Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Battery Storage Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractors tell Fire Commission San Francisco battery-permit reviews are taking weeks
Summary
Two local contractors told the Fire Commission that San Francisco’s permitting process routes residential battery projects over 20 kWh into commercial-style reviews, creating 10–12 week review times and higher costs; speakers asked the department to accept email-based approvals for systems that meet current code.
Contractors told the San Francisco Fire Commission on Dec. 11 that the department’s interpretation of its permitting rules is slowing residential battery energy storage projects and increasing costs for homeowners.
Eric Skunkberg, identified in the meeting as director of engineering for a local solar and storage contractor, said the department’s administrative bulletin (Fire Administrative Bulletin 5.12) has a 20 kilowatt-hour threshold that routes larger residential systems into a commercial-style review process. "Permitting for battery energy storage systems in San Francisco has become unnecessarily difficult and slow," Skunkberg said, adding that projects above 20 kilowatt-hours are now seeing "ten- to 12 week review times." He said the department’s reading of the phrase "construction permit" to mean a building permit is a main contributor to the delay.
August Goers, identified in the record as chief technology officer of a local solar installation firm, said contractors are routinely seeing permits take weeks or months and cited a state law referenced in the transcript (identified there as "Senate Bill 379") that, he said, intends near-real-time permit verification and issuance. "San Francisco is not meeting the legal requirement," Goers said, and asked the commission to allow for email-based permit approvals for systems that meet current fire-code limits rather than requiring full building permits for systems above 20 kWh.
The commission did not take action during the meeting; both public comments were heard during the general public-comment period. Department staff did not offer immediate changes on the record. The comments were recorded as formal public input for commissioners to consider in future policy or procedural discussions.
What’s next: The commission did not vote on permitting policy at this meeting. Contractors requested administrative-level changes and asked that staff explore options to streamline reviews for homeowner-scale systems that meet existing safety standards.
