HomeMy WebLinkAboutMunicipal Solar Power Purchase Agreement Project Presentatio wap
mW RW A p
W;4 wo,
o f
WA19,
"A"
m ew
MIMI
A
R-Rwk'4
,qw,
V
44,04
z
1k,
W
RM
OF
A
A-Z
jio
'T
4,
3l-x
m g",
-2,
AvA. .....
v
og -q.
V,
I
>
P
City o Hum iting'ton Beach
October 18th 2010,
"I- A.
0
-Nik
Opt!'
........��p, R
qm
"a ww,it
cc
IF
"210 " I - _3
vw#sy
a-r'
VP
�2,20 U"I'll",
'A 'I"
j, !P
"93,y.
"i3.
B Aw
V
A t�,F
-c-�5 N
st MV\
SM-
cr
IM
02
JM1 "I't
V T�
"a"
e%, 41,11 e
,
T , ac,r:2
YYas
r.
re i 1 In
t 1h,"'l;75 rn,
ins 'd m
®r,
a rn e ct wo,;,j I d put H B i nto I u n I
+
L III L P U
wil C,t. I a he e- cwe
Q P r
i"', 0 j Ic W-A#
ituAl iii i p d, I goal
A -k�,
�N a T ,
-7
T
ax
Ae, 4..... -C
VM
LZ
�i--j
'10
lip
A
-_4
00
"'W qW, -.,4x 9,
,vj ",
Gwl."
4.,
PPA 0 e
""-4 44�j,
6
k"O
MOP
A
"I'll", 914
'"', �a I'll,
wk,
M-
01)�
c
W *7
ow-
e"i
No "clo
PJ
"a i,
sin
t
cl=
r
po W
- ow an sca
atio n e"',
l r*,
Sav,•in,gs
6witch from paymg,' 'z)CE to 'SunEdison-
o
opecial Condltionc.-,.. and S ite License
v.,Solar Power Purchase Agreement,
,A, W11"I'l
i4 ,
x.
T�-
-wm' m
If
AN
4,
A-4
1 7
ir
a
es e,,c ar
m
-4o
- `4 W
' A
A-4
.
IA
P'
4. UI R
. .... M moe
M6
V
wA,
\M�l
may:-01
C,
V
'tY
mw' fir, , g
A 0",
v
L
c u, g I L j, z LD I
PA,
V e,,.?
C S% U F u I Pi e rto
San Francisco f-JPA
P I....
i a Bernard ' no -
O"W N
Aw
1W
41
aw
"M t,° ., .. .i t ..i �--'�;.,,•x;=, 3L.�
'o
4�74
xx
ell'
Bil
-P
,k. .-,u', ;;�� 44-
-
NM
g ,
4",
ftw�
72,
4 g
Z
It
4,li
ar-,
-Aa
"AY
Av
qI
oli
Ik
ia rT ve
hO
PIL
%R A
POO,"
Ag-
TIAT
'T
2T, "o",
UAJ Sm
Aw
Roo
-all
Nor '7P 411"Ll 1,111,01 "I'lil "0
"N
bill
...... .....
m
NMI
7w.
"t ,
too K I
mm
NMI"-
-Wm:
.. .......
'11010 V.,
"e-"z'
WIN
If
aw,
MUM Q-A
,Qe71" W ou Mg,
Ov-1!1�*o
�O
NA,
• fm"w"
wool uss.5% Q A A MIX
Ww -y"Ov
wag-
Y0 .
ll
41 �Io - -
.. ... . .... . .....
tA
4A
WAM&I-4
00
TA
6k'
n M
show
..........
0'
rqL
OEM,
Maw loss, V ,!
.........
...........
ke,
4 a
IV,
pil,v�,a-f
Wv-
',"'V,
sx--" Nil
At
Q.
A .
A Z,
4
New"
#Nk
A- A
,'sy. .:fir; •„...�>, -�:-•x n�° \',�"'`« •�--. �,. -
...........
ip
� .A � Y �.
x z .-
•r zz ,
x
-^ h
-pi
Aw
_ 44
_ ,
fix:.'
15
-91 item 1. - Page 9
-- /n �
s,w� M11,1111
S,
ZZ mw A'"
T"z
Z
X,
7�`
4i,
41,
&
ai,
6k,
z.
