[RE-wrenches] Access pathways

Sun Mar 27 16:59:08 PDT 2016

The Death Knell of the Solar Electric Industry for residential roofs is the loss of available space. The mistake we see made over and over and over again is local jurisdictions  copying and pasting code hostile to the solar industry birthed as "suggested practices" for California and then making it law without any thought as to what devastating effect such actions have on the solar industry.  This is exactly what happened on Oregon.
But, one person going up against the entire 12 person, governor appointed board to develop code for the state, said, "NO WAY".  The fight was brutal and went all the way to the governor's desk.  Finally, the 25% rule was established... It should have been the 40% rule.

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

Unless, we are going to require fire person friendly roofs everywhere that would also outlaw steep roofs, slate roofs, slick roofs, wood roofs and snow on roofs there is no reason to single out the solar industry with such toxic requirements.  Home Power and Solar Pro publish photo after photo after photo of PV installations that would fail the requirements so rapidly spreading across the nation like wild fire.
For the Love of Solar and the Environment, Folks, put up your dukes!
As Respectfully Submitted as Possible,
  Andrew KoyaanisqatsiPresidentSolar 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 daythan too big all the Year after." 

    On Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:22 PM, Dan Fink <danbob88 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Rebecca; Look into the Boulder, CO and Golden, CO Fire Marshal compromises on IFC setbacks, and also Oregon. These all put some common sense "intent of the code" perspective into the setback situation with a realistic look at what firefighters actually want.I do have these documents available. And also a powerpoint on IFC2012 and firefighter access that I presented at last year's NABCEP CE conference. If you or anyone else would like these documents, please contact me off list 
Dan FinkAdjunct Professor of Solar Energy Technology, Ecotech InstituteIREC Certified Instructor™ for: ~ PV Installation Professional~ Small Wind InstallerExecutive Director, Buckville EnergyNABCEP Registered Continuing Education Providers™
970.672.4342

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Rebecca Lundberg <rebecca.lundberg at powerfullygreen.com> wrote:

Dear Solar Colleagues,

I know the building code language regarding PV installations providing 3' access pathways was proposed and adopted in several states a few years ago. 

"3113.1.2.1 Residential buildings with hip roof layouts. Panels or modules installed on residential buildings with hip roof layouts shall be located in a manner that provides a 3-foot-wide (914 mm) clear access pathway from the eave to the ridge on each roof slope where panels/modules are located. The access pathway shall be located at a location on the building capable of supporting the live load of firefighters accessing the roof." (this is just a partial quote from here https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=1305.3113)

This is a newly adopted code addition in MN, and there was absolutely no discussion with the solar industry. In MN we install solar on the south-facing roof as optimal, with perhaps the SE, SW, or even the east- or west-facing roof as possible options, but we almost without exception NEVER would mount solar panels on any roof with an azimuth 270 - 90 degrees (i.e. north of west or north of east). The requirement to leave a 3' walkway on all surfaces will in many cases diminish the amount of available roof surface for a residential solar PV installation to about 40% of previous designs. 

I see how this safety requirement may be necessary in a state where mounting solar panels on all roof surfaces is an option, but in MN since we can really only mount on the south-facing roof I don't understand how safety for fire fighters is a primary concern with this code addition. My understanding is that if there is another roof surface available, fire fighters would not choose to vent a roof with solar panels even if a 3' walkway is available -- so for what purpose are we avoiding that roof space for a solar installation?

Our local folks at the state level either don't understand these details or feel that there must be an overriding reason that this building code language has been adopted in other states. Can any of you give me input, comments, thoughts on this topic that I could contribute here on a local level?

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Lundberg
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer ®
Powerfully Green®
763.438.1976Poweredby the Sun!

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance

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

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

List-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html

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

Check out or update 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/20160327/59a6bc05/attachment-0003.html>