department websites to obtain
information about permit fees, application requirements, and
process. After this stage, the Sierra Club called each building
department to confirm relevant data. Officials were asked the
following questions regarding residential rooftop solar PV
installations:
• Is information on permit fees, application requirements,
and process posted on the city’s website?
• Can building permit proposals be submitted online?
• What is the turnaround time for each application?
• Is the permitting fee schedule a flat rate or based on the
installation? What is the rate? Can building permits exceed
$400?
• Is there a narrow inspection-appointment window (limited
to a maximum of two hours)?
• How many inspections are required? Are reviews limited to
validating the safe and efficient operation of a proposed
PV system?
Through our data collection process, two special cases arose
that warrant clarification. First, Los Angeles County processes
its permits out of several regional offices, which preside over
the region’s unincorporated areas. These offices were graded
separately and the data is presented in Table 2. The information
gathered presents practical inconsistencies between these
regional branches, despite the presence of countywide
guidelines. The expected turnaround times and inspection
protocol were the most frequent variants between these
offices, highlighting the need for a more-efficient standardized
County permitting process.
Second, although the City of Los Angeles receives a “Good”
grade, we recognize that the city is rapidly overhauling its
permitting system under Mayor Garcetti’s “Sunny Skies”
initiative. The city’s new permitting system, which we expect
to be implemented in the coming months, will dramatically
improve the speed and efficiency of solar installations in Los
Angeles. Though these changes are not included in this version
of the report, we applaud the city’s efforts. We believe the city’s
new process could serve as a national model for permitting.
PERMITTING BEST PRACTICES
The best practices can be grouped into two main categories:
the permit application process and the field inspection
process. Permitting best practices, described in more detail
below, include posting requirements online, enabling online
processing, offering a speedy turnaround time, assessing
reasonable permitting fees, and eliminating community-specific
license requirements. Field inspection best practices include
offering a narrow inspection appointment window and the
elimination of excessive inspections.
The following best practices descriptions are transcribed from
the IREC best practices report.
1. Requirements Posted Online
AHJs should have a website that offers a one-stop location
for residents, businesses, and installers to obtain all
necessary information on obtaining a solar permit in that
municipality or region. In particular, the website should
include a clear description of the requirements and process
for getting a solar permit, including any necessary forms,
and information on fees, approval time, and inspections. The
website could also contain checklists for the application and
inspection requirements for solar.
Making these resources easily accessible to solar installers
will reduce the number of questions that municipal staff have
to answer and will improve the efficiency of the permitting
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTING: Cutting a Local Cost Culprit 4
process for all involved. In addition, it can help to increase
the quality of applications submitted, which in turn shortens
review time. It also decreases the frustrating back-and-forth
that installers and municipal staff may otherwise experience.
Providing these resources can be particularly helpful to
homeowners and to installers who are new to a specific
municipality. If an AHJ has unique or unusual requirements, or
has recently modified its process or requirements, the website
is a good way to inform stakeholders about these differences.
2. Online Processing
Submittal, review, and approval of solar permits should be
possible via email or a website, with no trips to the municipal
office required for most residential permits. Implementation
of this best practice could range from a simple email-based
solution to a fully online permitting system.
An online permitting system offers numerous streamlining
benefits for both installers and municipalities, which vary
depending on the sophistication of the system. Generally
speaking, when an application and supporting materials are
submitted online, municipal staff can immediately access
them and do not need to enter the information manually,
which saves staff time. Likewise, installers save time and
money by not having to submit paper copies or make extra
trips to the AH permitting department. In a more fully
online system, once the application has entered the system,
multiple personnel may work on reviewing the materials at
the same time and track the review progress and comments
made by different departments. If there is an online web
portal that records the path of a permit application through
the review process, then installers can follow the status
of their applications. With some systems, applicants can
also pay their permit fees online and the AHJ can keep
track of the revenue information automatically. While the
more sophisticated online permitting systems can require
significant upfront investment by an AHJ, their benefits are
also significant—for both municipalities and solar installers,
as well as other types of permit applicants.