'WOO
&,Am
"a
014 7"SP
M "I
Av,
se
t*-*AS
4
I
-ly
veF , ti
Ri
R" 0
'77", X,V
ww
M., 0 MA
"a a r�: t
it v tm -v,,e E)n
7 t
z J
i r i e e
'3' �1'
FF
ix
iw
-S E d., un on, equ
lifb cczu ""C A io,nao i0d ," bll c". D w rn ia" `
n
rNommuw- "t" 1,
No accountmia e dit im,r)az/, ct s to the.nci, or cr
t
' R
J,
'14 M,
"M
AN
wF
At,
011N, 41,0111 NI, W�x
plywS
411 Ali
..........
-4 41
B"el tsFr
-aw
7,
"l- w,-�4
2, -,5
, ,
0
P ,!60 A ,46 R
PA V"
Al ANI.,
044
lk .......-,a Mz
E&V
f
VP�
y bra
OK ,64"C',"Ki 101
P
0 ri�i 11
w
P
3,v
'0
ean .,,,,re-�i%ew e
e
5
97
K
1111 V ,
Tt�
w
-4, rr"
F,
A I UP it�,Ob`
0 ;0 lb,
,,,X,
7% c the Lbrciry's use
• 2'Yco of' the C F,r S Ll s e
Tr , 4. %, f a- d's ,u se• 4PE3'3y/b- of i"Ale City T
8 a 6 re
an aqr equivaienL of 50c- s of pine/fir
forest or 455 no-
lja, SOc-,�cC;snger vehicles off the road
822", metric tons of reduced emissions
w
S xa
w.
441
"'44
Q IV
44
y "'P.
�K
J," jf
--A Anj
AF
eo n,
V, M 44
A
'T
w V
4'Rw
MOMI,
la
'Fro.I "I""i
Ml
r .
7
4"n", 4'!
gS
�p'�Q
z :'J"I""',
F%;
R
',V
A'v"
J,
A4 Q .. .......
0
G
xj
-H'D
'YAM'
I�c b-"''",,1-i n� iqp
'n-,new�ibte 'E Or d -'ass'et's" DI ire
HB orepdred, for future re''g u' l a (i o n s"
o.n aded p a r k i n ioa
Predictable energy prices
Long-term value
JU
7"
-d—
'M
:*-AMP,
4 ,
07
gki
0
Ad
Ju
4, Od
Ilk 'm",
R41
R,
Iv
'Al
cis
-44 'dg—
'd
0 ,„
:, ..•<..<,,..,, „>.�_"- _'"„" <<,<'"<":--".,"-'� �":,.✓". :,� �`�;�' =:. :,>�, r< "'' ;:,--.:E.'_.<•„ t -7,'E
X"", -7 7�
�N'Q�
d�,77"
r
A t
sr
N ".ma's:•,,t,"i Si,.'1c.,,✓`;9ii"i';lf'c k
II, j
d,
"OV
,V,
J_
g
A
5'kj
' y Cs nay,
4 va "w aCID A
114"
A 0 t4l
& ra u u
o wry,, c':e, �, t lla I view
Al 0,
. L j Q "d 2
a
e gmements
R P
OR- - - "o a P fo P o w a. r, rpto r 7
/ A N
(7/6 U )
a roo OIA
mew CA 14/ 10'
-,o
P"V, R
Esparza, Patty
From: Flynn, Joan
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:25 PM
To: Esparza, Patty
Subject: FW: Sierra Club request to review commercial PV solar permit fees- Huntington Beach,
$5,371
Attachments: PVFee131kWOrangeCountyChart2.pdf; PVFeeCommercialOrangeExecSum.pdf;,
PVPermitFeeRecommend2010.pdf; Wol kPVFee Letter.pdf
In case this comes to Council at a future date.
From: Solar Permits [mailto:solarpermitfees@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:27 PM
To: Fred Wilson
Cc: Hess, Scott; Gilbert, Debra; Smalewitz, Stanley; Bob Wingenroth; Emery, Paul; Robert Hall; Flynn, Joan; Engle, Jim;
rcranmer@surfcity-hb.org; Jean Maclyman
Subject: Sierra Club request to review commercial PV solar permit fees - Huntington Beach, $5,371
Angeles and Loma Prieta Chapters
g P
Fred Wilson, City Administrator, Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Request for you to review the permit fee/process for commercial photovoltaic (PV) solar systems
Dear Mr. Fred Wilson:
The Sierra Club is concerned high permitting fees will discourage businesses from investing in solar power, an
energy source that contributes to the financial wellbeing and environmental health of our communities. We
recently published a report of a Commercial Solar PV Permit Fee Survey for Orange County jurisdictions. We
want to thank Huntington Beach for participating in the survey.
