The Hidden Cost of Solar Permitting Mandates
“Government should stay out of what the private sector can do really well.” — Ezra Klein
At its core, Symbium is a regulatory tech innovator with a mandate to democratize access to regulatory analysis for the public, starting with permitting. Our fundamental principle is clear: the government should never mandate what private innovation can achieve far more effectively through open competition. Publicly funded research must remain exactly that — public — and should never become a vehicle to handpick winners in the marketplace. Continued incentives to innovate go hand-in-hand with competition.
At Symbium, we have always championed competition and innovation as fundamental to improving how people interact with government regulations. Ours is the only permitting tech company that has received an innovation award from the California Building Officials precisely for our collaborative and inclusive approach. Our versatile rules engine streamlines complex regulatory codes across diverse project types — from solar installations and EV charging to structural upgrades and emergency response efforts — much as smartphones integrated multiple standalone devices into one unified solution. While we continue to advance instant permitting for solar and recognize its transformative potential, existing restrictive legislative mandates significantly undermine market innovation and obscure superior alternatives. Most importantly, these mandates ignore the actual needs and challenges of communities and building departments everywhere. As of the publication date for this post, Symbium remains the sole instant permitting platform actively issuing real-time permits — not mere compliance documents — across multiple project categories in pioneering cities such as Bakersfield, Lancaster, and Irvine, underscoring why legislators should reject narrow mandates that ultimately limit innovation, restrict choice, and deprive communities of superior solutions.
— Leila Banijamali, Symbium CEO
The big illusion: Pick your favorite — Option A or Option A?
Imagine if, tomorrow, the government mandated that everyone must buy a specific electric vehicle — or another car that is defined only by reference to that vehicle’s opaque feature set– and offered exclusive funding if you chose that option. The “choice” would be an illusion. In a democratic society that prides itself on fairness, transparency, and open competition, this scenario feels inherently wrong. Yet it’s exactly what’s happening nationwide through legislation that specifically identifies or refers to SolarAPP+ — where vague rules, hidden standards, tight deadlines, and restricted funding unnecessarily constrain competition and effectively limit other permitting solutions that best serve local communities.
It’s hard to believe that these regressive laws actually started just a couple of years ago in California, a state that prides itself on progressive policies and innovation, and has now spread to Maryland and other states.
The permitting crisis: Why reform can’t wait
The nationwide urgency to accelerate energy-saving and housing projects is undeniable: recent studies show that permitting-related bottlenecks — which are largely regulatory in nature — have stymied both the speed and the scale of the clean energy transition, substantially slowing the deployment of critical clean energy infrastructure and exacerbating housing shortages in communities across the country. With bipartisan support growing for permitting reform — regulations imposed by government at all levels account for a shocking 23.8 percent of the final price of a new single family home built for sale — it’s clear the regulatory winds are shifting towards a need for automating compliance checks. In 2021, the federal government created a permanent agency called the Permitting Council specifically to “improve the efficiency of the permitting process for critical infrastructure projects”. Given this overwhelming consensus, policymakers are now in the best position to encourage vigorous competition to surface the most effective technologies, ensuring communities benefit from the highest-performing, most adaptable tools available.
The urgency is clear. Regardless of political agenda or affiliation, nobody is arguing against more streamlined permitting. It’s undeniable that we need more innovations in the field of permitting and, specifically, the hardest problem to solve — faster permit approvals, without sacrificing accuracy and safety. This would result in faster deployment of much-needed projects in communities everywhere. When there is a fire, rebuilding can be accelerated. Where there are frequent blackouts in remote communities, more off-grid options like solar and geothermal energy can be deployed. The technical skill required to move the needle at meaningful scale across all project types necessitates an all-hands-on-deck effort that is ripe for streamlined permitting solutions.
State mandates favoring SolarAPP+
Yet, instead of embracing this competition-driven approach, lawmakers in multiple states have effectively handed regulatory favoritism to a single privately-operated platform, SolarAPP+, replicating the control for which utilities have been criticized over decades. The problematic political favoritism is reflected in state laws such as California’s SB 379, Maryland’s SB 783 (the “Brighter Tomorrow Act”), and Colorado’s HB25–1096. The good news is that similar attempts to pass SolarAPP+ laws were rejected in states like NY, TX, FL, and HI, where the bills have seen multiple revisions.
Who is behind SolarAPP+?