Enabling online permit processing could be part of the
implementation of an expedited permit process. Similarly,
online permit processing could facilitate faster turnaround
for permits.
3. Rapid Turnaround Time
If clearly defined review requirements are met, the majority
of small residential PV systems can be processed quickly,
ideally over-the-counter or electronically, within one day. Such
expedited treatment can be accomplished in several ways,
including through prequalification for certain systems, plans,
or installers. The Expedited Permit Process for PV Systems,
from the Solar America Board for Codes and Standards (Solar
ABCs), which provides a framework for expedited review
for typical residential PV systems, has proven especially
popular and effective. Regardless of the method chosen, we
recommend that the permitting requirements, including the
permit form itself, be made consistent regionally and, to the
extent possible, statewide.
Expediting the process can save time and money for both
installers and municipalities. Installers receive their permits
2Any leftover energy flows into the grid to help power your neighborhood
3
4
For all the extra power generated during the day, you get a bill credit
At night, your house gets power from the grid and the cost is offset with your bill credits. Just like a cell phone bill, credits that you don’t use roll over month to month
WHAT ARENET METERING/SOLAR CREDITS?
1During the day, your solar panels produce energy to help power your home, school, or business
$$$$-$$
DUE: $$
BILL
THANKS, NEIGHBOR!
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTING: Cutting a Local Cost Culprit 5
more quickly, and can move forward with installing the project
and soliciting additional projects sooner. Municipalities can
redirect valuable staff time to projects that require more-
intensive review. While these procedural improvements are
sometimes specific to solar, all permit applicants may benefit if
they are implemented broadly.
4. Fair Permitting Costs
Fees should fairly reflect the time needed for city staff to
review and issue a permit. They should remain relatively
consistent regardless of system size and are often not
proportional to the materials cost of a solar installation, in
contrast to other types of projects. A flat fee of $400 or less is
reasonable for a residential solar permit.
A common way for AHJs to cover the administrative expense
of providing permits is to assess fees for their issuance.
Therefore, it is critical that permit fees cover the time it takes to
review and issue permits so that AHJs have adequate staff and
resources to meet demand. At the same time, it is important
that AHJs make their permitting processes as efficient as
possible by adopting the other best practices, which in turn
should keep fees reasonable. As far as calculation of the
appropriate fee and fee cap, using a flat-fee method instead
of a value-based method to assess permit fees streamlines the
process and ensures that larger solar energy systems are not
arbitrarily penalized. The typical value-based method, which
relies on the cost of a PV system, often results in an inflated fee
that does not reflect the actual staff time required to review
the permit application. In the end, it is important to recognize
that the role of AHJs in permitting is valuable. Payment of a
reasonable permit fee that compensates the AHJ for its time
and labor may actually aid in the long-term sustainability of the
rooftop solar market.
5. Narrow Inspection Appointment Windows
Ideally, installers should be able to schedule an appointment for
an inspection at a precise time. When this is not possible, the
window for inspection appointments should be kept to within
two hours or less. We also recommend that inspectors notify
contractors as the inspector nears the site as an additional way
of reducing waiting time for both installers and inspectors.
Shorter windows for inspection appointments benefit both
installers and inspectors. It reduces the amount of costly
installer time spent waiting for inspectors to arrive. In addition,
it lessens the chance that an inspector will arrive and find the
installer unprepared for the inspection. If the inspector provides
a two-hour or shorter time window, and notifies the installer
close to the time of arrival, it can help to ensure that the
installer will be there and ready for the inspection. This avoids
wasting the inspector’s time as well. Taking advantage of the
ubiquity of cellphones and Internet access, jurisdictions have
developed a variety of new methods for scheduling inspections
and enabling shorter windows.
6. Eliminate Excessive Inspections
We recommend requiring only one inspection by the AHJ for
standard rooftop systems on existing homes or businesses.
Numerous AHJs have found that they can safely permit solar
systems without requiring more than one inspection, often by
rolling together electrical, structural, and fire safety inspection.