For the example 131 kW solar electric system used in this survey, Huntington Beach charges $5,371 for a
permit as of Fall 2010, one of the higher fees of municipalities in Orange County, and higher than the $2,540
maximum that should enable cost recovery even for cities with high billable hourly rates.
Based on the findings in the report, we have calculated the reasonable and maximum permit fees that would
enable a city to recover its permit processing costs:
- Estimated reasonable PV permit fee for cost recovery (131 kW size): $1,303
- Estimated maximum PV permit fee for cost recovery (131 kW size): $2,540
California Government Code Section 66005 (a) specifies, "[development permit] fees or exactions shall not
exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service... On December 22, 2005, the California State
Supreme Court upheld this statute. The California Solar Rights Act (AB 2473) expressly declares that solar
energy system permitting costs shall be minimized (see attached letter by Assembly member Lois Wolk).
i
We understand the need for cost recovery to maintain sustainability. Permit fees should, however,reflect the
true incurred costs of each jurisdiction, rather than being based on the valuation of expensive solar energy
equipment. Therefore our recommendations are as follows:
Adopt a solar permit fee-calculation method that is based on the hours required (for plan review and
inspection) multiplied by your billable hourly rate, instead of a valuation-based method. To calculate an
applicable fee, determine which permit plan reviews and inspections are necessary, attribute a reasonable
amount of time necessary to complete each task, then multiply the permitting staff hours required by your
billable hourly rate. Here is a link to a customizable spreadsheet that uses this method to compute PV permit
fees for cost recovery: Solar PV Permit Fee Calculator for Commercial Systems
Investigate ways to streamline the permit process for reviewing and inspecting solar installations. For
example, conducting plan reviews over the counter, while the applicant is present, economizes intake,
distribution, filing, and conflict resolution, thus reducing processing times and costs significantly.
Promote standard PV permit submittal guidelines and checklists to help reduce processing times by
encouraging complete and accurate permit submittals. Local chapters of the International Code Council in
Northern California have recently updated a set of PV permit submittal guidelines for residential systems. The
Solar American Board of Codes and Standards has created technical documents on standardized processes for
review of small-scale PV systems to enable expedited PV permit issuance.
Over the past several years, many municipalities in our region have reduced solar permit fees to help promote
the installation of solar power. We believe this has contributed to the increase of solar energy installations and
we'd like to thank all those who helped make these important changes!
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this request and of our recommendations. Please contact us at
your earliest convenience so we can discuss your fees. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Warm regards,
Kurt Newick,Chair Jim Stewart, Chair
Global Warming and Energy Committee, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Global Warming, Energy
&Air Quality Committee
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
Email: Jim@EarthDayLA.org
Email: SolarPermitFees@gmail.com,
Phone: 213-487-9340
Phone: 408-370-9636
cc: Mayor, City Council; chief building official: Scott Hess, City of Huntington Beach; and other city leaders
The following are some links to our reports and other sources you might find useful:
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter PV permit fee campaign web site overview: www.SolarPermitFees.org.
2
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter Commercial PV permit fee report web page for Orange County:
www.solarpermitfees.org/orange.html.
