Santa Clara County retroactively Changing ESS Rules

[holeydonut]

Nah - not a first alert issue. Mine is a 1st alert - and they used a Kidde spec sheet. It’s not a problem here’s the picture: it has to be wired to the Tesla stuff, not the fire alarm.

My Contra Costa county inspector said the rise of rate heat sensors have to be placed on the ceiling a foot away from a wall. If placed on the wall it should be 6 inches from the ceiling. Basically he didn't like me putting the rise of rate heat sensor near the Powerwall because he said the sensor would be useless should the Powerwall engulf the sensor in a fireball.

Basically they would have seen your system with the sensor 1 foot away from the Powerwall and barfed all over it. Probably red-tag your house as uninhabitable because the horror.

 

[Manksgloob]

Well, it took a couple of weeks to ‘process’ but they finally issues the permit. This is officially the slowest building department in the country. If they replaced the office with shelter cats, random walking on keyboards would produce permits at the same rate - without all the animosity. And that would certainly save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Heather, your experience really scares me. I live in the same town (albeit closer to Vasona) and have only just started going down the path of solar + PWs -- I am not looking forward to going through what you had to go through...

Thank you for sharing. I will try to use this information to tread carefully.

 

[heather5551212]

Heather, your experience really scares me. I live in the same town (albeit closer to Vasona) and have only just started going down the path of solar + PWs -- I am not looking forward to going through what you had to go through...

Thank you for sharing. I will try to use this information to tread carefully.

If you’re in LG Town, then you’ll be fine. My parents live downtown and had absolutely no issues with installing batteries. This is only if you live in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. So I live in LG, but have to deal with the County planning department, which sucks.

 

[heather5551212]

My Contra Costa county inspector said the rise of rate heat sensors have to be placed on the ceiling a foot away from a wall. If placed on the wall it should be 6 inches from the ceiling. Basically he didn't like me putting the rise of rate heat sensor near the Powerwall because he said the sensor would be useless should the Powerwall engulf the sensor in a fireball.

Basically they would have seen your system with the sensor 1 foot away from the Powerwall and barfed all over it. Probably red-tag your house as uninhabitable because the horror.

I agree with you, the heat sensor is useless. This is what my idiotic county planning department wanted. YMMV. I have garage sprinklers, which may be a tad more useful - at least long enough to get everyone safely out of the house.

 

[Vines]

I agree with you, the heat sensor is useless. This is what my idiotic county planning department wanted. YMMV. I have garage sprinklers, which may be a tad more useful - at least long enough to get everyone safely out of the house.

But those sprinklers do not have an audible water flow alarm?

In SCC Fire territory, sprinklers with an audible water flow alarm in the garage satisfies the requirement.

 

[Vines]

But those sprinklers do not have an audible water flow alarm?

In SCC Fire territory, sprinklers with an audible water flow alarm in the garage satisfies the requirement.

This was pretty messy and I won't go into many details, except to clarify that the heat alarm shown First alert HD6135FB/KiddeHD135 is not approved by SCC fire for unconditioned garage installations, so at least the enforcement on the plan check side is uniform.

On the inspection side, the building inspector didn't see what was on the approved plans, but approved it anyway.

 

[heather5551212]

This was pretty messy and I won't go into many details, except to clarify that the heat alarm shown First alert HD6135FB/KiddeHD135 is not approved by SCC fire for unconditioned garage installations, so at least the enforcement on the plan check side is uniform.

On the inspection side, the building inspector didn't see what was on the approved plans, but approved it anyway.

Actually, we do have a Honeywell 5602 heat detector attached to our sprinkler system with an audible alarm, so we do meet current building codes. That is what was installed on the original plans of the house, not what our vendor ‘told’ the county what we had. There Is zero chance the county would’ve taken an unpermitted fire suppression system as satisfying the requirement for this permit - and it would’ve thrown our house into violation for having unpermitted work - as happened with the phantom generator.

 

[Vines]

Actually, we do have a Honeywell 5602 heat detector attached to our sprinkler system with an audible alarm, so we do meet current building codes. That is what was installed on the original plans of the house, not what our vendor ‘told’ the county what we had. There Is zero chance the county would’ve taken an unpermitted fire suppression system as satisfying the requirement for this permit - and it would’ve thrown our house into violation for having unpermitted work - as happened with the phantom generator.

What a mess this requirement makes out of what was a relatively simple energy storage system installation.

At least if nothing else they are applying the rules equally. It sounds like the disconnect was that the county didn't realize that what you already had satisfies their evolving requirements.

 

[holeydonut]

What a mess this requirement makes out of what was a relatively simple energy storage system installation.

At least if nothing else they are applying the rules equally. It sounds like the disconnect was that the county didn't realize that what you already had satisfies their evolving requirements.

Speaking of disconnects... I don't see a disconnect in Heather's photo. How did that ever get past inspection?

