New building permit requirement - Class A fire rating?

[J.P.M.]

As I mentioned before, I don't believe that the state code requires class A for PV systems. I'm sorry if I implied that it was just the panels, becuase the code does refer to "PV systems." But the panels are the starting point. I've looked on the internet a bit, too, and it seems that the overall system rating depends on following the manufacturers guidelines for panel installation and it seems that the fire rating may be dependent on following those guidelines.

In any case, the CA code doesn't link the PV system fire rating to the roof rating, per se. Instead, they are both linked to the type of construction used in the building.

So even if you installed a class A roof (because you like concrete tile better than cedar shake, for example), I don't believe the CA code would necessitate that you also install class A PV system. The requirement is based on what type of building construction is used in the house, and it doesn't require class A. The fire ratings are given in the following table:

TABLE 1505.1
MINIMUM ROOF COVERING
CLASSIFICATION FOR TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION
IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB
B B B C B C B B C

This is taken together with new subsection 1505.9:
1505.9 Photovoltaic panels and modules. Rooftop mounted photovoltaic systems shall be tested, listed and identified with a fire classification in accordance with UL 1703. The fire classification shall comply with Table 1505.1 based on the type of construction of the building.

So if you have type IIB construction, then you only need to have class C rated PV system to satisfy the state code even if you voluntarily have a class A type roof.

But local cites and counties can, and have in many cases in fire prone areas, required higher fire rating for roofing. I did some digging and Irvine did this before with respect to roofing, after all the wildfires. They just followed their previous pattern in adopting the 2013 CA code on October 22, 2013 by amending TABLE 1505.1 as follows:

TABLE 1505.1
MINIMUM ROOF COVERING
CLASSIFICATION FOR TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION
IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB
A A A A A A A A A

The procedure the Irvine city council followed was to adopt the entire CA building code but amend certain sections to be more restrictive, as they had done before. The changes to Table 1505.1 are substantially the only changes to the entirety of Chapter 15. The effect is that section 1505.9 from the CA code (adopted without amendment), which relates to PV systems, now refers to Irvine-amended table 1505.1, which requires Class A fire rating for all building types and therefore sweeps PV systems in under class A rating, too. I'm going to try to attach the amendment, and proposal to adopt. You can also download from the following link by scrolling down to the setion in the meeting agenda

http://www.irvinequickrecords.org/sirepub/mobilemtgviewer.aspx?meetid=4506&doctype=AGENDA#

I'm not sure the City Council thought this through. In fact, I'm pretty sure they didn't because they voted on this item on consent and the amendments were prepared by staff. Consent is usually reserved for administerial types of actions that are thought to be non-controversial and don't require much if any discussion. I've also attached the Power Point presentation from the meeting, which is probably all the council members considered when voting on these amendments. They all probably just thought they had previously required class A roofs, so go with that now, too. Didn't even consider the implications for PV systems.

Eventually, the PV makers will probably work this out because the code will force them to adapt their equipment to class A fire rating in high fire hazard regions like Southern California, which is also prime solar country. But that doesn't do you much good right now. In the meantime, it might be necessary to seek out an exception or delay in implementing the PV provisions in Irvine if no PV equipment out there satisfies the requirement. Or switch to the equipment that is class A rated.

If you want to be an activist about this, you could contact the city council and alert them to the implications for solar in Irvine. They seem to be pretty pro-solar, so maybe they would consider a resolution to delay implementation of section 1505.9. The best way would be to see if you can get on the agenda for one of their meetings and make a presentation. Otherwise,you can just go to a meeting and sign up to speak. You probably would be limited to 2 minutes or less. At least it would put it on the record. I'm kinda surprised that someone in the solar industry or a pro-solar organization didn't pick up on this at the state level during the code adoption process.

Now I'm going to check out what San Diego County is doing.......

Over the sun:

IMO, Nicely and professionally done ! Bet this will push some buttons. I intend to read this several times.

[ocdave]

Over the sun:

IMO, Nicely and professionally done ! Bet this will push some buttons. I intend to read this several times.

Ditto that!!!

OvertheSun:

Thanks again for taking the time to dig in and help get to the bottom of this. It finally makes sense now. I too am surprised this this has caught the solar professionals off-guard. My installer has done lots of installs in OC and SD and it sounds like they were caught unaware. If my livelihood was tied to cranking out these solar installations, I would be jumping up and down making a lot of noise about this. Seems like that hasn't happened yet for some reason. I will be contacting the city shortly to see what if any resolution is in process. I'll post whatever info I manage to get out of them.