Executive Summary of Commercial PV Permit Fee Report for Orange County(Dec. 2010)
www.solarpermitfees.org/PVFeeCommercial0rangeExecSum.pdf
Commercial PV Permit Fee Report,Orange County(Dec. 2010):
www.solarpermitfees.org/PVFeeStudyCommercial0range.pdf
Commercial PV Permit Summary of Recommendations(Oct. 2010):
www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVPermitRecommendCommercial.pdf
PV Permit Fee Calculator for Commercial Systems (Oct. 2010):
www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVFeeCaIcCommercial.xls
PV Permit Fee Calc for Reasonable Cost Recovery(131 kW Project):
www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVFeeCalcl 31kWReasonable20101127.pdf
Commercial PV Permit Fee Report(San Diego County,Nov. 2010):
www.solarpermitfees.org/PVFeeStudyCommercialSanDiego.pdf
Commercial PV Permit Fee Report(San Francisco Bay Area, Oct. 2010):
www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVFeeStudyCommercial.pdf
Residential PV Permit Fee Report(Southern California,June 2009):
www.SolarPen-nitFees.org/SoCaIPVFeeReport.pdf
Residential PV Permit Fee Report(Northern California. Dec. 2008):
www.SolarPermitFees.org/NorCaIPV FeeReport.pdf
* To calculate the reasonable fee of$1,303 required to recover permitting costs for a 131 kW PV system on a commercial
rooftop,we used 9.5 staff hours, default tasks, and review times in a PV Permit Fee Calculator and a billable hourly rate
of$135 with a$20 permit issuance fee(link to PV Fee Calc Run for Reasonable Cost Recovery). To calculate the
maximum fee of$2,540 required to recover permitting costs for a 131 kW PV system on a commercial rooftop, we used
liberal estimates for the staff hours(14.0), selecting all review tasks as shown in the PV Permit Fee Calculator to perform
plan reviews and inspections, with a high billable hourly rate of$180 with a$20 permit issuance fee(link to PV Fee Calc
Run for Maximum Cost Recovery). Some jurisdictions could easily recover costs with lower fees if they have efficient
procedures for processing PV permits or lower billable hourly rates. We base these estimated fees on research and
interviews with building officials. We recommend that cities assess additional fees for permitting a complex or
problematic project on a case-by-case basis to ensure cost recovery. This helps to keep the standard fees consistent and
reasonable for solar installation professionals and their customers. You can find details on the methods and assumptions
we used to derive the recommended permit fees in our report or by using our customizable Excel spreadsheet designed as
a Solar PV Permit Fee Calculator for Commercial Rooftop Systems.
PV Permit Fees 131 kW Commercial Systems, Orange County as of 12/10/10
Ranked by Fee Ranked Alphabetically
Municipality 131 kW Fee Municipality 131 kW Fee
San Clemente $13,818 Aliso Viejo $12,873
Aliso Viejo $12,873 Anaheim $0
Orange $11,540 Brea $1,350
Fullerton $11,201 Buena Park $10,000
Fountain Valley $11,179 Costa Mesa $7,464
Tustin $10,500 Cypress $9,495
Buena Park $10,000 Dana Point $778
Cypress $9,495 Fountain Valley $11,179
Garden Grove $9,264 Fullerton $11,201
3
Laguna Woods $9,119 Garden Grove $9,264
Yorba Linda $7,967 Huntington Beach $5,371
Costa Mesa $7,464 Irvine $809
Westminster $6,735 La Habra $1,861
Seal Beach $6,272 La Palma $571
Newport Beach $6,138 Laguna Beach $0
Huntington Beach $5,371 Laguna Hills $1,399
Placentia $5,222 Laguna Niguel $1,400
Lake Forest $2,540 Laguna Woods $9,119
Rancho Santa Margarita $2,326 Lake Forest $2,540
La Habra $1,861 Los Alamitos $250
Laguna Niguel $1,400 Mission Viejo $0
Laguna Hills $1,399 Newport Beach $6,138
Brea $1,350 Orange $11,540
Stanton $978 Orange County $16
Irvine $809 Placentia $5,222
Dana Point $778 Rancho Santa Margarita $2,326
San Juan Capistrano $700 San Clemente $13,818
La Palma $571 San Juan Capistrano $700
Villa Park $275 Santa Ana $0
Los Alamitos $250 Seal Beach $6,272
Orange County $16 Stanton $978
Anaheim $0 Tustin $10,500
Laguna Beach $0 Villa Park $275
Mission Viejo $0 Westminster $6,735
Santa Ana $0 Yorba Linda $7,967
Average $4,840 Average $4,840
4
PV Solar Permit Fees for 131 kW Commercial Rooftop Systems
Orange County, as of 12/8/2010
Santa Ana $0
Mission Viejo $0 ❑ under max cost recovery<_$2,540
Laguna Beach $0 ■ Over max cost recovery>$2,540
Anaheim $0 * Fee Under Review
Orange County $16 # Fee Modified
Los Alamitos $250
Villa Park 1$275
La Palma =3$571
San Juan Capistrano =$700
Dana Point =$778
Irvine =$809
Stanton =$978
Brea $1,350
Laguna Hills $1,399
Laguna Niguel $1,400
La Habra $1,861
Rancho Santa Margarita $2,326
Lake Forest $2,540
Placentia $5,222
Huntington Beach $5,371
Newport Beach $6,138
Seal Beach $6,272
Westminster $6,735
Costa Mesa $7,464
Yorba Linda $7,967
Laguna Woods $9,119
Garden Grove 1$9,264
Cypress E$9,495
Buena Park $10,000
Tustin $10,500
Fountain Valley $11,179
Fullerton $11,201
Orange $11,540
Aliso Viejo $12,873
San Clemente M$13,818
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000
Executive Summary of Commercial PV Permit Fee Report for Orange Count
by Sierra Club, Angeles and Loma Prieta Chapters, 12/9/2010
A fall 2010 survey by the Sierra Club revealed wide' variation in permit fees charged for
commercial rooftop photovoltaic (PV) energy systems by municipalities in Orange County. The
survey found that fees for commercial PV projects of 131 M in size varied from nothing to almost
$14,000. High fees can discourage businesses from making good, long-term, high-yield
investments in solar power. 49% of the surveyed municipalities are charging fees that exceed the
maximum cost-recovery levels identified in this report.
