Fourteen months after NV Energy stalled the expansion of the first utility-approved plug-in solar interconnection in its territory, Clark County has confirmed in writing that the MEGA needs no building permit, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada has defined exactly what the utility may ask for, and the Utility Commission has opened the first investigatory docket in the country on plug-in photovoltaic appliance interconnection. The single to dual MEGA upgrade itself is still not finally approved by NV-Energy, despite our compliance with the PUCN ruling. Here is what happened:
The short version
In December 2024, NV Energy approved a single-rack MEGA at a Las Vegas home for net metering. It was the first plug-in solar appliance the utility had ever interconnected. In June 2025 the homeowner applied to add a second MEGA to the same inverter at the same location. That application has not been approved sixteen months later, and the reasons given have shifted four times: a missing solar permit, a missing licensed contractor, a county code case that the utility's own inquiry set in motion, and then a zoning setback.
Along the way, three things were settled that matter well beyond one driveway:
- Clark County's Building Official confirmed in writing on September 21, 2026 that a MEGA on wheels, unanchored and cord-and-plug connected, requires no building permit and no inspections, and that the 240 V outlet it plugs into was permitted, inspected and approved.
- The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) ruled on September 17, 2026 that the utility's two stated deficiencies are cured by a Clark County building permit or exemption plus a Nevada State Contractors Board owner-builder exemption. Both are now in the utility's hands.
- On September 29, 2026, the Commission voted to open a new investigatory docket on the interconnection of plug-in photovoltaic appliances, the first proceeding of its kind before any state commission. GismoPower petitioned for it.
What is not settled: NV Energy wrote on October 5 that it cannot proceed until the county's setback question is resolved or waived. The setback was never part of the interconnection requirements, and we have asked the utility to cite the rule that makes it one.
How the dispute unfolded
The full sequence, in order. Docket filings are public; the section at the end explains how to open them.
December 2024. NV Energy approves the single-rack MEGA for net metering (application NVE-152554, filed November 2023). First plug-in solar interconnection in NV Energy territory.
June 2025. The homeowner applies to add a second rack to the same inverter (application NVE-177532, 4.86 kW to 9.72 kW DC). The inverter, outlet and location are unchanged.
September 9, 2025. Clark County Code Enforcement issues a notice of violation describing the MEGA as an unpermitted "shade structure" in the front setback. Public records later show the case was opened on August 26, 2025 after an NV Energy engineer asked the county whether the unit was permitted.
September 20, 2025. NV Energy correction notice: provide a local solar permit, a licensed C-2 contractor, an engineering calculation, and corrected plans by November 8.
October 9, 2025. The homeowner files a formal complaint with the PUCN (later Docket 26-05022).
November 9, 2025. NV Energy marks the expansion application "Cancelled" in its PowerClerk portal, two days after a "Documentation Corrections Needed" status.
November 17, 2025. The Commission's consumer complaint division reports NV Energy's position: the 2023 EV-charger permit had been "mistakenly accepted" in place of a solar permit when the first unit was approved; the utility had contacted Clark County about the unit; and the county had told the utility that a wheeled, movable unit falls outside its inspection scope.
January 6, 2026. Clark County Comprehensive Planning advises that the MEGA is treated solely as a carport, not as small-scale electric generation, and that its location in the front setback requires a waiver of development standards.
August 12, 2026. The PUCN dismisses the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding the utility properly declined for want of a solar building permit and a licensed-contractor contract. Footnote 1 expressly declines to decide whether a utility may refuse a mobile, portable solar unit by classifying it as a fixed structure.
August 14, 2026. The homeowner files a petition for reconsideration and rehearing in 26-05022.
September 8, 2026. GismoPower's amended petition for rulemaking is accepted as Docket 26-09004. Notice is published in four Nevada newspapers on September 24.
September 17, 2026. PUCN Order on Reconsideration in Docket 26-05022: dismissal reaffirmed, but the order spells out the two cures and preserves a renewed complaint if the utility denies on mobility grounds.
September 21 and 22, 2026. Clark County issues two written determinations (next section). GismoPower resubmits the expansion application to NV Energy with both determinations, the NSCB owner-builder exemption, the stamped dual-configuration plans, and the Commission's order.