 

[h2ofun]

Speaking of disconnects... I don't see a disconnect in Heather's photo. How did that ever get past inspection?

my disconnects are by my main grid panel

 

[holeydonut]

my disconnects are by my main grid panel

That shouldn't be allowed because of the line of sight malarkey.

PS, are the 7 disconnects arranged neatly and orderly? Pics plz.

 

[h2ofun]

That shouldn't be allowed because of the line of sight malarkey.

PS, are the 7 disconnects arranged neatly and orderly? Pics plz.

 

[holeydonut]

View attachment 901057

Oh yeah that's right ... I forgot they didn't make your 5 vertical stack become a 7 vertical stack.

I think there should be a NEC rule against having 5 square D and 2 Eaton disconnects. For aesthetics. And something about the 6 handed rule.

 

[heather5551212]

Speaking of disconnects... I don't see a disconnect in Heather's photo. How did that ever get past inspection?

My disconnects are on the other side of the other PW - closer to the main. This isn’t the entire installation.

 

[holeydonut]

My disconnects are on the other side of the other PW - closer to the main. This isn’t the entire installation.

Yeah, I'm in Contra Costa and they said that violates NEC rules around "line of sight" where someone working on the Powerwalls in the garage has to be able to see the disconnect(s) for safety. Even if my garage wall was transparent, I would still need to put disconnects on the same wall surface as the Powerwalls.

 

[Vines]

That shouldn't be allowed because of the line of sight malarkey.

PS, are the 7 disconnects arranged neatly and orderly? Pics plz.

Under last years code, the switch on the side of the Powerwall could be counted as a disconnect. Some require this to be lockable, and some Powerwalls have the locking hardware on them from the factory to make them compliant with this years code.

 

[heather5551212]

What a mess this requirement makes out of what was a relatively simple energy storage system installation.

At least if nothing else they are applying the rules equally. It sounds like the disconnect was that the county didn't realize that what you already had satisfies their evolving requirements.

My take on the SCC planning dept. is that they avoid issuing permits like the plague. They will pull all sorts of bizarre antics to avoid issuing a permit - and do. They are predatory and highly corrupt.

Other planning departments haven’t had these issues. My parents got theirs installed in their garage - town of LG. Permit took 2 weeks - they did ask for a revision. They were helpful and straightforward. Their home is older and doesn’t comply with modern fire codes at all (no wired fire alarm, no sprinklers). They had zero issues.

How do you explain 6 months of hell I went through vs 2 weeks that my parents went through? Same county fire code requirements. My home is more compliant.

 

[Vines]

My take on the SCC planning dept. is that they avoid issuing permits like the plague. They will pull all sorts of bizarre antics to avoid issuing a permit - and do. They are predatory and highly corrupt.

Other planning departments haven’t had these issues. My parents got theirs installed in their garage - town of LG. Permit took 2 weeks - they did ask for a revision. They were helpful and straightforward. Their home is older and doesn’t comply with modern fire codes at all (no wired fire alarm, no sprinklers). They had zero issues.

How do you explain 6 months of hell I went through vs 2 weeks that my parents went through? Same county fire code requirements. My home is more compliant.

You nailed it on the head I think, with the internal issues at SCC permitting. I cannot say which department is more difficult, but from my experience, it is fire that is difficult to get a permit from.

 

[holeydonut]

Under last years code, the switch on the side of the Powerwall could be counted as a disconnect. Some require this to be lockable, and some Powerwalls have the locking hardware on them from the factory to make them compliant with this years code.

I posted here... Garth Robertshaw in Contra Costa County disagrees with you. He said the switch on the side of the Powerwall does not count; and LOTO clips aren't safe due to line of sight. So the disconnect has to be next to the Powerwall on the same side of the wall.

Question about 120 percent NEC rule with Tesla Gateway 2

Lol you actually found those LOTO clips? Yeah I think those clips should be a good compromise between putting lots of blades next to the ESS or putting a sub panel full of OCPDs next to the ESS. Well, unless you're doing an install in Contra Costa County. In case it got lost in this thread...

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[Vines]

I posted here... Garth Robertshaw in Contra Costa County disagrees with you. He said the switch on the side of the Powerwall does not count; and LOTO clips aren't safe due to line of sight. So the disconnect has to be next to the Powerwall on the same side of the wall.

Question about 120 percent NEC rule with Tesla Gateway 2

Lol you actually found those LOTO clips? Yeah I think those clips should be a good compromise between putting lots of blades next to the ESS or putting a sub panel full of OCPDs next to the ESS. Well, unless you're doing an install in Contra Costa County. In case it got lost in this thread...

teslamotorsclub.com

I remember the discussion. Different AHJ have different opinions, and I helped to author a document for SEAC to clarify this issue.

LOTO clips I agree are not permanent means to lockoff the breaker. You need to use kits that add locking hardware to the breaker itself, and where the dead front could be removed with the locking device still attached.