When you exhaust your options for getting it approved as permitted, you should issue an invoice to the homeowner for the cost of complying with the retroactive changes. The homeowner should sue the city for those costs. Even better if the Palo Alto homeowner is a lawyer themselves.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Santa Clara County retroactively Changing ESS Rules
- Thread starter Vines
- Start date
wow, that is a huge huge deal breaker. And if you add what you posted that in July you cannot put more than 80K in one spot, .....
Tempting, but not best for our relationship with the homeowner. We are considering our options based on the final response, which has yet to come from the CBO. We almost never issue change orders, and never when its something within our wheelhouse and responsibility. Our customers sign a fixed price contract, and we always honor that unless its the customer causing the changes.
I am suggesting that the homeowner use that invoice and lawsuit as a strategy to get the City to sign off on what was originally permitted. The City should face some consequence for retroactive changes to permits.
I would never propose that you stick the homeowner with that bill and have you and the homeowner yield to the City.
winning a fight with the city, not an easy thing to do. We were going to fight a blade disconnect per battery, but engineer said just easier to do what they want. But to change a permit after approved, thats a new one. But, SGIP just did this one wells, and nailed a lot of homeowners and companies.
Its a crappy situation, but I am hopeful that at least the existing permits with existing ESS spacing, will be honored.
If not my approach may be to tell the city attorney the AHJ is infringing on fair business practices, by changing the ESS separation rules after the permit is issued. I am still hoping the CBO will be reasonable, and allow what is permitted to stand.
If not my approach may be to tell the city attorney the AHJ is infringing on fair business practices, by changing the ESS separation rules after the permit is issued. I am still hoping the CBO will be reasonable, and allow what is permitted to stand.
So this started when an inspector in the field decided to ignore what the building department had approved already? We had a case similar to this when an out of area inspector came for one time. He nailed us for stucco at bottom not being 2 inches. We were told none of the local folks when have done this, but once it was written done, we were told we had to deal with it,
So this started when an inspector in the field decided to ignore what the building department had approved already? We had a case similar to this when an out of area inspector came for one time. He nailed us for stucco at bottom not being 2 inches. We were told none of the local folks when have done this, but once it was written done, we were told we had to deal with it,
No, in this case the field inspector was following the head inspectors orders.
But is the head inspector different than the folks in the office who do the plan approvals? And the Governor, PUC, etc says they want us to put this type of stuff in? But the complexity and costs are getting to be nuts.
CPA has among the most convoluted permit process in any city.
We need the following involved for an ESS permit:
Permit technician CPA
Permit Technician Contractor
Plan checker - CPA Structural/Building
Plan Checker - CPA Fire
Plan Checker - CPA Planning
Plan Checker - CPA Utility
Structural Engineer - Contractor
CAD operator - Contractor
Greenwaste integration - Contractor
Greenwaste integration - CPA
Greenwaste Integration - Refuse transfer station
Inspector - Roof attachment
Inspector - Mounting system
Inspector - Electrical
We need the following involved for an ESS permit:
Permit technician CPA
Permit Technician Contractor
Plan checker - CPA Structural/Building
Plan Checker - CPA Fire
Plan Checker - CPA Planning
Plan Checker - CPA Utility
Structural Engineer - Contractor
CAD operator - Contractor
Greenwaste integration - Contractor
Greenwaste integration - CPA
Greenwaste Integration - Refuse transfer station
Inspector - Roof attachment
Inspector - Mounting system
Inspector - Electrical
See, all this green energy investment is creating jobs! Jobs jobs jobs.
WTF. In my city (not in California) we'd have maybe 6 people total involved, and two of those are more administrative than substantive (Permit Tech and Planning).
Compare this to San Jose where an existing contractor can submit an ESS permit electronically and have it approved that same minute with literally no oversight. The inspectors in SJ will be the ones to determine if you did your job right, so mistakes are costly, and require rework.
Well poop,
Discussion is ongoing, but an inspector already wrote on our inspection card during the rough inspection, for a job where we had a permit to install a set of stacked Powerwalls. "ESS must be separated by 36 inches"
The reasoning is obscure. UL 9540 is now in the 2nd edition (released 2/27/20) and the Powerwall is listed to the 1st edition. According to UL an ESS listed to 9540 edition 1 needs to be relisted to 9540 edition 2, by July 1 2022. Meanwhile the CBC specifies that the version of 9540 which was code is before the 1st edition, called the outline of investigation, released in 2014 I believe.
CPA is saying any ESS manufactured after 2/27/20 must be spaced 36" apart. We will be fighting this tooth and nail all the way to the highest levels of the city. Its absolutely unfair to retroactively apply new requirements to an existing permit, unless some serious life safety issue is identified. These jobs have waterproofing, HVAC, landscaping all completed. Spacing the Powerwalls 36" apart at this time will cost us tens of thousands of dollars for all the affected jobs.
UNREAL! Seriously. Man I’m glad ours are in and we don’t live there but heart goes out to all you installers and homeowners over this. I have to believe there’s more to this.
I bet “green” families with money looking to move to Palo Alto could change their minds and look elsewhere if solar/battery back up is important to their family. I know I would. To pay the home prices and real estate taxes to live there and not be able to have sufficient batteries for storage in your garage is a big negative I’m sure for many wealthy environmentally conscious couples. I know PA has their own electrical company, at least recall that from a friend who lived there years ago, so are they outage free?
Last edited:
It is unreal, I have never heard of jurisdictions trying to wholesale change the rules that the permit are under, and very clearly approved.
I appreciate safety too, but changing the rules after the permit is issued isn't right, that's even worse than enforcing your own rules. Its literally pulling the rug out from installers. I'm not sounding the alarm yet, but this is truly messed up. I sure hope that 9540A testing comes back soon with a passing grade, 10" separation and stacking allowed. This will eliminate any pushback.
I agree that changing the rules after the permit is issued is just wrong. Beyond the cost, wasted effort, and frankly damage, it is an invitation to all sorts of malfeasance. If I were an affected permit holder, I would certainly investigate the legality of it, as a permit is a contract of sorts, and CPA is certainly not honoring their side of it.
Please keep us posted.
Best of luck getting the city of Palo Alto to see the sense of not doing this,
BG
California's vested rights doctrine is common law (developed through court decisions) and not statutory, but it still offers protection (so to speak) if you've incurred substantial cost relying on an issued permit. However, really making use of this requires lawyers (threatening letters at a minimum, lawsuits in the extreme case) so you can end up in situations where the jurisdiction might try to force compliance, even though if push came to shove they'd lose in court, because lawyers and litigation are expensive and time-consuming.
Other states treat vested rights differently. Washington, for example, has a pretty strong but also pretty specific vested rights statute; here, all this stuff you're talking about is illegal, meaning a jurisdiction can't change the rules unilaterally once we issue the permit. A city would have to appeal its own permit issuance.
Not that any of this info makes it any less frustrating! I think it is an absolute travesty to try and change the rules retroactively, and while in my career I've certainly applied pressure to an applicant to change something in the middle of a project, I know that in that situation any compliance with my request would be voluntary and not compelled, so negotiation and reasoned discussion is key, not just taking a hard line.
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.
Good news from CPA, looks like they are going to be reasonable, and not try to change the rules after the permit is issued!
Similar threads