September 25, 2026. Public comment deadline in 26-09004. Comments are filed by PUCN Staff, Solar United Neighbors, the homeowner, and GismoPower (attaching both county determinations and the PNNL/LBNL interim report on MEGA-type plug-in PV).
September 29, 2026. PUCN open meeting, Agenda 18-26, Item 4A: the Commission votes to adopt its General Counsel's recommendation on Docket 26-09004 and open an investigatory docket on plug-in PV appliance interconnection. Written order pending.
October 5, 2026. NV Energy writes that it cannot proceed with the expansion application until Clark County resolves or waives the Title 30 setback question, citing "the PUCN's ruling." GismoPower asks NV Energy to identify the rule that makes setback compliance an interconnection condition, or to issue a formal written determination.
No building permit. The county said so in writing.
For fourteen months the single most repeated demand was a "solar building permit" for a device that has wheels in a driveway and plugs into an outlet. Clark County's Building Department told the homeowner verbally in September 2026 that it could not issue such a permit because the unit is not a structure, and that it did not write letters saying so. On September 21, 2026, it did.
Building Official James Gerren, P.E., C.B.O., confirmed that under the Clark County Building Administrative Code the MEGA requires no building permit and no inspections while it is portable, has wheels, is unanchored, and cord-and-plug connected with no permanent connection to the building's electrical service equipment. He further confirmed that permit BD23-62238 had "previously permitted, inspected, and approved" the 250 V plug-in PV outlet with its shutoff switch in 2023.
That is the position GismoPower has argued since 2021, in Sarasota County, at NEC Code-Making Panel 4, in the UL 3700 process, and in the PNNL CRADA: an appliance that plugs into a permitted receptacle is regulated as an appliance, through product certification and the outlet's permit, not as a construction project. Clark County is the most populous jurisdiction in the United States to put that in writing for a 6.4 kW plug-in solar carport. The same letter answers, in the county's own words, the two objections NV Energy raised in 2025: there is no solar permit to obtain, and the outlet permit the utility said it had "mistakenly accepted" was in fact the correct and only permit.
The same day, Comprehensive Planning Director Jason Allswang issued the county's land-use determination, formally adopting the January 2026 analysis: under Title 30 the MEGA is treated solely as a carport with solar panels, not as electric generation, so no special use permit is needed; because it stands in the front setback, a waiver of development standards is required to keep it there. That is a zoning question between the homeowner and the county, now being handled through the waiver application the county invited. It applies equally to a 25-year-old shed on the same lot. It has nothing to do with whether an inverter may connect to the grid.
The PUCN Complaint Docket: 26-05022
The homeowner, representing himself, filed a formal complaint against NV Energy in October 2025. The Commission's Regulatory Operations Staff investigated, briefed the Commissioners, and on August 12, 2026 the Commission dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding no probable cause. The order held that NV Energy had correctly declined the application for lack of a valid building permit and a licensed-contractor installation contract under NRS 704.774 and NAC 704.8823, and that the Clark County code case was outside the Commission's jurisdiction.
The order also did something useful. Footnote 1 stated that the Commission was making no finding on whether a utility may deny interconnection to a mobile, portable solar unit by classifying it as a fixed structure. That question, the one that matters for every plug-in appliance, was left open on purpose.
The homeowner petitioned for reconsideration. On September 17, 2026, the Commission reaffirmed the dismissal but wrote down, in paragraphs 13, 26 and 33, exactly what cures the two deficiencies: a Clark County building permit or an exemption from Clark County, and a Nevada State Contractors Board owner-builder exemption. Paragraph 15 added that if NV Energy denies the application because the unit is mobile or portable, the homeowner may renew the complaint.
Four days later, Clark County supplied the exemption in writing, the State Contractors Board exemption was obtained, and both went to NV Energy. By the order's own terms, the deficiencies the utility relied on no longer exist. The utility's October 5 response does not dispute that; it raises a different subject, the zoning setback, which appears nowhere in the order, in the utility's 2025 correction notice, or in the statutes the Commission applied.