Thanks again!

[russ]

Same from me - well done and a great help to members!

[ocdave]

Here is bulletin from CALSEIA on this issue and what is being done to address it...


I want to alert you to an important fire code problem and bring you up to speed on what CALSEIA is doing to correct it.

The problem is complicated but stems from the fact that California has adopted a new code requirement that all PV modules be in compliance with an updated UL 1703 before UL, or any other lab, has had a chance to test and certify many, if any, PV modules under the new standard - which includes testing of modules and roofing as a system.

Based on the International Building Code adopted several years ago, the State Fire Marshall adopted a requirement effective January 1, 2014 that all PV modules be classified A, B, or C in parallel with the local fire code requirement for the roof itself. A Class A roof has to have a Class A PV module. While the new 1703 will allow for Class C modules to be rated as Class A when installed in specific configurations on specific roof types (or with specific modifications), the old 1703 requires the testing and rating only of the module itself. To our knowledge, there are very few PV modules on the market today that carry anything other than a Class C based on the old UL 1703.

From initial conversations with Solar ABC’s, receiving a Class A rating under the new UL 1703 test should be possible for many or most PV systems, depending on roof type and configuration, with either no modifications to their modules or with some relatively straightforward modifications to the mounting. The problem is the fact that the new regulations put the metaphorical cart before the horse. It was only this past fall that UL finalized and adopted the new testing protocol for bringing modules in compliance with UL 1703. There simply hasn’t been enough time for UL or other labs to test the many hundreds of existing modules, all under multiple roof conditions, before the new regulations went into effect twenty days ago.

The upshot is that in various high fire danger counties in California, local building code officials may require Class A modules. While there may be individual jurisdictions that are willing to find temporary solutions, this problem is far-reaching since many multi-family, commercial, warehouse, mid-rise, high-rise and otherwise “ordinary” structures in California require Class B roofs, which means that Class C modules, under the old 1703, will not work for them either.

This week, CALSEIA is bringing the State Fire Marshall, UL, and Solar ABCs together to come up with an immediate fix to the problem. We are hoping for an informational bulletin offering an alternative approach to compliance until UL testing has been completed.

If you have any questions or are aware of this problem popping up in another region in the state, please let me know. Otherwise, I’ll keep you up to date on our progress later this week.


Bernadette Del Chiaro
Executive Director, CALSEIA

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a0487692bb2e2f280211c4298&id=10e52e1c64&e=5caceceb2e

[ocdave]

Ditto that!!!

OvertheSun:

Thanks again for taking the time to dig in and help get to the bottom of this. It finally makes sense now. I too am surprised this this has caught the solar professionals off-guard. My installer has done lots of installs in OC and SD and it sounds like they were caught unaware. If my livelihood was tied to cranking out these solar installations, I would be jumping up and down making a lot of noise about this. Seems like that hasn't happened yet for some reason. I will be contacting the city shortly to see what if any resolution is in process. I'll post whatever info I manage to get out of them.

Thanks again!

So I spoke with someone in the Irvine building permits department but he was not much help. He was well aware of the PV permitting issue and he said that there was supposed to be some sort of meeting among folks above his pay grade later this week to sort this out and figure out how to move forward but he would not speculate what the resolution might be. In the meantime, my contractor told me that they are waiting on some sort of letter (from whom I don't know) that they can present to the city in order to request a waiver of the new code requirement.

[OvertheSun]

So I spoke with someone in the Irvine building permits department but he was not much help. He was well aware of the PV permitting issue and he said that there was supposed to be some sort of meeting among folks above his pay grade later this week to sort this out and figure out how to move forward but he would not speculate what the resolution might be. In the meantime, my contractor told me that they are waiting on some sort of letter (from whom I don't know) that they can present to the city in order to request a waiver of the new code requirement.

Thank you for the additional information. I hate it when regulations reference a moving target! It really runs counter to the notice function of regulations and the whole rulemaking process -especially when the standards they reference are not publicly available, like UL and ASTM (you have to buy them). The whole building code in California seems to be more privatized. All of California code is available from the Office of Administratie Law web site -- except Title 24. Sucks! Maybe it is because most regulations are driven by legislation, while the building code seems to be more insular and follow external model codes. There are model codes in other areas of law, but they don't change as much or as frequently, and are not adopted on a regular basis.