While it is true that SolarAPP+ had early support for partial development research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), it is run entirely by a private entity, The SolarAPP Foundation. Its earliest backers include some of the largest installers of solar in the US, and SolarAPP’s board has comprised of those installers, the founders of lobbyist group, Permit Power (which has a vested interest in SolarAPP+ and a history of lobbying for SolarAPP+-related legislation across the US), as well as Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
As of this publication date, Symbium has ended its SEIA membership, given SEIA’s apparent conflict between its support for SolarAPP+ and its ability to fairly represent competing permitting technology providers.
California’s SB 379 mandate — where it all started.
In the quest to accelerate clean energy adoption, California has often positioned itself as a trailblazer. The recent passage of Senate Bill 379 (SB379), however, mandating the adoption of the SolarAPP+ solar permitting system (or a solution that does just as SolarAPP+ does) marks a significant misstep that stifles innovation and has resulted in overwhelming disappointment among local building departments, small-scale solar installers, and innovators across the state.
From advocate to controversy: Senator Wiener’s SB379 stuns the innovation community
“With great power comes great responsibility.” — Voltaire
Senator Scott Wiener has long been recognized as a formidable champion for housing affordability and innovation in California. Throughout his tenure, Wiener has spearheaded landmark legislation aimed at streamlining the development of affordable housing units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Notably, his support for Assembly Bill 68 (AB 68) was pivotal in easing zoning restrictions and reducing regulatory barriers, enabling homeowners to construct ADUs more efficiently and affordably. Additionally, Wiener played a crucial role in passing laws that mandated accelerated permit review timelines for affordable housing projects, ensuring faster approval processes without compromising safety or quality. His efforts have not only increased the availability of housing options but also fostered greater inclusivity and sustainability within communities. Given his history of advocating for accelerated development timelines and fostering innovation, it is confounding that Senator Wiener would sponsor such a one-sided, technology-specific legislation like SB379. One must ask: Why not adopt provider agnostic language? This mandate not only limits flexibility but also limits innovation by favoring SolarAPP+, seemingly at odds with Senator Wiener’s established commitment to dynamic and forward-thinking approaches in addressing California’s housing and development challenges. What/who motivated this gross deviation?
SB379’s Trojan Horse: SolarAPP+ favoritism wrapped in California’s solar law
SB379 entered California’s legislative scene framed as a necessary step to speed up solar permitting and reduce bureaucratic delays, promising greater accessibility for solar installations. At the inception, a version of the bill seemed to have support from solar and climate advocates, though many have since reversed their positions for reasons outlined here. Beneath the surface, the law mandated nearly every jurisdiction in California to adopt SolarAPP+ — or another solution that does only what SolarAPP is capable of doing — all within a tight timeframe. Yet, the statute and related materials do not clearly detail the specific compliance checks required, which has created uncertainty for jurisdictions seeking to implement alternatives. When asked to identify the specific rules SolarAPP+ applies, the California Energy Commission declined, citing SolarAPP+’s proprietary interests. That response raises serious transparency concerns: although later language added references to compliance checks, it still does not provide the objective specificity needed for other solutions to replicate the mandated functionality fairly:
Direct email inquiries to SolarAPP+ staff and the approval documents referenced in the staff’s responses have not disclosed the regulatory checks with sufficient specificity for replication, nor do they explain a coherent rationale for favoring SolarAPP+’s technology.
Equally troubling, the California law requires jurisdictions to adopt systems that handle exactly the types of solar and energy storage permits “that SolarAPP+ is capable of processing” (Cal. Gov. Code SEC.2. 65850.52 (b)(1)(B)). The statutory reference to “what SolarAPP+ is capable of processing” raises transparency and replication questions: if the benchmark is defined by a proprietary and evolving capability set, jurisdictions may struggle to evaluate or adopt other systems that incorporate local safety amendments and different project types. If SolarAPP+ is not capable of handling certain project types or compliance checks that benefit builders and inhabitants alike (e.g., for safety reasons), then local jurisdictions with more bespoke structural e (wind, snow, fire, flood) might be unable to meet the California law’s requirements — severely limiting innovation and leaving industry participants dependent on a single vendor’s ongoing development choices and limitations alike.
Finally, the California Energy Commission (CEC) actively promoted SolarAPP+ while ignoring more capable alternatives that the CEC knew existed. Below is an example of a letter the CEC sent to approximately 830 recipients, including all California mayors, city administrators, and county administrators. The letter’s mention of a “functional equivalent” to SolarAPP+–echoing SB 379’s vague language–is problematic and would have been entirely unnecessary had the law included clear, objective compliance criteria that any capable permitting solution could implement.
