Permitting
Why solar permits get rejected: the redlines we see most
Short answer
Most corrections are not design errors. They are things the reviewer could not find, could not read, or could not verify from the sheet in front of them: a code edition that does not match what the jurisdiction adopted, a calculation asserted instead of shown, a dimension measured from the wrong edge, or a detail drawn for a roof covering the house does not have.
The pattern behind almost all of them
A plan checker is not looking for reasons to reject. They are trying to sign something and move on. A correction goes out when they cannot close a question from the drawing alone. Nearly every item below is a version of that.
1. The wrong code edition
A set drawn to the newest published code rather than the edition the jurisdiction adopted. This invalidates everything downstream, because setbacks, labelling and conductor rules all changed between editions. State the adopted edition on the cover sheet and design to it.
2. Busbar compliance asserted, not shown
“Complies with 705.12” is not a calculation. Print the arithmetic on the three-line: busbar rating, main rating, the 120% figure, the backfed breaker, and the inverter output it supports. See the 120% rule explained.
3. Fire pathways measured from the rail
Clear width is measured to the module edge, not the end of the rail. A pathway that scales at 36 inches to the rail and 33 inches to the glass is a correction. See fire access pathways and setbacks.
4. An attachment detail for the wrong roof
A tile hook detail on a composition-shingle house, or a generic detail that does not name the fastener, the embedment and the member it lands in. Draw the detail for the covering that is actually on the house.
5. Structural load asserted with nothing behind it
A distributed-load figure on the drawing and no sealed calculation package where the jurisdiction requires one. See when you actually need a structural stamp.
6. Placards described loosely
“Labels per NEC” tells an inspector nothing. Give exact wording, the diagram where one is required, the mounting location and the material. See rapid shutdown labelling.
7. Missing equipment data
Cut sheets omitted, or UL listing numbers absent from the equipment schedule. Bundle the specification sheets into the same PDF rather than sending them separately.
8. Rafter size and spacing not stated
The attachment detail depends on it and the reviewer cannot assume it. Measure it and put it on the sheet.
9. Equipment locations vague
Main service panel, inverter, disconnect and meter shown approximately, or the disconnect noted as “within 10 feet” without showing where. Dimension them.
10. The array percentage left out
Ridge setback requirements often depend on how much of the roof plane the array covers. If the percentage is not on the sheet, the reviewer applies the stricter number.
What this is worth
A correction cycle is rarely about the hours spent redrawing. It is the calendar: the resubmittal queue, the second review, and the crew that was scheduled against the original permit date. Getting the set right the first time is the cheapest thing in the whole job.