So if the UL standard for entire PV systems hasn't been around long enough for entire systems to be rated, then that means no PV systems can comply with the new code anwhere in California. So essentially, no PV systems can legally be installed in California as of 1-1-14

They are probably trying to deal with this quietly, so that they don't seem like idiots for adopting regulations that can't be implemented. I can imagine the headlines: Building Commission Thwarts State Sustainable Energy Goals by Adopting Impossible Standards. Part of me hopes it does hit the media because it might make regulators think twice before trying to limit solar in the future.

Anyway, it probably couldn't hurt to write to the Irvine City Council, and if the building department doesn't move on this soon, you/we can make a formal request to the California Building Standards Commission for emergency rulemaking to extend the compliance deadline for PV system fire rating until it becomes reasonably possible to meet the standard. In December, the CBSC did something similar with parts of the energy code (6 month extension) because the software needed to determine if projects met the code wasn't ready. See attached.

As for San Diego County, I don't see an adoption of the state code yet - building or fire. But that should mean that the CA state code would be enforced. I'd be interested to hear from people who have applied for a building permit in unicorporated SD County.

SD county handled the roofing standard differently in the last code adoption. They deleted Table 1505.1 entirely and re-wrote the section. This is the amendment:

Section 1505 of the California Building Code is revised to read:
SECTION 1505
FIRE CLASSIFICATION
Sec. 1505.1 General. The roof covering for every new structure shall be fire-retardant, that is at least Class A rated in accordance with ASTM E 108 or UL 790. A construction project for an addition to a structure or the alteration, repair or partial replacement of a roof, that involves more than 50 percent of the roof area of the existing structure or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less, within any one year period, shall require that the entire roof covering complies with this section. For the purposes of this section, gambrel roofs, mansard roofs and other similar roof configurations shall be considered roofs regardless of the steepness of the roof pitch.
Exceptions:
1. The roof covering of a building not classified as an R-3 or U occupancy may have a minimum Class B rating when not located in a wildland-urban interface fire area.
2. A Class A roof covering shall include coverings of slate, clay or concrete roof tile, exposed concrete roof deck, ferrous or copper shingles or sheets.
3. On a qualified historical building a wood roof covering may be repaired or reconstructed as allowed by the State Historical Building Code.
Sec. 1505.1.1 Roofing requirements in a wildland-urban interface fire area. A roof for a structure located in a wildland-urban interface fire area shall also comply with the requirements in section 92.1.705A.
Sec. 1505.2 Roof assembly listing. Roof assemblies and their respective fire ratings shall be listed and bear the label of an approved testing agency.
(Added by Ord. No. 10146 (N.S.), effective 5-13-11)

I'm curious to see what they do with this when they adopt/amend the 2013 building code. If they keep this language, they'll have to address PV systems some how, perhaps by keeping the more liberal requirements of the state version of table 1505.1 Regardless, I think I'm going to submit something to the Board of Supervisors encouraging them to reject the PV provisions, at least until the PV manufacturers have a chance to get their systems rated and certified.

I think it's also unclear whether they will require the state code 36" setbacks in SD County. The ordinances that are currently on the books in SD County were adopted in 2011 and states that they follow the the 2010 CA fire code and certain sections of the international code, with amendments.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sandiegoco_ca_mc

The 2011 county ordinance includes the setback requirements substantially as included in the 2013 CA code, but has an important exception:

Exception: Residential systems where the solar photovoltaic array does not occupy more than 50 percent of the roof surface and the array is less than 5,000 square feet.

What's strange is that CA state code didn't have the setbacks requirements in their 2010 code, but SD County did. I think the exception is reasonable. It basically means that if you had 50% of your roof clear for firefighters to get up there and ventillate, then you don't have to leave a 36 in path all around each array, and at every peak and valley. Maybe I'll mention this in my comments to the Board of Supervisors, too.

Has anyone in unincorporated SD county submitted or had a permit approved in 2014? Are they following the state or SD code?

[J.P.M.]

Thank you for the additional information. I hate it when regulations reference a moving target! It really runs counter to the notice function of regulations and the whole rulemaking process -especially when the standards they reference are not publicly available, like UL and ASTM (you have to buy them). The whole building code in California seems to be more privatized. All of California code is available from the Office of Administratie Law web site -- except Title 24. Sucks! Maybe it is because most regulations are driven by legislation, while the building code seems to be more insular and follow external model codes. There are model codes in other areas of law, but they don't change as much or as frequently, and are not adopted on a regular basis.

