BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1222|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1222
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 5/25/12
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 6-2, 4/25/12
AYES: Wolk, Dutton, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe
NOES: Fuller, La Malfa
NO VOTE RECORDED: Liu
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
SUBJECT : Solar energy: permits
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill limits the fees that cities and
counties charge for permits related to the installation of
rooftop solar energy systems.
ANALYSIS : The Solar Rights Act makes it easier for
people to install solar energy systems (AB 3250, Levine,
1978). To further promote solar installations, AB 2437
(Wolk, Chapter 789, Statutes of 2004), declared, among
other things, that the implementation of statewide
standards for solar energy systems is not a municipal
affair but a matter of statewide concern.
CONTINUED
SB 1222
Page
2
When a local agency charges fees for building permits,
those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service for which the fee is charged. Fees
charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the services are taxes and must be approved by a
2/3 vote. Building permit fees generally pay for the cost
of the project plan examination and on-site inspection.
Currently, each local authority having jurisdiction over
solar installations determines its fee structure for
rooftop permits.
This bill prohibits a city or county from charging permit
fees for rooftop solar energy systems that exceed $400 for
a system that produces 15 kW or less, or $400 plus $5 for
each kilowatt above 15 kW. A local agency could exceed
these limits if it provides substantial evidence of the
administrative cost to issue the permit as part of a
written finding and an adopted resolution or ordinance.
The written finding must include the following:
A determination that the local agency has adopted
ordinances, fees, and processes to streamline solar
energy system permit submittals and approvals.
A calculation of the administrative cost of issuing a
solar rooftop permit.
A description of how a higher fee would result in a
streamlined approval process.
This bill also includes a codified provision stating
legislative intent that a local agency that complies with
the bill's requirements would receive priority access to
state funds for purposes of distributed energy generation
planning, permitting, training, or implementation. This
bill's provisions sunset on January 1, 2018.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, "Unknown
reimbursable mandate costs (General Fund). In order for a
city or county to charge a permit fee that exceeds the
CONTINUED
SB 1222
Page
3
specified limits, it must provide substantial evidence of
the administrative cost to issue a permit in a written
finding and an adopted resolution or ordinance, as
specified. This additional administrative burden places a
higher level of service on local entities than the current
standard specifying that a fee cannot exceed the estimated
reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee
is charged."
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/25/12)
Acro Energy
AEE Solar, Inc.
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Distributed Energy Consumer Advocates
Environment California
Mainstream Energy Corp.
Natural Resources Defense Council
PetersenDean Roofing
REC Solar, Inc.
School Energy Coalition
Sierra Club
Solaria
SolarCity
Solar Energy Industries Association
Sun Edison
Sungevity
SunRun
Suntech America
Union of Concerned Scientists
Verengo Solar
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/25/12)
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California State Association of Counties
City of Sebastopol
League of California Cities
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Urban Counties Caucus
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
more than one million additional net energy metered
residential rooftops could be deployed in the state in the
CONTINUED
SB 1222
Page
4
coming years, adding over $28 billion to the state economy
and support nearly 22,000 jobs. With residential
permitting reform, the economic impact and job numbers will
be boosted by $5 billion and almost 4,000 jobs. Without
it, the economic benefit and jobs are in jeopardy as it is
unlikely that local jurisdictions have the capacity to
process the forecasted demand.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state that "While we
appreciate the author's desire to encourage lower building
permit fees for residential solar systems, we are troubled
by the cap on permit fees, the requirement that a local
government justify a fee to a state agency and the new
mandate for local governments to report to the CEC. Under
the existing Mitigation Fee Act, when a local government
imposes a fee, it may not exceed the estimated reasonable
cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged.
If a local government fee exceeds the reasonable cost,
then the local government is required to submit the fee to
the voters. Cities and counties each set their own fees
and many utilize the permit fees that are based on the
State Building Standards Code because they find those fees
reflect the reasonable costs of providing the related
services. Variations in the fees are likely due to
individual variations between cities and counties
statewide. In addition, many local governments lower their
building permit fee for residential solar systems by
subsidizing their permit costs with funds from their
General Fund. This is an individual decision by the City
or County based on local budget priorities. We do not
believe it is the role of the state to undermine local
decisions by setting the level of the fee in statute
without regard to individual city or county costs."
AGB:mw 5/25/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 1222
Page
5
CONTINUED