Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solar installers urge SFFD to align plan‑check on Powerwall expansion packs with SolarAPP+
Summary
Local solar installers told the San Francisco Fire Commission that plan‑check staff has been treating Tesla Powerwall 3 expansion batteries inconsistently with SolarAPP+ and manufacturer guidance, halting time‑sensitive permits; installers asked the commission to treat expansion packs as independent units to restore timely permitting.
Zach Sharp, owner and installer at Lumenalt Solar, told the San Francisco Fire Commission on Oct. 22 that a plan‑check determination classifying Tesla Powerwall 3 expansion packs differently from SolarAPP+ guidance has stalled dozens of permit applications and threatened projects vital to small local businesses.
Sharp said the problem has become urgent this year after state and federal changes squeezed the rooftop market, and installers face an end‑of‑year rush to finish work tied to tax credits. “PlanCheck has taken a position that is contrary to SolarAPP+ requirements which has been designed to meet all codes and standards,” Sharp said. He asked the commission to “consider an expansion pack as a unit, as it is considered in SolarAPP+ so that San Francisco is consistent with established codes and standards.”
Janine Cotter, another solar‑industry speaker who participated remotely, said the inspections system is improving in some ways but that 22 permits remain pending, the majority held up by the same unit determination. “We have 22 permits pending, of which the vast majority of those are held up because of a determination that a unit needs an inverter that is contrary to code, to standards, listing requirements and the manufacturer's requirements,” Cotter said, and asked the commission and department to follow SolarAPP+, listing requirements, and manufacturer guidance.
Commissioners and department staff acknowledged concerns about lithium‑ion battery safety while also noting the need for consistent application of codes and manufacturer listings. Chief Dean Crispin said the department recognizes the interplay of safety and permitting: “As we catch up with the technology, I'd like to see the airlines be required to carry a separate type of extinguisher that would be more effective on lithium‑ion batteries,” he said in a related exchange noting risks of lithium‑ion fires and the limits of existing extinguishers.
No formal policy change or binding direction to Plan Check was recorded at the meeting. Installers urged the commission and the department to coordinate with Plan Check, the codes and standards committee, and manufacturers to avoid permit delays that could lead to canceled projects.
The commission did not vote on a directive during the meeting; members thanked speakers and said they would follow up through staff channels.
