AB 1820 limits what California cities and counties may charge to issue permits for residential and commercial solar energy systems by prescribing maximum fee formulas and a narrowly defined exception process. It defines what counts as administrative costs, requires written findings to justify higher fees, and includes an intent clause tying compliance to priority access to state distributed-energy funds.
The statute sunsets on January 1, 2034.
This bill matters because it replaces widely variable local permit pricing with predictable statewide ceilings and a clear, document-driven pathway for jurisdictions that claim higher costs. That shifts negotiating leverage toward homeowners and solar developers, constrains municipal fee revenue unless jurisdictions create specific evidence-based findings, and creates operational requirements for permit offices to calculate and document costs if they want to exceed the caps.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes dollar-per-kilowatt and tiered-fee ceilings for residential and commercial photovoltaic and thermal solar permits and bars local governments from charging more than the estimated reasonable cost unless they adopt a written finding and ordinance showing substantial evidence of higher costs. It defines administrative costs and allows amortization of certain one-time expenses related to producing the finding.
Who It Affects
Local permitting authorities (cities, counties, charter cities), solar contractors and installers, homeowners with single- or two-family dwellings, multifamily and commercial property owners, and local building and inspection departments will be directly affected. State agencies that allocate distributed-energy funds are implicated by the priority-access intent clause.
Why It Matters
By capping fees and standardizing the exception process, the bill reduces fee unpredictability that has delayed or deterred projects, while preserving a narrow path for cost recovery if a jurisdiction documents higher expenses. The law changes the revenue calculus for local governments and reshapes compliance and recordkeeping for permitting offices and applicants.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1820 sets firm ceilings on what local governments can charge to issue solar permits and then creates a narrowly circumscribed way for a jurisdiction to exceed those ceilings. For residential systems, the statute sets per-system and per-kilowatt pricing for both photovoltaic and thermal installations; for commercial installations it uses tiered caps that scale down the per-kilowatt charge as project size increases.
The bill does not eliminate local fees entirely but ties them to a statewide formula so applicants can predict permit costs before applying.
If a city or county believes its actual cost to issue permits exceeds the statutory cap, it can charge more only after adopting a resolution or ordinance that contains a written finding supported by substantial evidence. Those findings must demonstrate that the jurisdiction has implemented streamlining practices and model processes, present a calculation of administrative costs that accounts for reduced costs under state streamlining rules, and explain how the higher fee will produce faster approvals.
The law permits jurisdictions to amortize certain up‑front costs — such as producing the required finding and setting up new procedures — into the higher fee calculation.The bill defines key terms so there is less ambiguity about scope: residential permits cover single‑ and two‑family dwellings; commercial covers multifamily with more than two units and larger nonresidential systems; and “administrative costs” is narrowly framed to review, approval, issuance, inspection time, follow-up, and certain amortized expenses. The statute explicitly preserves the ability for municipalities to conduct plan checks under existing state building codes and cross‑references streamlining under Section 65850.5.
Finally, the provision is temporary: it automatically expires on January 1, 2034, and includes an intent statement linking compliance to priority for state distributed-energy funding.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Residential permit caps: the bill caps residential photovoltaic permit fees at $450 plus $15 per kW for each kW above 15 kW, and caps residential thermal fees at $450 plus $15 per kWth above 10 kWth.
Commercial tiered caps: commercial PV fees are capped at $1,000 for systems up to 50 kW, then $7 per kW for 51–250 kW, and $5 per kW above 250 kW (thermal tiers use slightly different size breakpoints).
Exception and evidence standard: a jurisdiction may exceed the caps only after adopting a resolution or ordinance with a written finding that includes substantial evidence of the reasonable cost to issue the permit.
Required finding elements: the written finding must show the municipality has adopted streamlined processes consistent with state guidance, include an administrative‑cost calculation that accounts for cost reductions under Section 65850.5, and describe how the higher fee speeds approvals.
Sunset and funding priority: the statute sunsets on January 1, 2034, and declares legislative intent that jurisdictions complying with the section receive priority access to state distributed‑energy planning, permitting, training, or implementation funds.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Residential permit fee ceilings and exception process
This subdivision prescribes the fee ceiling formula for residential photovoltaic and thermal systems and prevents a local government from charging more than the estimated reasonable cost except under the exception process. Practically, permit applicants get a predictable cap tied to system size, limiting sticker shock. If a jurisdiction wants a higher fee, it must follow the Section (c) finding process — a path that requires explicit local action and documentation, not ad hoc fee setting.