This scenario in solar permitting, where a California regulation mandated the adoption of SolarAPP+ or a functional equivalent, lacked foresight that otherwise would have fomented innovation. Instead, the result has been plain favoritism toward SolarAPP+. Additionally, California’s SB 379 set a troubling precedent, becoming the model legislation for other states seeking to replicate the same callout to SolarAPP in their solar permitting laws.
Maryland’s Brighter Tomorrow Act: a mandate masquerading as choice
Maryland’s Brighter Tomorrow Act (SB783, Chapter 595 of the 2024 Acts and HB1435) was heralded as a progressive step toward streamlining solar permitting and accelerating clean energy adoption. A closer examination, however, reveals that the legislation, like California’s SB 379, effectively steers local jurisdictions toward SolarAPP+.
The Act mandates that, by August 1, 2025, all counties and municipalities implement “solar permitting software” to facilitate the tracking and approval of residential building permits for solar energy systems, energy storage systems, and main electrical panel upgrades. Notably, the definition of “solar permitting software” is narrowly tailored to:
“(I) The most recent version of a web-based platform, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, that provides a standard portal for receiving and processing residential solar energy system and residential energy storage system permit information; or
(II) Automated software that functions to support the tracking and approval of residential building permits for residential solar energy systems, residential energy storage systems, main electrical panel upgrades, and main electrical panel devices.”
This definition, found in Section 1–1319 of the Local Government Article, effectively positions SolarAPP+ as the preferred, if not default, solution. While the legislation allows for alternative software that meets the specified criteria, the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) has decided to bypass long-standing government procurement requirements and has determined that solely SolarAPP+ satisfies these requirements, establishing a grant program to support SolarAPP+ adoption in the State to the exclusion of competing solutions. To be clear, even though the legislation leaves open an option for local building departments to procure alternatives to SolarAPP+, grant funding will ONLY be made available to jurisdictions that procure SolarAPP+, despite that software’s myriad limitations. The FY25 SolarAPP+ Implementation Grant Program offers approximately $3.9 million in funding to assist local governments with adopting SolarAPP+, covering expenses such as staff training, software integration, and IT resources. Importantly, these grants are not available to jurisdictions that adopted a compliant automated permitting solution. Instead, the grants are designated solely for jurisdictions implementing SolarAPP+, thereby excluding other solutions from garnering financial support.
By crafting the Brighter Tomorrow Act to steer compliance specifically in favor of SolarAPP+ –and then explicitly restricting millions in grant funds exclusively to its adoption –Maryland has effectively funneled local governments into choosing a privately-controlled software — the only option if they want to access much-needed grant funds — leaving little room for meaningful choice or flexibility. This unprecedented giveaway not only tilts the playing field in SolarAPP+’s favor, but also risks undermining innovation altogether, potentially denying Maryland jurisdictions better, more adaptable solutions that might genuinely serve their communities.
A simple solution to make this legislation solution-agnostic would be to strike out the offending language, add the following underlined language and then make the grant funding available to any JX that complies:
Of course, a reasonable law or follow-on regulation also would specifically state exactly which compliance checks would need to be performed, thereby providing transparency to ensure a more level playing field for automated permitting in the marketplace.
HB25–1096’s quiet coup: codifying a preferred solar permitting vendor into Colorado law
Colorado has long sought to position itself as a leader in clean energy, and with the passage of House Bill 23–1234 and its amendment, House Bill 25–1096, the state joins others like California in embracing automated permitting as a means to accelerate residential solar deployment. But buried within the language of this seemingly pro-innovation bill is a strikingly familiar pattern: a clear bias toward a single, federally-affiliated solution without ever naming it outright. HB 23–1234 sets aside funding for jurisdictions with more than 5,000 residents to implement an automated permitting system that reviews applications for residential solar projects and issues permits automatically — if projects meet predefined code-compliant criteria.
