How to figure out requirements when expanding C&I clean energy into a new market

What makes a new market so hard to enter?

The hard part isn't any one rule — it's that requirements are jurisdiction-specific and scattered across documents that don't reference each other. There are roughly 28,000 municipalities and 3,400 utilities in the US, and each can adopt its own local amendments, submission requirements and interconnection criteria. In a market you know, you've already absorbed those quirks; in a new one, getting them wrong surfaces as a delay or rejection at permit, interconnection or inspection — after you've already committed.

This is the recurring story behind why clean-energy teams stall when they scale. A team can run smoothly in a handful of familiar jurisdictions, then hit a wall the moment they move into a new state, because the thing that made them efficient — accumulated local knowledge — doesn't transfer. The question every expansion turns on is simple to ask and slow to answer: what does it actually take to build here, and is this market friendly to what we do?

How to scope a new jurisdiction, step by step

Scoping a new market well means answering five questions in order: which jurisdiction actually governs the site, which codes it has adopted, what requirements live outside the code, whether there's a permitting and interconnection pathway, and how it compares to your other candidate markets. Skipping any one of them is where the surprises come from.

1. Identify the actual authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). A site that looks like one city may be governed by an adjacent city or an unincorporated county. The AHJ, not the mailing address, decides which code applies — and getting this wrong invalidates everything downstream.
2. Establish which codes are adopted. Find the adopted code cycle and any local amendments, then ladder up to county, state administrative code, and the relevant national codes (NEC, IFC, NFPA). In home-rule states (about 33% of the country), a city can adopt any version it chooses, so you can't assume the state baseline.
3. Find the requirements outside the code. Fee schedules, submittal checklists, fire-jurisdiction criteria, and the "here's how we actually want you to do this" guidance buried on agency websites govern how a project gets permitted, inspected or to PTO, and much of it is outside the code itself.
4. Confirm the permitting and interconnection pathway. Determine whether the use is by-right, conditional, or unaddressed; identify required studies; and establish the interconnection process and tier. Flag any moratorium or pending ordinance that isn't codified yet. For the harder cases — where a code doesn't name the technology at all — see how to confirm if a jurisdiction allows your project when it's not in the code.
5. Compare across candidate markets. Run the same requirement set across several jurisdictions so you can rank which are friendly to the technology and which will need a discretionary process or active persuasion before you commit resources.

How do I tell if a market is friendly to solar or storage before committing?

Check three things: whether the technology is named in the use table at all, whether it's allowed by-right versus only conditionally, and whether there are restrictive parameters like setbacks, fire clearances, or a moratorium. A jurisdiction with clear by-right pathways is friendly; one that doesn't address the use, or buries it behind a discretionary permit, signals a slower timeline or the need to persuade the planning department.

This is why teams compare jurisdictions side by side rather than evaluating them one at a time. When you're deciding which state to enter, the useful output isn't a single answer, it's a ranking: these counties are ready, these will take a fight, these have no pathway and would require a state-level override. That comparison is what turns "we want to expand" into a defensible market-entry plan.

Is the state code enough to plan a clean-energy project?

No — state code is only one layer of several. Cities and counties can add local requirements, zoning and processes that amend state level code books. Additionally, about a third of the country is home-rule, where cities adopt their own code books and amendments, so local requirements can override or add to the state baseline. The fire jurisdiction frequently maintains separate criteria, and the practical mechanics of permitting live in ancillary documents. Planning from state code alone misses exactly the local layer where most surprises happen.

Two patterns make this especially true for C&I storage and larger projects. First, energy-storage requirements can be buried in state administrative code (where house and senate bills become enforceable rules) rather than in the local ordinance. Second, jurisdictions commonly impose explicit requirements in supplementary documentation that never gets codified into the ordinance you'd think to read. The information is real; it's just not where you'd look first.

How do teams research a new market for clean-energy expansion?

Most clean-energy developers and EPCs entering a new market rely on some mix of the following, each with a tradeoff:

• Building local knowledge per market — accurate over time, but slow to acquire and tied up in specific people; it doesn't transfer when you enter the next state.
• Manual research — reading ordinances, use tables, and ancillary documents jurisdiction by jurisdiction; thorough but time-consuming, and it has to be redone for every candidate market.
• Reaching out directly to the AHJ or utility — authoritative but inconsistent, undocumented, and dependent on reaching the right person.
• Budgeting schedule buffer for the unknown — assuming extra months because you can't fully scope the requirements upfront; it protects the timeline but inflates cost and slows the decision.

Related questions