The time needed for city staff to review and inspect a commercial PV project does not vary linearly
by system size. For instance, interviews conducted in the preparation of this report revealed that the
difference in time needed to process a 100 kW PV project lis about two to three times longer than a
10 kW project (not ten times as long). Basing fees on the value of the solar equipment inflates
permit costs to unreasonably high levels, especially for larger, more expensive solar power projects
To recover costs, therefore, permit fees should be based on specific review times and billable
hourly rates and not on PV project valuations.
The authors of this study have developed a free, public fee calculator spreadsheet to help
municipalities determine cost recovery: www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVFeeCalcCommercial.xls.
This report recommends best practices that municipalities can adopt to assure greater consistency,
and help businesses develop an energy source that leads to'a healthier, safer, and more stable
community. These include setting permit fees at cost-recovery levels and instituting streamlined
permit processing procedures.
You can see the detailed survey responses at: www.solarpermitfees.org/PVFees0range20lO.htm1
View a Report of Solar Electric Permit Fees for Commercial Installations in Orange County:
www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVFeeStudyCommercial0range.t)df
i
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter Solar PV Permit Fee Campaign:
www.SolarPermitFees.org
Web site for Orange County PV permit fee report (Dec. 2010):
www.solarpermitfees.org/oran eg html
This executive summary: www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVFeeOrangeExecSum.pdf
Key recommendations: www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVPelrmitFeeRecommend20lO.pdf
i
I
PV Permit Fees 131 kW Commercial Systems, Orange County as of 12/8/10
Ranked by Fee Ranked Alphabetically
Municipality 131 kW Fee Munici2ality 131 kW Fee
San Clemente $13,818 Aliso Viejo $12,873
Aliso Viejo $12,873 Anaheim $0
Orange $11,540 Brea $1,350
Fullerton $11,201 Buena Park $10,000
Fountain Valley $11,179 Costa Mesa $7,464
Tustin $10,500 Cypress $9,495
Buena Park $10,000 Dana Point $778
Cypress $9,495 Fountain Valley $11,179
Garden Grove $9,264 Fullerton $11,201
Laguna Woods $9,119 Garden Grove $9,264
Yorba Linda $7,967 Huntington Beach $5,371
Costa Mesa $7,464 Irvine $809
Westminster $6,735 La Habra $1,861
Seal Beach $6,272 La Palma $571
Newport Beach $6,138 Laguna Beach $0
Huntington Beach $5,371 Laguna Hills $1,399
Placentia $5,222 Laguna Niguel $1,400
Lake Forest $2,540 Laguna Woods $9,1.19
Rancho Santa Margarita $2,326 Lake Forest $2,540
La Habra $1,861 Los Alamitos $250
Laguna Niguel $1,400 Mission Viejo $0
Laguna Hills $1,399 Newport Beach $6,138
Brea $1,350 Orange $11,540
Stanton $978 Orange County $16
Irvine $809 Placentia $5,222
Dana Point $778 Rancho Santa Margarita $2,326
San Juan Capistrano $700 San Clemente $1.3,818
La Palma $571 San Juan Capistrano $700
Villa Park $275 Santa Ana $0
Los Alamitos $250 Seal Beach $6,272
Orange County $16 Stanton $978
Anaheim $0 Tustin $10,500
Laguna Beach $0 Villa Park $275
Mission Viejo $0 Westminster $6,735
Santa Ana $0 Yorba Linda $7,967
Average 1 $4,8401 1 Average 1 $4,840
Sierra Club,Loma Prieta Chapter Solar PV Permit Fee Campaign: www.SolarPennitFees.org
f.
i
I
SIERRA
CLUB '
FOUNDED 1892
Loma Prieta Chapter
Recommendations for Commercial & Residential Solar PV Permit Fees
by Kurt Newick, 12/4/2010
I
It is imperative that municipal governments complement federal and state incentives by keeping their
permit fees as low as possible. High permit fees discourage business from investing in solar power.