What makes this funding especially problematic is the bill’s carefully crafted definition of qualifying software. Section 24–38.5–119(2)(b) defines “automated permitting software” as a platform “developed by a national organization focused on clean energy research, development, and deployment…” This wording unmistakably points to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) — one of the early collaborators of SolarAPP+ — as the presumed source. This subtle naming mechanism, without explicitly stating SolarAPP+, creates a legal moat that other platforms must navigate. A simple solution to make this legislation solution-agnostic would be to strike out the offending language as follows:
Again, the brand of the solution shouldn’t matter so long as it helps jurisdictions to achieve the goal of the law: accelerated permitting for residential solar projects. Fortunately, the Colorado Energy Office administers the grant funding and, commendably, distributes it in a solution-agnostic way. The core problem nonetheless arises much earlier–specifically, how local jurisdictions interpret what qualifies as acceptable software before they even apply for the grants.
The result mirrors the unfortunate consequences of California’s SB 379. By making the funding qualifications tethered to capabilities of a singular, pre-blessed technology — developed by a narrow consortium — the state of Colorado risks chilling competition and innovation from alternative solutions. And while the state offers grants to help jurisdictions adopt the platform, those funds cannot be used for non-favored software (i.e. software created by a local organization that is focused on clean energy research), further tilting the playing field. When lawmakers mandate technology sourced from a specific brand or institutional pipeline — without clear justification or performance-based criteria — they do not foster innovation. They calcify it.
Disguised mandates: when legislation picks winners without naming them
New Jersey and Virginia now appear to be advancing the same problem in a new form: instead of naming SolarAPP+ outright, they require a statewide “smart” solar permitting platform that can become the standard against which all other solutions are judged. New Jersey’s enacted law, P.L. 2025, c.174, requires the Department of Community Affairs to make an online automated permitting platform available statewide for residential solar and storage, while allowing alternatives only if they satisfy the statute’s requirements (New Jersey Legislature). Virginia’s HB 590/SB 382 likewise establishes a statewide Smart Solar Permitting Platform through Virginia Energy, with localities required to accept applications through that platform or an alternative automated platform (Environment America). The risk is familiar: if the state-adopted tool becomes the practical benchmark, the underlying standards are effectively locked inside one implementation. That is especially troubling where details about the platform’s adoption, governance, and criteria have not been made available to competing providers, despite industry advocates testifying in support of the laws. The result is the same problem in different clothing: instead of writing clear, objective standards that any qualified solution can meet, the law risks turning one platform into the default standard for an entire market.
New York’s solution-neutral direction
New York recently avoided adopting solution-specific legislation, thanks to diligent intervention by industry stakeholders. The original bill, which initially mirrored restrictive mandates seen elsewhere, underwent multiple revisions due to extensive input and advocacy spearheaded by organizations such as the New York Solar Energy Industries Association (NYSEIA). NYSEIA deserves significant credit for proactively engaging affected parties, advocating transparency, and ensuring the most recent version of the bill eliminated explicit references to either mandatory SolarAPP+ adoption or to SolarAPP+ favoritism (akin to the “SolarAPP+ is capable of processing” language in California’s SB 379). The amended, solution-neutral bill is now expected to pass in an upcoming legislative session, highlighting the importance — and viability — of preserving market competition and local flexibility.
Top-down tactics, bottom-up frustration
The SolarAPP+ mandates enacted in several states — and, no doubt, being pushed in others — have resulted in adverse consequences. These mandates have threatened fair competition, alienated local building departments, widened the chasm between small and large-scale installers, and generated widespread confusion. Rather than fostering innovation and efficiency, these laws have created friction, legal uncertainty, and barriers to genuine progress in clean energy adoption. Understanding how and why this occurred provides critical lessons for policymakers aiming to avoid similar pitfalls in the future. Some of the most notable consequences of SolarAPP+ mandates include:
1. Industry influence and lack of diverse input
In California, one of SB 379’s most significant shortcomings was the lack of diverse and balanced stakeholder representation during its formation. A member of Senator Wiener’s staff later acknowledged it was a mistake not to invite widespread feedback from local building officials and the National League of Cities earlier in the bill-drafting process. Instead, the governance of the mandated permitting platform was overwhelmingly influenced by large industry associations — groups with significant investments in SolarAPP+ and with vested interests in controlling permitting standards for their own benefit. This narrow focus tended to prioritize established business interests and market control over genuine innovation or opportunities for smaller, more diverse market entrants.
Equally problematic was the minimal involvement of local stakeholders such as building departments, city officials, and municipal associations. These groups are closest to permitting realities, with direct insight into practical challenges, local safety requirements, and community-specific needs. By failing to meaningfully engage these critical local voices, the legislation overlooked valuable expertise, fostered unnecessary resistance at the local level, and missed opportunities to foster choice of alternative permitting solutions that would effectively serve all stakeholders — homeowners, small-scale installers, and local governments alike.