So if the UL standard for entire PV systems hasn't been around long enough for entire systems to be rated, then that means no PV systems can comply with the new code anwhere in California. So essentially, no PV systems can legally be installed in California as of 1-1-14

They are probably trying to deal with this quietly, so that they don't seem like idiots for adopting regulations that can't be implemented. I can imagine the headlines: Building Commission Thwarts State Sustainable Energy Goals by Adopting Impossible Standards. Part of me hopes it does hit the media because it might make regulators think twice before trying to limit solar in the future.

Anyway, it probably couldn't hurt to write to the Irvine City Council, and if the building department doesn't move on this soon, you/we can make a formal request to the California Building Standards Commission for emergency rulemaking to extend the compliance deadline for PV system fire rating until it becomes reasonably possible to meet the standard. In December, the CBSC did something similar with parts of the energy code (6 month extension) because the software needed to determine if projects met the code wasn't ready. See attached.

As for San Diego County, I don't see an adoption of the state code yet - building or fire. But that should mean that the CA state code would be enforced. I'd be interested to hear from people who have applied for a building permit in unicorporated SD County.

SD county handled the roofing standard differently in the last code adoption. They deleted Table 1505.1 entirely and re-wrote the section. This is the amendment:

Section 1505 of the California Building Code is revised to read:
SECTION 1505
FIRE CLASSIFICATION
Sec. 1505.1 General. The roof covering for every new structure shall be fire-retardant, that is at least Class A rated in accordance with ASTM E 108 or UL 790. A construction project for an addition to a structure or the alteration, repair or partial replacement of a roof, that involves more than 50 percent of the roof area of the existing structure or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less, within any one year period, shall require that the entire roof covering complies with this section. For the purposes of this section, gambrel roofs, mansard roofs and other similar roof configurations shall be considered roofs regardless of the steepness of the roof pitch.
Exceptions:
1. The roof covering of a building not classified as an R-3 or U occupancy may have a minimum Class B rating when not located in a wildland-urban interface fire area.
2. A Class A roof covering shall include coverings of slate, clay or concrete roof tile, exposed concrete roof deck, ferrous or copper shingles or sheets.
3. On a qualified historical building a wood roof covering may be repaired or reconstructed as allowed by the State Historical Building Code.
Sec. 1505.1.1 Roofing requirements in a wildland-urban interface fire area. A roof for a structure located in a wildland-urban interface fire area shall also comply with the requirements in section 92.1.705A.
Sec. 1505.2 Roof assembly listing. Roof assemblies and their respective fire ratings shall be listed and bear the label of an approved testing agency.
(Added by Ord. No. 10146 (N.S.), effective 5-13-11)

I'm curious to see what they do with this when they adopt/amend the 2013 building code. If they keep this language, they'll have to address PV systems some how, perhaps by keeping the more liberal requirements of the state version of table 1505.1 Regardless, I think I'm going to submit something to the Board of Supervisors encouraging them to reject the PV provisions, at least until the PV manufacturers have a chance to get their systems rated and certified.

I think it's also unclear whether they will require the state code 36" setbacks in SD County. The ordinances that are currently on the books in SD County were adopted in 2011 and states that they follow the the 2010 CA fire code and certain sections of the international code, with amendments.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:sandiegoco_ca_mc

The 2011 county ordinance includes the setback requirements substantially as included in the 2013 CA code, but has an important exception:

Exception: Residential systems where the solar photovoltaic array does not occupy more than 50 percent of the roof surface and the array is less than 5,000 square feet.

What's strange is that CA state code didn't have the setbacks requirements in their 2010 code, but SD County did. I think the exception is reasonable. It basically means that if you had 50% of your roof clear for firefighters to get up there and ventillate, then you don't have to leave a 36 in path all around each array, and at every peak and valley. Maybe I'll mention this in my comments to the Board of Supervisors, too.

Has anyone in unincorporated SD county submitted or had a permit approved in 2014? Are they following the state or SD code?