Eliminating reviews that do little to validate the safe and
efficient operation of a proposed PV system—for example, plan
checks with aesthetic criteria, or certain rough or in-process
inspections—removes unnecessary costs and expedites permit
issuance. For rough or in-process inspections in particular, the
installer’s work crew has to be put on hold while the inspection
is scheduled and completed. This creates scheduling and
staffing challenges for solar installers, who in certain cases
might otherwise be able to complete installation in one day. For
AHJs, requiring only one inspection can free up inspectors to
be more thorough on other job sites and possibly reduce the
need to rely on third-party inspectors in overflow periods.
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
In collecting the permitting data on AHJs throughout Los
Angeles County, we found that performance varied widely.
In fact, while cities can take several steps to improve their
individual processes, the biggest problem is the lack of
standardization. Nearly every city has adopted a unique
permit approval process. Thus, while we discuss several steps
that cities can take to improve their own processes, further
state-level action is clearly needed to standardize and simplify
residential solar permitting. In Table 1, we provide our findings
on each AHJ in the county.
Los Angeles County regional offices preside over
unincorporated regions in Los Angeles. Table 2 highlights
that even within these offices, which function from the
same permitting guidelines, discrepancies exist. La Puente
and South Whittier were both able to process permits over
the counter, while all other offices needed more than two
days for processing. The inspection appointment windows
and the number of required inspections also varied,
illustrating the need for county and statewide training to
prevent such inconsistencies.
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTING: Cutting a Local Cost Culprit 6
Jurisdiction Name Elim
inat
es
exce
ssiv
e
insp
ect
ions?
Pro
ject
P
erm
it S
core
Po
sts
req
uir
em
ents
online?
Enab
les
online
pro
cess
ing
?
Fast
turn
aro
und
tim
e? (
PA
RT
1)
Fast
turn
aro
und
tim
e? (
PA
RT
2)
Reaso
nab
le
perm
itti
ng
fees?
Off
ers
a n
arr
ow
insp
ect
ion
ap
po
intm
ent
win
dow
?
TABLE 1 (ALL CITIES) — LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
SIMPLIFYING RESIDENTIAL SOLAR PERMITTING: Cutting a Local Cost Culprit 7
TABLE 2 (LA CITY) — LOS ANGELES INCORPORATED AREAS
TABLE 1 (ALL CITIES) — LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES CONTINUED
Jurisdiction Name Elim
inat
es
exce
ssiv
e
insp
ect
ions?
Pro
ject
P
erm
it S
core
Po
sts
req
uir
em
ents
online?
Enab
les
online
pro
cess
ing
?
Fast
turn
aro
und
tim
e? (
PA
RT
1)
Fast
turn
aro
und
tim
e? (
PA
RT
2)
Reaso
nab
le
perm
itti
ng
fees?
Off
ers
a n
arr
ow
insp
ect
ion
ap
po
intm
ent
win
dow
?
Jurisdiction Name Elim
inat
es
exce
ssiv
e
insp
ect
ions?
Pro
ject
P
erm
it S
core
Po
sts
req
uir
em
ents
online?
Enab
les
online
pro
cess
ing
?
Fast
turn
aro
und
tim
e? (
PA
RT
1)
Fast
turn
aro
und
tim
e? (
PA
RT
2)
Reaso
nab
le
perm
itti
ng
fees?
Off
ers
a n
arr
ow
insp
ect
ion
ap
po
intm
ent
win
dow
?
We would like to recognize and thank Kyle Toliva, Wendy Whitcombe, and Alyssa Young for their invaluable time and support during the data collection process. Their support was critical to the development of this report.
DISCUSSION
Much work remains if the Los Angeles region is going to
realize its full rooftop solar potential. Only eight AHJs across
the region received a “Best” rating, compared with 40 others
that received a “Worst” rating. By far, AHJs have the hardest
time processing applications online, with only 6 out of 90
providing this option to installers.
1. Requirements Posted Online
Many AHJs have posted PV permit-requirement checklists to
their building department websites. Some have developed PV
installation permits that consolidate relevant information and
provide a conclusive review of the project while eliminating
redundant permitting fees. Smaller and more rural cities
were less likely to achieve this best practice, but could often
provide a list of requirements over the phone. Overall, 62
percent of “Best” cities, 41 percent of “Good” cities, and 20
percent of “Worst” cities complied with this best practice.