2. Failure to address jurisdiction-specific safety requirements
Of similar concern is the law’s lack of accommodation for local engineering and safety nuances. Effective code compliance tools must account for environmental and structural variables that vary by geography and climate. These include:
- Local code and procedural requirements
- Plan submittal
- Fire safety zones and defensible space requirements
- Wind and snow load variances
- Local fire regulations
- Recorded / adopted amendments to the building codes
- Accounting for service panel upgrades
- Accounting for utility approvals
- Seismic design categories
- Support for existing systems or modifications thereof
- The ability to scale to many different zoning or property types, on-demand and sometimes in response to natural disasters and other unforeseen scenarios
- Other jurisdiction-specific nuances and any amendments thereof
These are not trivial edge cases – they are foundational to public safety. The core function of building departments is to ensure that structures are designed and built in accordance with local safety, health, and environmental standards. In practice, this has shifted a heavier burden onto inspectors in the field, undermining efficiency and straining resources meant for core safety oversight. All the while, Senator Wiener’s own staff confirmed that building officials and inspectors were not meaningfully consulted during SB 379’s development. This exclusion undermines trust and burdens field inspectors with compliance issues–several have complained to Symbium about SolarAPP+’s 40-page checklists, missing plan sets (a safety issue), and increased workloads.
Rather than accelerating permitting, SB 379 has created new delays and liabilities. The bill ignored the expertise of so many building officials charged with ensuring local safety standards, instead imposing a system that overburdens inspectors and compromises the safe, responsible solar deployment it claims to advance.
3. The rapid implementation mandate
SB 379 imposed a stringent timeline for the adoption of SolarAPP+ or equivalent systems. Building departments, many of which operate with limited resources and varying levels of technological proficiency, found themselves under immense pressure to comply swiftly. This rapid implementation left little room for customization or for exploring alternative solutions that might better serve local contexts and encourage innovative practices. Several jurisdictions have acknowledged that they either lacked the resources to thoroughly evaluate other options or assumed that adopting SolarAPP+, the state’s recommended solution, would minimize their risks. This perception was reinforced by the “CalAPP” grant program, which positioned SolarAPP+ as the easiest path to qualify for funding. In fact, the design of the grant application itself appeared intended to funnel applicants directly to SolarAPP+ — selecting “other” as an alternative solution required local jurisdictions to jump through additional procedural and substantive hoops.
4. Alienating local governments and undermining trust
Advocates affiliated with SolarAPP+ have repeatedly approached city councils and building departments with an aggressive, “adopt SolarAPP+ or else” attitude. For example, in California, this heavy-handed approach, combined with the California Energy Commission’s one-sided promotion of SolarAPP+ as administrator of SB 379 grants, has left many local government leaders feeling cornered and frustrated.
These aggressive tactics have set an unfortunate tone, particularly for jurisdictions that initially approached instant permitting technology with genuine curiosity and openness. Now, many local governments associate instant permitting solutions and permitting mandates with skepticism, rather than with open arms — jeopardizing broader adoption and undermining the very goals these technologies were meant to achieve.
5. Misleading coverage fuels confusion over SB 379 compliance
Public CEO — billed as “California’s top news for local government leaders” — recently published an article titled “State law requires cities to adopt solar permitting platform,” wrongly suggesting that compliance with SB 379 means adopting SolarAPP+. That kind of misreporting may seem small, but for time-strapped city managers and community development directors who aren’t legal experts, it becomes de facto law-by-headline and undermines adoption of competing solutions. Given SB 379’s vague language and lack of transparency around what compliance actually entails — or what SolarAPP+ specifically does — it’s easy to see how public officials might default to what looks like the state’s preferred solution, even if better ones exist. Worse, this manufactured inevitability discourages innovation and undermines legitimate competitors that already meet or exceed the law’s goals.
