One renowned regtech CEO says state laws compelling local governments to use NREL’s SolarAPP+ platform are restricting competition and leaving towns with inflexible, taxpayer-funded software.
Automating the local permission process has become more and more a key to driving up residential solar adoption throughout the United States. But a strong policy argument is developing around whether state legislators are standardizing public results or just codifying business benefits for one platform.
California’s SB 379 and the Push for a Single Platform
“Laws in states like California and Maryland are effectively creating a regulatory monopoly for SolarAPP+, an automated permitting software developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),”
says Leila Banijamali, founder of regulatory technology platform Symbium. California’s SB 379 requires local governments to develop an online permitting system that can handle the same types of applications as SolarAPP+, tying compliance directly to the technological capabilities of one product.
“Calling a specific solution a standard does not help that goal,”
Banijamali remarked.
“Standardization comes from having uniform rules, not from tying compliance to what one platform can do right now.
Concerns Over Governance and Market Bias
This legislative preference is especially troublesome against the backdrop of the platform’s leadership. SolarAPP+ is significantly controlled by a board of executives representing large-volume installations and manufacturers, raising worries about corporate bias above public safety.
“SB 379 is much less about streamlining permitting and much more about entrenching a preferred market player because this legislation inherently favors industry over public interest,”
said Banijamali.
Local Building Departments Face Compliance Pressures
Further, by pre-selecting a certain platform, authorities are also limiting local jurisdictions’ ability to address distinct regional safety needs. As SB 379 was considered, SolarAPP+ was unable to handle an estimated 60% of household solar licenses. Many local building departments elected to use the platform’s internal compliance logic, even when better solutions existed, since it was not openly auditable, and they wanted to avoid the danger of state noncompliance.
Additionally, off-the-shelf software pushes administrative responsibilities downstream, rather than solving them. Inspectors in Tracy, California, say the sprawling, strict checklists the platform generates are unrealistic to consult amid hectic field schedules.
A Technology-Neutral Alternative
Instead, a technology-neutral approach would establish explicit public objectives and objective criteria and throw open the competition to any qualifying platform. Instead of subsidizing single, restrictive instruments, state policy might incentivize flexible systems adaptable to local construction rules, environmental overlays, and a range of project kinds.
We can already see the advantages of a more transparent approach to municipal operations. In Bakersfield, California, where Symbium streamlines over 15 kinds of home retrofit projects, local building departments are seeing a 40% boost in staff efficiency and a 75% decrease in permit processing times.
“The best results are achieved by systems that can scale across project types and at the same time accurately reflect local rules, rather than narrowly scoped, one-size-fits-all solutions,”
Banijamali added.