Based on interviews with building department officials in numerous cities, the authors of these
recommendations have confirmed there is no correlation between the cost of a photovoltaic (PV) project
and the staff-hours a municipality must devote to plan reviews and inspections! Permit fees must be
based on specific review times and billable hourly rates to enable cost recovery. Basing a permit fee on
the valuation of a PV system tends to generate higher fees Ithan the actual cost incurred to service a
permit. The time involved for review and inspection is not linear either (i.e. incurred cost does not
directly relate to system size). For example, it does not take six times as long to evaluate a 49kW
installation as an 8kW system, and a 100kW PV system typically takes two to three times longer to
process than a 1 OkW permit. I
i
In the interest of encouraging cost-recovery based fees, we recommend the following measures for
municipalities to estimate fees and reduce processing costs:
1. Read our fee studies on PV permit fees such as the report entitled Solar Electric Permit Fees for
Commercial and Residential Installations in Napa County published in Dec. 2010:
www.SolarPennitFees.oriz/PVFeeStudyNapa.pdf
2. Standard rooftop residential PV systems recommendations:
A fixed fee approach that does not vary with system size encourages larger PV projects while
enabling cost recovery. A tried and true fee assessment methodology that enables cost recovery
will conform to these principals:
o Determine the staff time required to review and inspect an average project that will on average
cover your costs 80% of the time for the required permit processing time, assuming a well trained
staff and a professional permit submittal/installation.
o Allow for 1 minor failed correction to plans and 1 minor turn down for inspection, as perfect
agreement between the permitting staff and installer should not be assumed and 1 round of minor
corrections should be accounted for when developing a reasonable fee schedule.
o Then to estimate the permit fee multiply the billable hourly rates for each job function by the
staff time required for each task and this becomes the estimated total permit fee.
o For exceptional cases that do not conform to the norm (which will likely be about 20% of the
permits) simply charge by the hour for the staff time for both the plan reviews and inspections based
on the billable hourly rate for the job function.
i
i
I
We recommend a fixed fee that does not vary with system size or value (within reason) for rooftop,
residential, grid-tied PV systems up to 15 kW using the above principles and based on these
assumptions:
• A professional installation where the permit application meets permit submittal guidelines.
• Over the counter, same day, permit issuance. This can significantly reduce administrative
processing, saving valuable staff time compared to a permit that is taken in for later review!
• Plan checkers and inspectors are trained in PV installations.
• A fully burdened realistic billable hourly rate to account for staff time spent. This billable hourly
rate varies significantly among municipalities, thus each city should use its own rate to
determine a fee level that is the most appropriate for cost recovery!
• 45 minutes for the plan check.
• One hour for the inspection (two 30 minute inspections assumed).
• 45 minutes for miscellaneous permit processing tasks (permit issuance, communication with the
applicant, filing, etc).
Estimated reasonable PV permit fee for cost recovery for a residential project: $305
Based on the above assumptions and permit fee calculation methodology this reasonable PV permit
fee is computed as:
• 45 minutes for plan check X$140 per hour for plan reviewer= $105
• 1 hour for inspections X $125 per hour for inspector= $125
• 45 minutes for administration tasks X $100 per hour for permit tech = $75
• Total reasonable PV permit fee: $305 (computed: $105 + $125 +$75).
3. Create a fair and reasonable PV permit fee schedule to enable cost recovery for commercial
projects. Try the PV permit fee calculator spreadsheet developed for the aforementioned Sierra
Club report at: www.SolarPermitFees.org/PVFeeCalcCommercial.xls. This calculator is
sophisticated enough for a municipality's permitting staff to precisely determine the recovery cost for
a permit based on customizable specific review times for each task and billable hourly rates. This
calculator is also simple enough that anyone can use its default values to estimate a commercial PV
permit fee based on the relevant factors: specific review tasks, PV project size, time assessments for
each task and billable hourly rates for cost recovery. These are the specific factors that are most
relevant to cost recovery. Using the PV permit fee calculator's default values (such as a.reasonable
billable hourly rate of $135 for staff time), we computed the following reasonable fees to achieve
cost recovery for a commercial PV project:
Estimated reasonable permit fee for cost recovery for a 131 M commercial PV system: $1,303
For details on how these fees were derived see sections 4, 5 and Appendix B of the Sierra Club report
on PV Permit Fees for Commercial & Residential Installations in Napa County referenced in item 1
above.