But more troubling is forthcoming guidance from the California Energy Commission (CEC). In its Draft Energy Storage Permitting Guidebook — a report ostensibly designed to help jurisdictions navigate SB 379’s implementation — the CEC mentions only one solution repeatedly: SolarAPP+. Despite interviewing Symbium’s CEO, acknowledging its capabilities, co-hosting a webinar, and eventually even including Symbium as an (albeit secondary) eligible option on the CalAPP grant application, the CEC’s report fails to mention Symbium (or any other viable solution) as a meaningful alternative. To make matters worse, the Guidebook mentions Symbium only once, stating that it “may” qualify when it absolutely does qualify. In contrast, the Guidebook mentions SolarAPP+ 163 times, effectively turning what should have been a public resource into propaganda for a single solution. Meanwhile, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a direct project partner and developer of SolarAPP+, was granted advance access and the ability to edit the report before publication — an opportunity denied to Symbium, which was promised the same. The result is a state-funded document, circulated under the imprimatur of neutrality, that reads more like promotional propaganda for a single vendor than a fair policy tool. This is not just an oversight — it’s regulatory favoritism in plain sight. All told, after persistent advocacy, Symbium finally secured an invitation by the CEC to contribute to the next iteration of the Guidebook.
6. Consequences for clean energy adoption: the impact of favoring SolarAPP+ in California
California’s initiative to streamline solar permitting through the mandated adoption of SolarAPP+ — an automated online platform that is maintained by a private entity, the SolarAPP Foundation — was designed to accelerate residential solar installations. However, this top-down approach has led to adverse consequences that may hinder the state’s clean energy objectives.
First, it is estimated by a SolarAPP+ board member that, at the time the SolarAPP mandates were being considered, SolarAPP+ was not even capable of processing 60% of all residential solar projects. Many residential solar projects remain burdened by traditional permitting delays, substantially slowing clean energy adoption and driving up costs. A law that heavily entrenches a single market player should, at a minimum, ensure that this mandated solution is versatile and scalable enough to accommodate the full range of solar projects and broader clean energy installations. Otherwise, such legislation risks constraining growth, stifling innovation, and ultimately undermining the very goals it aims to achieve.
Worst of all, despite the platform’s availability, contractor adoption has been limited. In 2023, only about 43% of eligible solar permits in participating jurisdictions were submitted via SolarAPP+, indicating that, when you consider the universe of solar projects (i.e. all residential, commercial, additions to existing solar etc.) an overwhelming majority of contractors continue to use traditional permitting processes. This reluctance is particularly pronounced among small-scale installers, who often lack the resources to adapt to new systems and may find the platform’s initial limitations — such as support for only standard new residential PV systems — restrictive.
This fundamental lack of scalability is perhaps the greatest indictment of a mandate-driven solution. While Symbium is engineered to effortlessly integrate new project types, allowing the addition of new permit categories in a matter of days, SolarAPP+ is structurally unable to scale without massive public subsidy. For instance, the California Energy Commission (CEC) recently awarded SolarAPP+ nearly $4 million in grant funding ($3.99 million in total) just to develop an automated EV charging permit application with some ancillary functions, a function Symbium had already created in a few weeks at a fraction of the cost. This dependency on millions of dollars in additional government grants simply to add a single, non-solar permit type, which is already available in the marketplace, demonstrates how entrenching a limited solution ultimately drains public funds and stifles the agility true innovation provides. (CEC funding announcement: CEC Awards $3.99M to SolarAPP+). To review a side-by-side breakdown of features and costs, visit Symbium vs. SolarAPP+ Automated Permitting Comparison.
Of course, the low adoption rate of SolarAPP+ among many contractors and the technology’s inherent limitations diminishes the purported benefits of permitting mandates, such as reduced permitting times and costs. Consequently, the anticipated acceleration in solar deployment and associated cost savings across remain largely unrealized in many markets.
Moreover, the mandated use of SolarAPP+ raises concerns about market competition and innovation in related areas of climate need. By effectively designating a single platform for automated permitting, the state may inadvertently stifle the development of alternative solutions from providers with more flexible solutions that extend to many other clean energy project types and could better serve diverse contractor needs. After all, property owners that are installing solar are doing so because they recognize the heavy shift towards electrification and energy-saving initiatives, installing EV chargers, heat pumps, main electrical panel upgrades, and more. By mandating a single-purpose platform in an era of comprehensive home electrification, SB 379 may only partially be solving yesterday’s problems while creating barriers to the integrated permitting solutions California actually needs.
7. From policy to platform: the new face of regulatory capture
Laws naming or alluding to SolarAPP+ have historically failed to articulate precisely which regulatory requirements must be met. Instead, they ambiguously demand that any adopted system must be capable of doing what SolarAPP+ does. This vague and circular directive effectively enshrines a single vendor’s application-layer logic as the de facto regulatory standard. Because the underlying code and logic are not open or adaptable, jurisdictions cannot incorporate their own myriad localized requirements — such as zone-specific setbacks, fire safety interpretations, or alternate structural pathways — into the system.
