BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1222
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 27, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
SB 1222 (Leno) - As Amended: June 19, 2012
SENATE VOTE : 25-13
SUBJECT : Solar energy: permits.
SUMMARY : Places a cap on the amount of permit fees charged by
a city or county for both residential rooftop solar energy
systems and commercial rooftop solar energy systems, unless a
city or county makes written findings and adopts a resolution or
ordinance providing substantial evidence of the reasonable cost
to issue the permit and why the cost exceeds the specified caps.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits, for a residential rooftop solar energy system that
produces direct current electricity, a city, county, city and
county, or charter city (hereafter referred to as 'city or
county') from charging a residential permit fee that exceeds
the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fee is charged, not to exceed $400, plus $15 per
kilowatt (kW) for each kW above 15kW.
2)Allows a city or county to charge a residential permit fee for
a rooftop solar energy system that exceeds the fees specified
in 1) above, if, as part of a written finding and an adopted
resolution or ordinance, the city or county provides
substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the
permit.
3)Prohibits, for a commercial rooftop solar energy system that
produces current electricity, a city or county from charging a
commercial permit fee that exceeds the estimated reasonable
cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged,
not to exceed $1,000 for systems up to 50kW, plus $7 per kW
for each kW between 51kW and 250kW, plus $5 per kW for each kW
above 250kW.
4)Allows a city or county to charge a commercial permit fee for
a rooftop solar energy system that exceeds the applicable fee
specified in 3) above, if, as part of a written finding and an
adopted resolution or ordinance, the city or county provides
SB 1222
Page 2
substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the
permit.
5)Requires a written finding to include all of the following:
a) A determination that the municipality has adopted
appropriate ordinances, permit fees, and processes to
streamline the submittal and approval of permits for solar
energy systems pursuant to the practices and policies in
state guidelines and model ordinances;
b) A calculation related to the administrative cost of
issuing a solar rooftop permit; and,
c) A description of how the higher fee will result in a
quick and streamlined approval process.
6)Defines "administrative costs" for purposes of the bill to
mean "the costs incurred in connection with the review,
approval, and issuance of the permit, and the hourly site
inspection and followup costs, and may also include an
amortization of the costs incurred in connection with
producing a written finding and adopting an ordinance or
resolution �pursuant to the bill's provisions]."
7)States the intent of the Legislature to provide a city or
county that meets the obligations
of the bill's provisions to receive priority access to state
funds for the purposes of distributed energy generation
planning, permitting, training, or implementation.
8)Sunsets the bill's provisions as of January 1, 2018.
9)Provides that reimbursement shall be made to local agencies if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state.
10)Makes various findings and declarations about the importance
of rooftop solar and the wide variations in permitting costs
by local agencies associated with the installation of rooftop
solar.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
SB 1222
Page 3
when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances, zoning
changes, use permits, building inspections, building permits,
and other specified fees that those fees may not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which
the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of
the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the services or materials is submitted to, and
approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors
voting on the issue.
2)Specifies that the fees listed in 1) above may include the
costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and
policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it
can make any necessary findings and determinations.
3)Enacts the Solar Rights Act and declares that it the policy of
the state to promote and encourage the use of solar energy
systems and to remove obstacles to their installation.
4)Defines the term "solar energy system" in the Civil Code to
mean either of the following:
a) Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose
primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage,
and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space
cooling, electric generation, or water heating; or,
b) Any structural design feature of a building, whose
primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage,
and distribution of solar energy for electricity
generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating.
5)Declares that any covenant, restriction, or condition
contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other
instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest
in, real property, and any provision of a governing document,
as defined, that effectively prohibits or restricts the
installation or use of a solar energy system is void and
unenforceable.
6)Allows for reasonable restrictions on solar energy systems
that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or
significantly decrease the efficiency or specified
performance, or that allow for an alternative system of
comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits.
SB 1222
Page 4
7)Requires solar energy systems to meet applicable health and
safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local
permitting authorities.
8)Provides, whenever approval is required for the installation
or use of a solar energy system, that the application for
approval be processed and approved by the appropriate
approving entity, as specified, and shall not be willfully
avoided or delayed.
9)Prohibits a public entity from receiving funds from a
state-sponsored grant or loan program for solar energy if that
entity fails to comply with specified requirements, and
requires a public entity to certify its compliance with the
specified requirements when applying for funds from a
state-sponsored grant or loan program.
