As more homeowners are interested in green technologies, local governments nationwide are considering relaxing and sometimes eliminating building codes to speed the way. The Arizona Republic takes a look at the debate about whether these decisions could lead to increased property damage.
Since Mesa and Gilbert waived a requirement for building permits, no consensus exists on whether consumers are getting a break on fees or whether they are risking long-term damage to their roofs from the weight of solar systems, or worse, seeing their roof sail off during a microburst, the newspaper reports.
"They're sitting on a ticking time bomb. Something is going to happen," Robert Dumitrache of R&R Engineering in Surprise, told the newspaper, adding that "a structural analysis of a roof is a cheap insurance policy for a homeowner hoping to avoid long-term problems."
But Rick Fowlkes, a Mesa consulting engineer, told the newspaper, "I'm in agreement with Mesa and Gilbert: If it's a single home system it's probably not needed."
Steve Hether, Mesa's director of development services, acknowledged in an interview with the newspaper that it's possible the doomsday scenarios could occur but said such events are unlikely.
"There's always a risk, no matter what you do," Hether said. "You might have a roof that is under-designed, but what are the chances of that playing out? For the resources we have, is it something we need to get involved in? We said no."
While Mesa waived the building permit and the $370 fee, Scottsdale still requires the permit and often requests the structural analysis, said Mike Clack, chief development officer.
With such a wide disparity in rules, the Maricopa Association of Governments is hoping to arrive at a standardized approach to protect consumers while avoiding a heavy financial burden, he said.
A structural analysis can cost anywhere from $250 to $1,200, depending on who you ask.
Clack, chairman of MAG's building-standards committee, said he's looking for proof that drilling a screw into a truss to anchor a solar system, which goes against national building codes, won't damage roofs.
Ben Hershey, president of the Structural Building Components Association, said he's offered to perform tests in the association's Madison, Wis., lab, but the solar industry so far has not agreed to pay.
Concerned about the lack of municipal oversight, Mesa and Gilbert are required to sign waivers accepting responsibility before turning on the power.
Property owners and installers vouch in the waiver that the solar systems have been installed properly and meet building codes, Lori Singleton, manager of sustainability initiatives and technology, told the newspaper.
After being contacted by SRP and Arizona Public Service Co., the Arizona Registrar of Contractors is planning to create a new license for solar installers to protect consumers, director Bill Mundell said.
Until that happens, Mundell said he plans to add more questions about solar to the electrical-license test that now covers solar installers.
The debate comes as the solar industry booms. American Solar Electric, one of the Valley's largest installers, projects it will install 700 to 900 residential systems in 2009, spokeswoman Krystal Book said.
Despite the added costs and delays, American Solar Electric does not support deregulation, she said.
"Having a building permit from a city is an additional assurance" for homeowners, she said. With no permit, "it opens the door for unlicensed contractors who don't have the checks and balances we have in place."
Here are some pros and cons in the debate, according to The Arizona Republic:
Pros
• Mesa stopped requiring the building permits two years ago and has received no complaints.
• Eliminating the permits saves consumers a $370 review fee, plus the potential cost of a structural analysis by an engineer that could cost up to $1,200. The cost savings might encourage more people to go green.
• Mesa has not experienced a structural roof collapse in at least a decade.
• The vast majority of homes already have passed through the building-permit process.
Cons
• Some roofs have not been designed to carry an additional load. There's no way for the average consumer to know the load level without having an engineer perform a structural analysis.
• Any damage from too heavy a load would not show up for years and would likely accumulate over time. Cracks could develop in roofs, and solar panels could act like sails, pulling off roofs during storms.
• Drilling a hole into a truss to anchor a solar system violates nationally accepted building codes.
• Even if a structural analysis costs anywhere from $250 to $1,200, it's a very small percentage of a $30,000 job and amounts to an insurance policy for homeowners.