2. Online Processing
This category faces the lowest level of compliance, with 6 out
of 90 AHJs accepting permits online or by email. Budgetary
constraints often make the initial investment in web
development tools that enable online permitting daunting
for smaller AHJs. A state-funded template is recommended
to assist budgetary restricted AHJs. Alternatively, AHJs
could choose to defray costs by collaborating on a multiple-
jurisdiction website. Where this is not possible, simply offering
an email address, to avoid the time and cost of delivering an
application in person, would be suitable.
3. Rapid Turnaround Time
A city’s ability and willingness to process these permits
reflected the efficiency of its overall PV permitting review
process. While wait times varied, all “Best” cities, one-third (12
total) of “Good” cities, but no “Worst” city were able to process
the permit applications over the counter. Only three “Worst”
cities could process the report within one to two days.
4. Fair Permitting Costs
Fee schedules were also indicative of a city’s overall ranking.
All “Best” cities, 60 percent of “Good” cities, but only 10
percent of “Worst” cities had reasonable fees. In total,
more than half the AHJs in Los Angeles County failed to
adhere to the best practice of capping fees at $400. AHJ
representatives were occasionally uncertain of the exact
permitting cost and fee schedule. This ambiguity creates
another hindrance for prospective installers who must exert
further efforts to get a quote.
5. Narrow Inspection Appointment Windows
Only 35 percent of all AHJs offered narrow inspection
appointment windows. Only half of the “Best” cities, 36 percent
of “Good” cities and 28 percent of “Worst” cities offered
narrow appointment windows.
6. Eliminate Excessive Inspections
Only five out of eight “Best” cities (62 percent), 27 of 41 “Good”
cities (65 percent), and 20 of 39 “Worst” cities (51 percent)
have eliminated excessive inspections. Low compliance in this
category indicates a lack of education, familiarity, and priority
for residential solar installations among AHJs. Strengthening
training efforts would better prepare inspectors to assess a
system fully in just one visit.
CONCLUSION
Huge rooftop-solar energy advancements have been made
in California. The California Solar Initiative and industry
technological advancements have set the stage for full
integration of distributed solar energy into the state’s grid.
Reform of the permitting process offers a high return on
investment and would boost solar installations across the
state. Simplifying and standardizing the permitting process
for residential photovoltaic rooftop systems is necessary if
AHJs want solar to help achieve local and statewide renewable
energy goals. The collected data show that all best practices
have been implemented to varying degrees across the county.
The improvements suggested in this report would ease
the process of expanding these practices for AHJs, would
benefit the solar installation community, and would decrease
installation costs for homeowners.
ENDNOTES1 Barbose, Galen, Naim Darghouth, Samantha Weaver, and Ryan Wiser.
Tracking the Sun VI. Rep. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, July 2013.
Web. http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6350e.pdf
2 Tong, James. Nationwide Analysis of Solar Permitting and the
Implications for Soft Costs. Rep. Clean Power Finance, Dec. 2012. Web.
http://solarpermit.org/media/upfiles/CPF-DOE%20Permitting%20Study_
Dec2012_Final.pdf
3 Hernandez, Mari. “Solar Power to the People: The Rise of Rooftop Solar
Among the Middle Class.” Center for American Progress, 21 Oct. 2013. Web.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/10/21/76013/
solar-power-to-the-people-the-rise-of-rooftop-solar-among-the-middle-
class/
4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Friedman, Barry et al.
“Benchmarking Non-Hardware Balance-of-System (Soft) Costs for U.S.
Photovoltaic Systems, Using a Bottom-Up Approach and Installer Survey –
Second Edition.” October 2013. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60412.
5 Tong, James. Nationwide Analysis of Solar Permitting and the
Implications for Soft Costs. Rep. Clean Power Finance, Dec. 2012. Web.
http://solarpermit.org/media/upfiles/CPF-DOE%20Permitting%20Study_
Dec2012_Final.pdf