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 <[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
List Address: [email protected]
Change listserver email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html
List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
Check out or update participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org