Overthesun: You're hard to keep up with - My brain will need track shoes if this continues.
To your last question : A hot topic in my neighborhood among solar seekers. So far this month 3 new jobs. Unfortunately or otherwise as it may be, by design or circumstance, none of them are near a peak. As the guy who reviews/advises the HOA on solar improvements, I often deal w/ the vendors. 2 reputable vendors are telling me they feel that the new regs pretty much force them to go w/ the 3 ft. setback, at least until the situation becomes clearer. 1 ducked the question by saying something to the effect they do whatever the customer wants, whatever that means. All 3 also happen to handle Sunpower as one of their lines so I wouldn't be surprised if they were using the setback requirements as a perhaps convenient excuse to reduce "available" roof area and make Sunpower's higher cost for about the same yearly performance a little easier to overcome.

[OvertheSun]

Overthesun: You're hard to keep up with - My brain will need track shoes if this continues.
1 ducked the question by saying something to the effect they do whatever the customer wants, whatever that means. All 3 also happen to handle Sunpower as one of their lines so I wouldn't be surprised if they were using the setback requirements as a perhaps convenient excuse to reduce "available" roof area and make Sunpower's higher cost for about the same yearly performance a little easier to overcome.

These two statements embody my worst fears! I think the worst case scenario for me would be to install a PV system only to have to take all or part of it down. I just hope I didn't miss the boat by putting in HVAC instead of solar in November.

From a policy point of view, the state needs to decide which objective is more important and how to merge the competing goals of fire safety and renewable energy. I definitely understand the need for fire safety. In 2007, I could not have been more impacted unless my house had burned to the ground. We live in 4S Ranch and the fire department made a stand right at the edge of the community. The fire came over the ridge above del Dios highway, burned most of the houses on the top of the ridge (Larry Himmels's house was up there), and they stopped it at the very base of the hills, literally in my neighbor's back yards. Kudos to the fire department!! They were afraid that if it had burned through 4S and made it to Black Mountain (which has not burned in decades), it would have been a beacon of flying embers that could have taken out Rancho Penasquitos, Carmel Valley and all the way to La Jolla -- and 4S is supposedly built to have a "shelter in place" level of fire safety!

But the question is, do the set backs go too far in a residential community? On residential rooftops less than 100', 50' or even 20' do they really need multiple paths up to the roof ridge on one side of the roof when the other side is completely available? I think the fire department would like to eliminate rooftop solar entirely, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in a wildfire. That's why I
think the current SD county exception is more reasonable.

[Naptown]

The setbacks are governed by the NFPA-1-2012 Which happen to be written by the western fire departments.

[OvertheSun]

The setbacks are governed by the NFPA-1-2012 Which happen to be written by the western fire departments.

Thanks, Rich. I understand that codes are derived from external sources with expert knowledge in the field, but the NFPA-1-2012 doesn’t have the force of law in any jurisdiction.

My point was that the sources for most of the state building and fire codes, including those contributed by the NFPA-1-2012, write from a single point of view. But the government’s role is not to look only at one side of any situation, but to balance various needs, uses, and points of view. If the next NFPA said “no residential PV panels; they pose an inherent danger” should we accept that position? What if it went even further and said everyone in California has to remove all existing residential PV arrays?

California often goes too far, in my opinion.

The County of San Diego adopted setbacks in 2011, even before the State of California did. But they added an exception that eliminated most residential installations (arrays less than 5,000 sq ft and covering less than 50% of the roof surface).
This exception was in the State Fire Marshall’s proposal for the 2013 code, but it didn’t wind up in the final 2013 state fire code. So even within the state there is a difference of opinion. Yet the final 2013 state code has some wiggle room left:
"Panels/modules shall be permitted to be located up to the roof ridge where an alternative ventilation method approved by the fire chief has been provided or where the fire chief has determined vertical ventilation techniques will not be employed."

The question I’m asking is whether the safety benefit afforded by the scope of the setbacks clearly outweighs the significant loss of potential PV capacity? Or are there alternatives that might meet both objectives without substantially prejudicing either?

If the only thing we need to be concerned with is fire safety, then we should just encase the whole state in concrete - but then we'd have the Sierra Club to deal with......

[J.P.M.]

Thanks, Rich. I understand that codes are derived from external sources with expert knowledge in the field, but the NFPA-1-2012 doesn’t have the force of law in any jurisdiction.

My point was that the sources for most of the state building and fire codes, including those contributed by the NFPA-1-2012, write from a single point of view. But the government’s role is not to look only at one side of any situation, but to balance various needs, uses, and points of view. If the next NFPA said “no residential PV panels; they pose an inherent danger” should we accept that position? What if it went even further and said everyone in California has to remove all existing residential PV arrays?

