Confirm the jurisdiction and permit path, identify the selected modules and inverter, and compare the layout, electrical diagram, equipment data and mounting references. Keep utility interconnection and any battery-storage scope explicit.
Define the project before the checklist
This guide focuses on consistency within a rooftop PV document package. Ground-mounted facilities and projects with energy storage need additional site, structural, fire and utility information. Use the checklist as a starting point and add the actual jurisdictional requirements.
Confirm the adopted electrical, building and fire references and the authority’s submission route. A streamlined path has its own eligibility conditions; do not assume every solar project qualifies.
Compare the selected configuration
Read the module count and arrangement, selected inverter and electrical diagram together. Preserve the actual product model and operating data. A product family can include several options with different dimensions and electrical characteristics.
Keep the string or connection configuration with the equipment evidence. The responsible electrical designer verifies sizing, protection, grounding and the design calculations. A consistent label across three pages is useful evidence but does not prove adequacy.
A hypothetical changed inverter
Suppose the equipment schedule changes an inverter model while the diagram retains the prior model and rating. Record the competing sources and ask which selection governs. Backcheck the connection, protection and labeling information after the designer confirms it.
If the equipment geometry or mounting condition changes, include the relevant support and installation information. Compare the actual submitted selection with the receiving design, rather than treating any product from the same supplier as interchangeable.
PV document coordination worksheet
| Check | Sources | Review question |
|---|---|---|
| Permit scope | Jurisdiction checklist and project description | Does the package identify the roof, system scope and applicable review path? |
| Site and roof basis | Site plan, roof layout and source measurements | Are building identity, orientation and installation locations clear? |
| Equipment selection | Module and inverter data, schedule and diagram | Do model names and selected options agree? |
| Array configuration | Layout, string information and one-line diagram | Are the documented counts and configuration consistent? |
| Electrical connections | Diagram, service information and equipment data | Are connection points and stated ratings coordinated for engineer review? |
| Mounting interface | Roof conditions, attachment details and structural evidence | Do the mounting references describe the actual receiving condition? |
| Access and identification | Layout, local checklist and label schedule | Are the required project access and identification conditions documented? |
| Separate scopes | Storage documents, utility requirements and permit list | Are storage and interconnection requirements identified rather than assumed covered? |
Keep the roof and utility handoffs visible
Identify roof type, attachment basis, existing conditions and any structural evidence the project requires. Keep pathways and access requirements tied to the applicable local sources. Avoid filling missing roof dimensions or property information from an unverified assumption.
Record utility interconnection separately from the building permit. If storage is included, gather its plans, equipment information and applicable requirements as an explicit additional review scope.
Sources and a workflow starting point
U.S. Department of Energy rooftop solar permitting resources explain the local permit and inspection role. Source checked October 13, 2026.
DOE’s distributed energy interconnection checklist provides a separate interconnection reference. Source checked October 13, 2026.
Use the electrical review checklist for broader drawing coordination. If preparing the package is the bottleneck, bring that workflow to the consultation rather than assuming another review is the first improvement needed.
Bring one task and a sample document to a free 30-minute AEC AI workflow consultation. We will diagnose the handoffs, identify a useful starting point and work through a practical example together.