LAFCO review finds few regulatory roadblocks for residential battery installations, recommends permitting clarifications

LAFCO on Sept. 20, 2024 heard ARUP's final study of residential battery energy storage systems prepared for Clean Power SF and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The consultant concluded the city generally follows model codes and does not present unique regulatory barriers that would prevent homeowners from installing battery systems, while recommending procedural clarifications and better coordination to streamline permitting.

The study’s lead technical presenter, Mike Lapisto of ARUP, told commissioners the report examined comparable jurisdictions and found New York City to be an outlier in restrictive measures, while most other cities follow the International Fire Code and California Fire Code in similar ways. "I could give away the conclusion, which is basically not really," Lapisto said, summarizing the team’s assessment that there are not major policy barriers in San Francisco preventing residential deployment.

Jeremy Pollock, LAFCO's executive officer, framed the study as the first product of a memorandum of understanding with SFPUC and Clean Power SF and thanked fire and building staff for their input. Mike Himes, deputy assistant general manager at the SFPUC responsible for Clean Power SF, highlighted the technology’s role in reliability and resilience, saying, "By storing and discharging electricity on demand, batteries can optimize the delivery and use of variable renewable power supplies and improve grid stability and reliability." He added the study should help local policy makers and regulators.

ARUP identified several operational and administrative friction points. Presenters and staff pointed to a local administrative bulletin (described in the meeting as "AB 512" and referenced as a Fire Department interpretive guidance) that clarifies how to apply the fire code to battery energy storage systems, and to cases where installers have been routed into construction‑level plan review rather than the streamlined residential path. ARUP recommended refining guidance about when a construction permit is required versus when work may remain within residential code provisions, and suggested enhancements to SolarAPP+ so manufacturers’ test and installation documentation can be uploaded and reviewed without pushing applications into a longer plan review track.

The consultant also flagged resource questions and a state fee cap that can leave departments doing work they cannot recoup via permit fees: ARUP described situations where departments must manually refund fees when the evaluated charge exceeds the statutory cap, creating administrative burden. ARUP and multiple speakers also stressed that financial incentives and workforce capacity are primary drivers of adoption: incentives are complex and vary by program, and installers raised concerns about intermittent demand and training needs.

Local stakeholders who spoke during public comment generally welcomed the study while flagging workforce and equity issues. Janine Cotter, cofounder of local firm Luminalt, urged attention to workforce development and equitable programs to expand access. Alex Landsberg, research and advocacy director for the San Francisco electrical construction industry, raised substantive critiques of portions of the report, saying the authors "make some fundamental errors" about workforce availability and apprenticeship activity; LAFCO staff recorded the comment and said written comments had been received.

The commission took the item as informational and did not take formal action. LAFCO staff and the consultant signaled next steps to share findings with DBI, the Fire Department and SFPUC and to explore the SolarAPP+ enhancements and permitting clarifications the report recommends.