The PUCN Rulemaking Petition: 26-09004
While the complaint was pending, GismoPower filed something no plug-in solar manufacturer had filed before any state commission: a petition under NRS 233B.100 asking the Commission to adopt regulations governing the interconnection of plug-in photovoltaic appliances, or, in the alternative, to open an investigatory docket. The petition proposed definitions for a cord-and-plug appliance (up to 60 A at 240 V, NRTL-certified or meeting interim criteria), a clarification that trailer registration does not make an appliance a structure, an appliance certification pathway in place of a building permit, an export-limited option, and a simplified interconnection procedure. It cited the PNNL CRADA, the SLAC and NC State FREEDM grid impact studies, the LBNL barriers study, German practice under VDE-AR-N 4105, Utah's H.B. 340, and UL 3700.
The petition was accepted as Docket 26-09004 on September 8, 2026. Notice ran in the Elko Daily Free Press, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Reno Gazette-Journal and Tonopah Times-Bonanza. Comments were due September 25. Solar United Neighbors supported further proceedings. PUCN Staff did not oppose them. GismoPower's supplemental comment placed both Clark County determinations and the PNNL/LBNL interim report before the Commission.
The Commission's Office of General Counsel briefed the Commissioners on September 28. The memo affirmed the Commission's authority under NRS 704.773, said a utility-directed regulation would not invade county authority, and recommended against adopting the proposed regulation text now for timing and drafting reasons, "not for want of jurisdiction," while recommending that the Commission grant the petition's alternative request and open an investigatory docket.
On September 29, 2026, at Agenda 18-26, Item 4A, the Commission adopted that recommendation. The vote took under a minute. The written order has not yet been posted. When it is, Nevada will have the first open regulatory proceeding in the country devoted to how plug-in PV appliances connect to the grid, with NV Energy, Staff, consumer advocates and manufacturers all able to participate on the record.
Where things stand
As of October 6, 2026:
Expansion application NVE-177532. Shown as "Cancelled" in NV Energy's portal since November 2025. The cures were submitted by email on September 21 and 22, 2026. NV Energy says it cannot proceed pending the county setback matter. We have asked NV Energy to cite the governing rule or issue a formal written determination, to confirm the receipt date of the submission, and to hold the application pending rather than cancelled. A written denial on new grounds would be taken back to the Commission.
Clark County waiver of development standards. The application is being prepared. It covers the MEGA's front-setback location and an unrelated 25-year-old shed. It goes through county technical review, the Town Board, and the Planning Commission, which takes several months. It is filed under reservation of rights: the carport classification is the county's, not ours.
Docket 26-05022, the complaint. Dismissal reaffirmed September 17, 2026. The renewed-complaint path in paragraph 15 remains available and will be used only if NV Energy issues a denial.
Docket 26-09004, the rulemaking petition. The Commission voted September 29 to open an investigatory docket. Next comes the written order, then a procedural schedule of workshops and comment rounds. GismoPower will participate and will raise the question this dispute poses: whether a county land-use matter can condition utility interconnection of a cord-and-plug appliance after the building department has exempted it.
PNNL/LBNL CRADA 747. The interim report is filed in 26-09004. The CRADA concludes in November 2026, when the final deliverables, including the permitting white paper, are due.
UL 3700 certification. Issue 2 of the Outline of Investigation was published October 1, 2026, extending its scope to string-inverter systems like the MEGA. The CSA Group certification project is under contract, with testing in 2027.
One thing we will not do is relocate the unit. There is no compliant location outside the setback on this lot, and a product whose purpose is to put solar on a driveway has to be able to stand on a driveway. The setback question is a legitimate land-use conversation with the county. It is not a reason for a utility to refuse an interconnection that its own regulator has told it how to process.
How to read the dockets yourself
Everything described above is on the public record.
- Go to the PUCN Document Search portal at https://puc-onbase.nv.gov/
- In the "Search Type" field, choose "PUC - Public Search - Dockets."
- In the "Docket Number" field, enter one of the two docket numbers:
- 26-09004 for GismoPower's petition and the investigatory docket on plug-in PV appliance interconnection.
- 26-05022 for the homeowner's complaint against NV Energy over the expansion application.
- Leave the date range boxes blank and click "Search."
- The result lists every filing in date order: the petition and its exhibits, Staff's comments, public comments, the General Counsel's briefing memo, and the Commission's orders. Each opens as a PDF.
- To be notified of future filings, use the docket's service list sign-up on the same page. New orders and notices in 26-09004 will arrive by email.