[RE-wrenches] California State Fire Marshal's "Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines"

Fri Feb 14 08:20:37 PST 2014

Andrew--Thank-you for your work to dampen the fire hysteria that's sweeping the roofs of residential solar. Between the ridiculous setbacks (out here you'd never see a firefighter on a house roof swinging an axe, but if so inclined, they could go on the other side of the peak).

And now we need to install mythical products for de-energizing and fire-protection racking. Unless the big leasing companies can beat back the anti-solar "safety" club, rooftop residential is toast. PV leaders and consultants have caved. A short time ago, a firefighter (what was he doing on the wrench page anyways?) urged installers not to look at their bottom line and take in the big picture.

That is exactly what you are doing in opposing these rules that are set up for problems that don't exist. The firefighting and code making industries are big bucks. 

Let's see, wrenches and folks who write the code can't figure out what it says. And in our county in PA, there are 90 different permitting agencies that will be reading the same codes and ordering their interpretations before we get a permit.
The real big issue is sustainability and climate change and we need to have a society that embraces a rush to PV and not smother it with the love of safety. Want to stop fires? Let's go after toaster ovens.

Bill Hennessy
Berks Solar, LLC

________________________________
 From: Solar Energy Solutions <solarenergysolutions at yahoo.com>
To: RE-wrenches <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org> 
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] California State Fire Marshal's "Solar Photovoltaic Installation Guidelines"

Today at 11:41 AM  
Dear colleagues, 

Rooftop real estate available for solar is of unparalleled and monumental importance.  As we head into our 6th great extinction the solar industry needs to fight tooth and nail to gain 100% access to every inch of available roof space.  The fire fighting industry needs to adapt to solar, NOT vice versa.  

In Oregon, one person, myself, stopped the 12 person BCD committee from adopting the anti solar 3 foot pathway around solar arrays.  The committee would not listen to reason.  I went to the governors office saying and showing that if the Cal. Guidelines were adopted as code 100% of the roofs we had installed systems on would be 100%illegal and unviable.

Yada yada yada, we got the Koyaanisqatsi Rule.

304.9.1 General Pathway Requirements Exception 1.1. Where the PV array does not exceed 25% as measured in plan view of total roof area of the structure, a minimum 12 inch (305mm) unobstructed pathway, shall be maintained along each side of any horizontal ridge. 
1.2. Where the solar array area exceeds 25% as measured in plan view of total roof area of the structure, a minimum of one 36 inch (914 mm) unobstructed pathway from ridge to eave, over a structurally supported area, must be provided in addition to a minimum 12 inch (305 mm) unobstructed pathway along each side of any horizontal ridge. 

I still see this as a failure.  I had 40% going into the final meeting and one foot from the peak only on pitches greater than 4:12.  But, by that time everyone hated me soooo badly for holding such a hard lined solar centric perspective, and for succeeding in going over their heads, it was all I could do to get them to meet.

Unassisted in this battle I was exhausted and unable to follow the proceedings to the end.  And, in the end, a rafter span chart hostile to solar was thrown in and now we are dealing with that.

Here is the link to the  Oregon Solar Installation Specialty Code:  http://www.cbs.state.or.us/bcd/programs/solar/solar_code/100110_OSISC.pdf

The concept and good intentions of a statewide code were good.  Unfortunately, the task was left to folk who were not as friendly towards or knowledgeable of solar as one would think would be asked to be part of such a noble cause.  

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrew Koyaanisqatsi
President
Solar Energy Solutions, Inc.
Since 1987,
Moving Portland and Beyond 
to an Environmentally Sustainable Future.
503-238-4502
www.SolarEnergyOregon.com
"Better one's House too little one day
than too big all the Year after."

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:45 AM, Mark Frye <markf at berkeleysolar.com> wrote:

There are so so many well informed people on this list, and I am so lazy.
>
>I wish someone could just lay it all out":
>
>We got the 2012 ABC thing nearly identical to NPPA1 with the set backs 
>and labeling
>We got the 2014 NEC with the de-energizing the conductors and equipment
>We got the IBC which appears to say one thing about fire rating ie. 
>needs to be the same as roof
>And we got the UL thing that seems to be based on the combined rating of 
>the module and racking system
>
>Wow, I commend anyone who is willing to go
 into a building department 
>and lay down a set of plans.
>
>Mark
>
>
>On 2/13/2014 10:50 AM, William Korthof wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Thanks for the attached info. I don't see where the fire rating class of solar modules is addressed though...
>>
>> In the IBC, the specific section (I believe 902.4 or close to that) seems to call for solar modules to carry the same fire rating class as the roofing class required of the building. At least that's the interpretation I initially got from my local building and safety office. They've been sitting on my plans for two weeks so far. When they turn them around, I may have more to talk about.
>>
>>
>> /wk
>>
>> William Korthof
>>
 714.875.3576
>> Sustainable Solutions
>> #956904
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 9:34 AM, "Bill Brooks" <billbrooks7 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes Peter,
>>
>> It is called the 2012 International Fire Code. The California guidelines
>> were turned into code in 2012. There is an explanation document I wrote
>> available online at:
>>
>> http://solarabcs.org//about/publications/reports/fireguideline/index.html
>>
>> For those states
 that are using NFPA 1 as their fire code, it is nearly
>> identical.
>>
>> Bill.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>>
>> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>>
>> Change email address & settings:
>> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>
>> List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>>
>> List rules & etiquette:
>> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>>
>> Check out participant bios:
>> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
>List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
>Change email address & settings:
>http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
>List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
>List rules & etiquette:
>www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
>Check out participant bios:
>www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20140214/6e88b910/attachment-0003.html>