4. Encourage complete and accurate permit submittals by the solar installers. This is probably the
most important factor determining how much time a municipality spends processing a permit. Before
accepting a permit application, the building department might want to review the plans over-the-
counter with the applicant present to ensure all necessary items are included. If items are missing,
i
i
i
staff can request that the applicant provide these missing items to encourage complete submittals. For
busy jurisdictions and applicants, the building department;can offer this over-the-counter pre-review
by appointment to economize everyone's time.
5. Integrate review processes and inspections. Incorporatinlg the fire, planning, and other reviews into
the building department review not only expedites the review process, but reduces the overall cost.
This might involve training building department staff to perform standard fire department plan
checks on standard PV systems. In this scenario, staff would only submit the application to the fire
department for systems that present an unusual design or challenge. The same concept applies to the
inspection process.
6. Standardize permit requirements and guidelines. Provide application forms,
requirements/guidelines and permit fee schedules on the municipality's website to facilitate the
application process. We recommend that municipalities create a standard permit process with clear
guidelines. It would be best if municipalities collaborated to create and adopt regional standard
guidelines for permit submittal, review and inspection tasks, as well as standard signage for labeling
that do not vary by jurisdiction. This reduces the variability between jurisdictions. Such variability
tends to increase the costs to the solar installers and ultimately the solar owners. Here is an example
of standardized PV permit guidelines, which local chapters of the International Code Council in
Northern California have approved for residential PV permit submittals:
www.SolarPennitFees.ora/PVPennitGuidelines20lO-O7TUCC.Pdf
7. Provide application forms, requirements/guidelines and permit fee schedules on the
municipalities website to facilitate the application process for solar contractors and for customers
who install their own systems. I
8. Reduce the time window for inspection appointments.'Some cities schedule inspection windows
of half a day. We recommend that the appointment window be no more than two hours. When
feasible, cities should offer specific appointment times, such as the first inspection of the day or the
first inspection after lunch. Another option is for the city to call the solar contractor with an estimated
appointment time as the appointment window time gets close. We also recommend that cities grant
an appointment within one business day after the solar installer gives notice that the installation is
ready for inspection.
The following website has more details on the Sierra Club's PV Permit Fee campaign:
www.SolarPermitFees.ora
These recommendations can be downloaded at:
www.SolarPennitFees.or,-/PVPermitRecommend2OlO.pd
For more information on related solar PV permit issues,you may contact Kurt Newick via email at
SolarPermitFeeskamail.com or by phone at 408-370-9636.
i
I
I
I
I
Laws Governinp, PV Permits and Fees:
California Government Code Section 66014 provides that fees associated with building inspections and
building permits "shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which
the fee is charged." (Emphasis added).
The California Solar Rights Act' limits the review of solar energy systems by city building officials
to whether they meet applicable health and safety requirements. (See California Government Code
Section 65850.5 (b) and California Health and Safety Code Section 17959.1.) Discretionary reviews,
including a design review for aesthetics, are prohibited. Section 65850.5(a) states: "It is the intent of the
Legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation
of solar energy systems, including,but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes...."
The California Solar Rights Act (AB 2473) declares that solar energy system permitting costs shall be
minimized. For details on this issue, see the letter of intent about solar permit fees that State Assembly
member Lois Wolk authored. The letter was emailed to all California Cities on June 7, 2006. This letter
can be downloaded at:www.SolarPermitFees.org/WolkPVFeeLetter.pdf
California Solar Rights Act: www.SolarPermitFees.org/070123 RightsActPaperFINAL.pdf
State Capitol Chair
P.O.Box 942849f�{ � j�tj Water,Parks and Wildlife
Sacramento,CA 94249.0008
(916)319-2008 Committees
Fax(916)319-2108 �1� rl �t j1 Budget
District Office Natural Resources
555 Mason Street,Suite 275 Local Government
Vacaville,CA 95688 eTeT�
Subcommittees
(707)455-8025 �S
Fax(707)455-0490 e ro Budget Subcommittee on
E-mail pr>�•�10� Transportation and Information Technology
assemblymember.wolk@asse mbly.ca.gov
Select Committees
Website LOIS WOLK Biotechnology
www.assembly.ca.gov/wolk ASSEMBLYMEMBER,EIGHTH DISTRICT Domestic Violence
Children's School Readiness and Health
Growth and Infrastructure
Ports
Rural Economic Development
June 7, 2006 Water,Infrastructure and the Economy
Wine
Boards
TO: All California City Attorneys and City Planners Public Library Construction and Renovation
All County Counsels and County Planners wildlife conservation
FR: Assembly Member Lois Wolk
RE: Solar Energy System Permit Fees—Legislative Intent
I
Dear Friends,
As you may know, I have had the honor of refining and expanding the California Solar Rights
Act as the author of Assembly Bill 1407 (Chapter 290, Statutes of 2003) and AB 2473 (Chapter
789, Statutes of 2004). During the last year I have received many calls from solar contractors
and local government staff regarding the intent of this legislation. I thought it might be helpful
to spell things out in more practical terms for everyone's benefit. Thus, this memorandum.