Commercial fee schedule and carve‑outs
Subdivision (b) creates a tiered commercial schedule that lowers per‑kilowatt charges as system size grows, reflecting economies of scale. It likewise permits higher commercial fees only after the jurisdiction produces a written finding and adopts an ordinance or resolution. For developers and commercial owners, this establishes a fee curve to model project budgets and constrains outsized per‑kW charges that some jurisdictions historically applied to larger projects.
What the written finding must show
Subdivision (c) lists three required elements for any finding that justifies higher fees: evidence of streamlined ordinances and practices consistent with state guidelines and the California Solar Permitting Guidebook; an administrative cost calculation that considers cost reductions from streamlined processes under Section 65850.5; and a description of how charging more will shorten approval time. These requirements turn the exception into a procedural checklist municipalities must satisfy and document, which creates paperwork and legal exposure if challenged.
Definitions and allowed cost components
These paragraphs define “administrative costs” to include review, approval, issuance, site inspection and follow‑up hourly costs, and permit amortization of one‑time costs tied to producing the finding and adopting the ordinance. They also define residential and commercial permit fees and incorporate the Civil Code definition of a solar energy system. By limiting cost categories, the bill constrains what local governments can claim as recoverable, but it allows some flexibility for jurisdictions to recoup genuine set‑up expenses over time.
State funding intent, retained plan check authority, and sunset
Subdivision (h) expresses legislative intent that compliant jurisdictions receive priority for state distributed‑generation funds, creating a soft incentive to follow the statute. Subdivision (i) preserves municipalities’ authority to conduct safety plan checks under Section 65850.5 and Title 24. Subdivision (j) sets the statute to expire January 1, 2034, which limits the policy to a defined period and signals this is a temporary regulatory experiment rather than a permanent overhaul.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homeowners and single‑family property purchasers — they gain predictable maximum permit fees tied to system size, reducing unexpected upfront costs and improving project budgeting.
- Solar contractors and installers — standardized ceilings reduce fee variability across jurisdictions, simplifying bids and decreasing administrative time spent estimating local permit costs.
- Small multifamily and commercial developers with projects near the tier breakpoints — the tiered commercial schedule lowers marginal per‑kW fees on larger systems, improving project economics and scaling incentives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Cities, counties, and charter cities — the caps constrain fee revenue unless jurisdictions prepare and adopt the required written findings with substantial evidence to justify higher fees, a process that itself consumes staff time.
- Local building and permitting departments — staff must produce cost calculations, adopt ordinances/resolutions, and maintain evidence; they may also need to amortize and track one‑time costs, increasing bookkeeping and legal exposure.
- Applicants in jurisdictions that pursue higher fees — where a locality documents higher costs, applicants could face greater fees and the paperwork might lengthen the pre‑application phase while the local government builds its evidentiary record.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between statewide affordability and local cost recovery: AB 1820 aims to make solar permitting costs predictable and lower barriers for applicants, but doing so restricts local revenue and forces jurisdictions to either absorb costs, streamline operations, or invest staff time to prove higher costs — a trade‑off between uniform consumer protection and local fiscal and administrative reality.
The bill balances statewide predictability with a conditional exception, but the mechanics create practical headaches. First, the "substantial evidence" requirement for higher fees is vague and will generate disputes over what counts as sufficient documentation; legal challenges could follow if municipalities adopt findings that critics view as perfunctory.
Second, allowing amortization of ordinance‑preparation costs invites jurisdictions to front‑load one‑time expenses into permit fees; absent strict auditing, this could be used to justify otherwise unwarranted fee increases.
Operationally, permit offices must reconcile the statute's requirement that their cost calculation "consider" reduced costs from Section 65850.5 with their own historical cost bases. That calculation will require standardized bookkeeping and possibly outside accounting advice, which is an unfunded burden.
The sunset date narrows the policy window to less than a decade, which may discourage long‑term administrative investments and complicate multi‑year budgeting for both local governments and large developers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.