10)Requires a city or county to administratively approve
applications to install solar energy systems through the
issuance of a building permit or similar nondiscretionary
permit, and requires review of the application to install a
solar energy system to be limited to the building official's
review of whether it meets all health and safety requirements
of local, state and federal law.
11)Limits the requirements of local law to those standards and
regulations necessary to ensure that the solar energy system
will not have a specific, adverse impact upon the public
health or safety.
12)Prohibits a city or county from denying an application for a
use permit to install a solar energy system unless it makes
written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record
that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health or safety, and that there is no
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific, adverse impact.
13)States that the implementation of consistent statewide
standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective
installation of solar energy systems is not a municipal
affair, but is instead a matter of statewide concern, and
further states that it is the intent of the Legislature that
local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable
barriers to the installation of solar energy systems,
SB 1222
Page 5
including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic
purposes, and not unreasonably restrict the ability of
homeowners and agricultural and business concerns to install
solar energy systems.
14)States the intent of the Legislature to encourage the
installation of solar energy systems by removing obstacles to,
and minimizing the costs of, permitting for such systems.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill contains unknown reimbursable mandate costs
(General Fund). In order for a city or county to charge a
permit fee that exceeds the 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.
COMMENTS :
1)In 1978, recognizing the importance of promoting solar energy
systems, the Legislature enacted the Solar Rights Act (Act),
declaring that it is the policy of the state to promote and
encourage the use of solar energy systems and to remove
obstacles to their installation. The Act was initially
formulated to address issues related to the installation of
solar systems in areas where homeowners associations (HOAs)
placed restrictions on the utilization of solar systems in
their jurisdiction, with the express or clearly implied intent
of preventing any such installation. When passed, the Act
made any instrument affecting the transfer of real property
that prohibited or restricted the installation of solar energy
system void and unenforceable. Subsequent amendments added
specific national and state standards for solar energy systems
and prohibited unreasonable restrictions on the installation
of solar energy systems.
2)Prior legislation in 2004 dealt with the issue of local
government permitting for solar energy systems. AB 2473
(Wolk), Chapter 789, Statutes of 2004, required cities and
counties to permit the installation of solar energy systems by
right if the system meets specified requirements, and
SB 1222
Page 6
redefined the term "significantly" with respect to
restrictions on solar energy systems that raise costs or
decrease efficiency. According to research conducted by the
author, and the sponsor of that bill, the California Solar
Energy Industries Association, a number of jurisdictions were
placing serious obstacles in the way of solar power system
installation, giving reason for the need for the bill.
AB 2473 addressed this issue in two ways. The bill created
specific standards for what constituted "significant"
increases in solar energy system costs or decreases in those
systems' efficiency. The bill also declared that solar energy
system installation is a matter of statewide concern, and made
a local government's grant of permission to install a solar
energy system ministerial rather than discretionary unless the
permitting agency has good cause to believe doing so would
create an adverse impact on public health or safety, in which
case an application for a discretionary permit may be
required. The local government cannot refuse to approve that
application unless it makes detailed written findings based on
substantial evidence that granting the permit will create
specific adverse impacts on public health or safety. If
conditions are placed on an approval to mitigate public health
or safety impacts, the required mitigation must be designed to
accomplish its goal at the lowest possible cost.
As a follow-up to AB 2473, Assembly Member Wolk sent a letter
dated June 7, 2006, to all California city attorneys, city
planners, county counsels, and county planners regarding the
legislative intent of AB 2473:
"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 cost 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?
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
SB 1222
Page 7
December 2, 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 E0325780).
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.
I respectfully request that all permitting agencies enact
reasonable permitting policies that encourage affordable solar
energy system installation (including over-the-counter
permits, permit fees based on the permitting agency's actual
costs, and cessation of design reviews for aesthetic
concerns."
3)This bill prohibits, for a residential rooftop solar energy
system, a city or county from charging a residential permit
fee that exceeds the estimated reasonable cost of providing
the service for which the fee is charged, not to exceed $400,
plus $15 per kW for each kW above 15kW. The bill also
prohibits, for a commercial rooftop solar energy system, a
city or county from charging a commercial permit fee that
exceeds the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service
for which the fee is charged, not to exceed $1,000 for systems
up to 50kW, plus $7 kW for each kW between 51kW and 250 kW,
plus $5 per kW for each kW above 250 kW.