California often goes too far, in my opinion.

The County of San Diego adopted setbacks in 2011, even before the State of California did. But they added an exception that eliminated most residential installations (arrays less than 5,000 sq ft and covering less than 50% of the roof surface).
This exception was in the State Fire Marshall’s proposal for the 2013 code, but it didn’t wind up in the final 2013 state fire code. So even within the state there is a difference of opinion. Yet the final 2013 state code has some wiggle room left:
"Panels/modules shall be permitted to be located up to the roof ridge where an alternative ventilation method approved by the fire chief has been provided or where the fire chief has determined vertical ventilation techniques will not be employed."

The question I’m asking is whether the safety benefit afforded by the scope of the setbacks clearly outweighs the significant loss of potential PV capacity? Or are there alternatives that might meet both objectives without substantially prejudicing either?

If the only thing we need to be concerned with is fire safety, then we should just encase the whole state in concrete - but then we'd have the Sierra Club to deal with......

Respectfully, IMO and FWIW:

1.) Firefighters know a lot about fire fighting.
2.) A few people know something about solar energy.
3.) I'd bet few know a lot about both.
4.) In my experience, politicians and policy makers usually know little about anything.
5.) While not a conspiracy theorist, I don't see POCO's adding to the discussion of the situation. I wonder how this all got started and why it took so long to develop.
6.) With the possible exception of 3, all of the above seem to be acting in an expected parochial manner and it ain't doing any of us any good. What we may need is some definition and resolution by someone with half a sack.

[Naptown]

It all boils down to what the definition of a ridge vs hip is.
I can see the requirement on a roof that is only one plane (Shed roof)
However where there are other planes to allow for roof ventilation i don't see this as necessary.
If you read the code there is ambiguity between the definitions and requirements.
If you dont like it you are welcome to sit in on the code committee meetings and lend your voice

[OvertheSun]

It all boils down to what the definition of a ridge vs hip is.
I can see the requirement on a roof that is only one plane (Shed roof)
However where there are other planes to allow for roof ventilation i don't see this as necessary.
If you read the code there is ambiguity between the definitions and requirements.
If you dont like it you are welcome to sit in on the code committee meetings and lend your voice

I completely agree with everything you've said! Thanks for taking a look and giving us your opinion.

As for the code meetings, I might just do that. But probably at the local and/or state level. I have a little experience with CA regulatory agencies. One approach might be to request a formal code interpretation from the state Fire Marshall of exactly those ambiguities you point out. I might also call for a delay in implementation of the fire rating requirement as a emergency regulation until PV systems as a whole can be evaluated. I also think that the combination of these two issues together lends itself to written comments addressed to the County Board of Supervisors and/or fire authority.

[czhp01]

Irvine Solar Install Permit

So I spoke with someone in the Irvine building permits department but he was not much help. He was well aware of the PV permitting issue and he said that there was supposed to be some sort of meeting among folks above his pay grade later this week to sort this out and figure out how to move forward but he would not speculate what the resolution might be. In the meantime, my contractor told me that they are waiting on some sort of letter (from whom I don't know) that they can present to the city in order to request a waiver of the new code requirement.

Hi ocdave,

Please let me know what you find out later this week. I am in Irvine and has concrete tile roof as well. Is in quoting stage, and one of bigger installer said he would rather wait until later this week to give me a more detailed quote since he is waiting for Irvine city meeting to clarify the solar panel fire rating issue. If the panel has to be class A, then he needs to adjust his quote to search for class A panel. So this definitely is an urgent issue.

Thanks,

Michael,

[ocdave]

Hi ocdave,

Please let me know what you find out later this week. I am in Irvine and has concrete tile roof as well. Is in quoting stage, and one of bigger installer said he would rather wait until later this week to give me a more detailed quote since he is waiting for Irvine city meeting to clarify the solar panel fire rating issue. If the panel has to be class A, then he needs to adjust his quote to search for class A panel. So this definitely is an urgent issue.

Thanks,

Michael,

I called the city again and they have no new information. The issue is still being worked on. The person I spoke with made it sound like they were trying to get approvals to simply roll back to the regulations that were in effect in 2013 which would be good news since that means no change in equipment would be needed. She also mentioned that a lot of people are in the same boat as me so they are trying to resolve this asap (for whatever that is worth).

Funny that I have yet to see any news story on this whole debacle. No solar permits have been issued in Irvine now for a whole month and no one is talking about it!