This is not how responsible governance or innovation should operate. Technology should be the servant of regulation, not its gatekeeper. A well-architected platform should support any jurisdiction’s unique regulations, process them with maximal accuracy, expose its regulatory analyses in real-time at the point of project configuration (not just after submission), and deliver a seamless, intuitive user experience. Consider TurboTax: whether you live in Texas or California, the software adapts to vastly different tax codes but presents users with a unified, user-friendly experience. Users aren’t faced with complexity and confusion from one jurisdiction to the next — they’re simply guided through an intelligent workflow that reflects their unique local requirements in an easy-to-understand format every single time.
By contrast, SolarAPP+-related legislation exemplify regulatory capture: favoring a single, proprietary interpretation of code compliance into a technology solution and then steering local governments toward the adoption of that solution. This is not the society we should aim to build — one where opaque, centralized systems override local expertise and introduce risk by excluding alternative solutions. A healthier model would be solution-agnostic, promoting transparency, interoperability, and competition, ensuring that systems serve the public interest, not entrench narrow commercial interests.
8. A missed opportunity for innovation and collaboration
SB 379 could have been a catalyst for meaningful advancements in clean energy permitting. Instead, its rigid approach curtailed the exploration of more innovative, flexible solutions that could adapt to the diverse landscapes of California’s municipalities. By not fostering a collaborative environment that included input from a broader range of stakeholders, the legislation limited the potential for creative problem-solving and the adoption of best practices tailored to local needs. Currently, many local government officials are frustrated by these mandates because they feel the state has imposed decisions without considering their valuable local expertise and community-focused perspectives.
For example, a collaborative approach might have included workshops where other permitting providers, city building officials, local installers, technology providers, and state agencies came together to define clear, objective permitting standards. These groups could then have developed flexible, modular software solutions adaptable to diverse local codes, environmental conditions, and project types — fostering a competitive ecosystem and ensuring that the best solutions emerged organically from inclusive stakeholder engagement.
Setting the standard: four best practices for legislators in instant permitting
As legislators nationwide consider streamlining permitting, it is essential to learn from recent missteps involving overly prescriptive mandates like those surrounding SolarAPP+. The goal should be legislation that promotes efficiency and innovation without compromising local flexibility, competition, or transparency.
The following are just four best practices that legislators and permitting policy advocates should consider:
1. Enact solution-agnostic legislation and amend existing SolarAPP+ laws:
Laws should avoid mandating or favoring specific vendors or sources of technology platforms. Instead, legislation should remain neutral, focusing solely on achieving desired outcomes without limiting competition or innovation.
The path to fixing these laws is clear: remove vendor- or source-specific language adn replace it with solution-agnostic standards. Legislators should act promptly to protect innovation, market competition, and better outcomes for the public.
2. Specify detailed objective criteria:
Clearly define measurable and objective goals, performance standards, regulatory requirements, and procedural benchmarks. By doing so, legislators ensure that any entity–public or private – can compete fairly to develop the most effective solutions.
3. Fund solutions based on merit and local needs:
Grant programs should be structured to support the most effective solutions as determined by objective criteria and local priorities. Local governments must retain decision-making authority to select the solutions that best address their specific contexts and requirements.
4. Prioritize inclusive stakeholder engagement:
Meaningful input from a diverse range of stakeholders –including local building departments, inspectors, small-scale installers, community representatives, and others – is essential. Early and ongoing engagement ensures that legislation is practical, effective, and broadly supported by those directly affected.
By embracing these four principles, legislators can foster a vibrant, competitive market where innovative solutions thrive and local governments retain critical decision-making power. The result will be permitting policies that not only accelerate clean energy adoption and more housing but also earn widespread stakeholder support, public trust, and sustained effectiveness.
Legislators: choose fair competition!
To all policymakers: you hold the power to shape the future of permitting and development in ways that truly ignite innovation, not enabling the stifling of it. Reject mandates (or functional equivalents to pre-selected solutions) that favor a single private brand like SolarAPP+ or a single, state-adopted “smart” solar permitting solution, and, instead, champion clear, solution-agnostic standards that empower local governments and inspire innovators to compete openly and fiercely. Your constituents deserve transparency, meaningful choices, and permitting solutions as dynamic as the communities you serve.