The bill provides an exception to these caps of $400 and
$1,000, if a city or county, as part
of a written finding and an adopted resolution or ordinance,
the city or county provides substantial evidence of the
reasonable cost to issue the permit. The bill specifies that
SB 1222
Page 8
a written finding must include the following: a) a
determination that the municipality has adopted appropriate
ordinances, permit fees, and processes to streamline the
submittal and approval of permits for solar energy systems
pursuant to the practices and policies in state guidelines and
model ordinances; b) a calculation related to the
administrative cost, as the bill defines, of issuing a solar
rooftop permit; and, c) a description of how the higher fee
will result in a quick and streamlined approval process.
The bill also contains intent language that a city or county
that meets the bill's obligations should receive priority
access to state funds for the purposes of distributed energy
generation planning, permitting, training, or implementation;
however, no exact funding source or pot of funds is cited.
The bill contains a sunset clause of January 1, 2018, and is
author-sponsored.
4)According to the author, "the solar industry continues to
drive investment, jobs and savings in California. However,
even with the decrease in equipment prices, a barrier to
greater solar rooftop installation continues to impact the
industry - inconsistency in permit fees.
The installed cost of rooftop solar remains much higher than
necessary because of inconsistent and unnecessarily costly
local permitting and inspection processes that are ill-suited
for modern solar technology.
Currently, each local authority having jurisdiction over solar
installations determines its fee structure for rooftop
permits. Permit fees can range from less than $100 to more
than $5,000. Some local jurisdictions employ a flat-fee and
others base their fees on the value of the solar project.
Additionally, variation in who has the authority to set the
permitting fee can further complicate the fee structure.
Further, the total cost to obtain a permit from a local
jurisdiction can account for a major portion of the total
installed cost of the system. As equipment prices come down,
the percentage of the cost associated with permitting will
only increase. The percentage of total costs from permitting
is particularly high for small residential systems.
SB 1222
Page 9
With a standardized and streamlined process, permitting fees
and the cost of compliance for installers would be lower,
triggering an increase in local investments, resulting in
higher revenue from sales taxes, employment taxes, and
increased consumer spending as a result of electricity bill
savings. Property values would also increase, resulting in
greater property tax revenues upon property sale. Lower
energy costs for businesses would result in extra capital that
could be used to hire more employees and reduce the costs of
goods and services.
In addition, rooftop solar energy systems will help California
reach its energy and environmental goals and create a
significant boost to the state economy. More than 1,000,000
additional net energy metered residential rooftops could be
deployed in the state in the coming years adding over $28
billion to the state economy and supporting nearly 22,000
jobs. With residential permitting reform the economic impact
and job numbers will be boosted by $5 billion dollars 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."
5)A joint coalition of the League of California Cities (League),
the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), the California
Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA CA), the
California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the Urban
Counties Caucus (UCC), the California Municipal Utilities
Association (CMUA), and the California Building Officials
(CALBO), in opposition to SB 1222, raise the following issues:
a) "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 feeds 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
SB 1222
Page 10
General Fund. We �League, RCRC, APA CA, CSAC, UCC, CMUA and
CALBO] 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. While we understand that the $400 cap is based on a
2011 Sierra Club study," Solar Electric Permit Fees in
Northern California: A Comparative Study," we would note
that that study also cities a range of 'reasonable low end
of $205 to a reasonable high end of $485' for a residential
photovoltaic project. This supports our position that
there is a range of reasonable costs of providing the
service.
b) Under SB 1222, any local government that has costs
exceeding �the caps in the bill] will be required to
justify those costs in a finding and ordinance as well as
provide substantial evidence of the administrative cost to
issue the permit. First, the bill provides that the local
agency has adopted 'appropriate ordinances, permit fees,
and processes to streamline the submittal and approval of
permits for solar energy systems pursuant to the practices
and policies in state guidelines and model ordinances.' It
remains unclear to us what the definition of 'appropriate'
is as well as what state guidelines and model ordinances
permitting agencies must follow. Second, this
justification of our costs is duplicative given that a
local government must already provide a mitigation fee
study (including showing the nexus of the cost) when
establishing the fee, as noted above."