My intent in authoring this legislation was to establish a consistent set of standards for the review
and approval of solar energy systems and to eliminate unreasonable barriers to the installation of
solar energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes. In
addition, AB 2473 expressly declares the Legislature's intent that costs of permitting solar
energy systems be minimized.
It has come to my attention that a number of quite different;approaches have been taken in the
design-review of solar energy systems and in the process of establishing the costs of issuing a
permit for the installation of a solar energy system. Some of these approaches appear to be
inconsistent with the intent of my legislation amending the(California Solar Rights Act. The
purpose of this letter is to clarify the Legislature's intent with respect to design review for
aesthetic purposes and the assessment of fees for the permitting of solar energy systems.
I
Design-Review For Aesthetic Purposes May Not Restrict Installation of Solar Systems
I
Under the provisions of AB 2473,permitting of all types of solar systems "shall not be willfully
avoided or delayed." AB 2473 requires a city or county to permit the installation of a solar
energy system by right if the system meets specified requirements. Among other things,my
intent in enacting AB 2473 was to establish the principle that any application of a design review
process for aesthetic purposes that effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a
solar energy system is void and unenforceable. AB 2473 expressly provides that a local agency
may not deny an application for a use permit to install a solar energy system unless the local
agency finds a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety.
Printed on Recycled Paper
AB 2473 amended California Civil Code Section 714(d)(1) so as to specifically limit restrictions
imposed on photovoltaic systems to those that cost less than $2,000, and prohibit any restrictions
that are based on aesthetics alone. In addition, AB 2473 recast Section 65850.5 of the
Government Code and Section 17959.1 of the Health and Safety Code to limit a building
official's review of installations to those items that relate to specific health and safety
requirements of local, state and federal law.
These Sections of California law apply to current and future permitting, design/review, and
approval processes, and also to review of existing permit applications.
Permit Fees Must Be Reasonable
As I am sure you are aware, California Government Code section 66005 (a), provides that
"[development permit]fees or exactions shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service..." On December 22, 2005 the California State Supreme Court upheld this
statute by ruling that building permit fees must be based on the "estimated reasonable costs of
providing the services for which the fees are charged"(Barratt v. C. of Rancho Cucamonga,
Ct.App. 4/2 E032578).
I have been advised by industry experts that the average time spent by local jurisdictions to
permit and inspect a solar system is between 2 and 5 hours. A fixed fee method to compute
solar permit fees has been shown to be an appropriate method of establishing solar permit fees,
since it takes about the same amount of time to permit a 2 kilowatt photovoltaic system, a 6
kilowatt system, or a residential or commercial solar water heating system. A permit fee
computation methodology that is based on the monetary valuation of the system or its sales price,
rather than the estimated reasonable costs of providing the permit service is inconsistent with the
intent of AB 2473 as well as the Supreme Court case cited above and may unnecessarily
discourage the installation of solar energy systems.
On December 12, 2005 the California Public Utilities Commission approved the California Solar
Initiative, reflecting the will of the Governor and the Legislature to establish the largest publicly
supported solar energy program in the world. One purpose of this letter is to ask local
governments to consider their role in achieving this major state goal by looking carefully at how
you assess fees for the permitting of solar energy installations and, in so doing, encourage the
utilization of solar technologies by minimizing the obstacles to their use.
I respectfully request that all local permitting agencies enact reasonable permitting policies that
encourage affordable solar energy system installations (including over-the-counter permits,
permit fees based on the permitting agency's actual costs, and cessation of design reviews for
aesthetic concerns).
Sincerely,
t
oman, 8`h District
Attached: AB 1407 (Chapter 290, Statutes of 2003), AB 2473 (Chapter 789, Statutes of 2004)