6)The Committee may wish to ask the author to discuss the
following:
a) How were the thresholds of $400 for residential rooftop
and $1,000 for commercial rooftop solar energy systems
developed?
b) Do these thresholds take into account local governments
that may have unique local circumstances and variations in
permitting processes?
c) Is a one-size-fits-all approach to permitting costs the
right mechanism for encouraging the 'bad actor'
jurisdictions to lower their permitting costs? Does this
one-size-fits-all approach create complexities for those
SB 1222
Page 11
jurisdictions that are 'good actors' and are helping to
promote and encourage installation of solar energy systems?
d) What state guidelines and model ordinances should cities
and counties use to help them streamline their processes
for permitting? Have local agencies been involved in the
development of those guidelines and model ordinances? As
guidelines and model ordinances become more readily
available, will that help local governments create better
processes that result in lower permitting fees?
e) Should the bill be amended to include solar heating and
solar thermal?
f) Are the requirements contained in the bill's provisions
for a written finding and an adopted resolution or
ordinance necessary, given the provisions of the existing
Mitigation Fee Act?
7)A similar bill, AB 1801 (Campos), was heard by this Committee
on May 2, 2012. AB 1801 limits the total amount of fees
charged by a city or county for an applicant to install a
solar energy system to the actual costs borne by the local
agency in providing the service for which the fee is charged,
prohibits a city or county from calculating a fee for a solar
energy system by utilizing specified methods including the
valuation method, and requires a city or county to identify
the individual fees assessed on the invoice provided to the
applicant. The main difference is that AB 1801 does not
contain any caps on permitting costs, and instead, focuses on
the costs borne by the city or county to issue the permit. AB
1801 passed on an
8-0 vote in Committee and is currently pending on the Senate
Floor.
The Committee may wish to consider the differences in approach
taken by AB 1801 and
SB 1222 with respect to the mandates and prohibitions placed
on local agencies.
8)Proposition 26 (2010) amended Article XIIIC to broaden the
definition of what constitutes a tax to include many payments
previously considered fees or charges. Language in
Proposition 26 lists seven exceptions to what constitutes a
local tax, including three that are relevant to this bill.
SB 1222
Page 12
Article XIII C excludes from the new definition of "tax":
a) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or
privilege granted directly to the payer that is not
provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed
the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring
the benefit or granting the privilege;
b) A charge imposed for a specific government service or
product provided directly to the payer that is not provided
to those not charged, and which does not exceed the
reasonable costs to the local government of providing the
service or product; and,
c) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to
a local government for issuing licenses and permits,
performing investigations, inspections, and audits,
enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the
administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
Proposition 26 also added the following language regarding the
burden of proof:
"The local government bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other
exaction is not a tax, that the amount is not more than
necessary to cover the reasonable costs of governmental
activity, and that the manner in which those costs are
allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to
the payor's burdens on, or benefits received from the
governmental activity."
The Committee may wish to consider whether existing law,
especially in light of Proposition 26 (2010), already
prohibits local governments from charging excessive amounts of
permitting or building fees, making legal action to enforce
the terms of Proposition 26 as they relate to unreasonable
fees the more appropriate course of action.
9)Support arguments : Sierra Club argues that there are major
disparities in the fees charged by local governments, as
evidenced by multiple studies that Sierra Club has undertaken
since 2005. Sierra Club believes that there is a need for the
Legislature to address this inconsistency in permit fees in
order to achieve price parity with grid electricity.
SB 1222
Page 13
Opposition arguments : The California Municipal Utilities
Association argues that this bill "is duplicative of existing
local permitting processes?.and creates yet another process
requiring 'substantial evidence' and action through local
ordinances in justifying permit fees above a cap."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AEE Solar, Inc.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Arco Energy
California Solar Energy Industries Association
Distributed Energy Consumer Advocates
Environment California
Mainstream Energy Corp.
Natural Resources Defense Council
PetersenDean
REC Solar, Inc.
School Energy Coalition
Sierra Club California
Solar Energy Industries Association
Solaria Corporation
SunEdison
Sungevity
Sunrun
Suntech America
Union of Concerned Scientists
Verengo Solar
Concerns
County of Santa Clara
Opposition
American Planning Association, California Chapter
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Building Officials
California State Association of Counties
Cities of Diamond Bar, Murrieta, Rancho Cordova, Sebastopol, and
Visalia
County of Lassen
SB 1222
Page 14
League of California Cities
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Urban Counties Caucus
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958