The Solar and Fire Education (SAFE) program, an initiative led by retired Las Vegas Fire & Rescue Captain Richard Birt, has released new survey data regarding first responder preferences for rooftop solar inverter architecture.
The program, which provides hands-on training to help fire departments navigate the complexities of modern energy systems, found that after receiving specialized education, more than 98% of participating firefighters said they recommend microinverter-based solar energy systems.
The survey results reflect feedback from hundreds of firefighters across multiple U.S. states. Birt, a 30-year veteran of the fire service, founded SAFE to bridge the gap between rapidly evolving renewable technology and traditional fireground tactics.
Enphase Energy, a California-based global energy technology company that consults with SAFE on its training modules, shared the findings to highlight how system design impacts emergency response.
Survey details provided by the SAFE program disclose that Birt is a paid consultant of Enphase Energy, that the survey was not designed as a scientific study, and that responses were voluntary and came from a self-selected group of individuals.
A primary concern for first responders during a residential fire is the presence of high-voltage direct current (DC) on the roof. Traditional string inverter systems typically involve long runs of DC wiring that remain energized as long as the sun is shining, creating a potential hazard for firefighters who may need to vent a roof or navigate around equipment, said the report.
Enphase’s microinverter architecture converts DC to alternating current (AC) at the individual panel level. This “all-AC” design ensures that high-voltage DC is restricted to the back of the solar module itself, rather than traveling through long conduits across the structure.
The training also highlights the role of rapid shutdown, a safety requirement mandated by the National Electrical Code (NEC). Rapid shutdown is designed to reduce voltage to safe levels within seconds of a system being disconnected, protecting emergency personnel.
Because Enphase microinverters integrate rapid shutdown at the panel level, the systems do not require the additional external components, such as DC optimizers or rapid shutdown transmitters, said the report. Enphase said this simplified architecture helps ensure NEC compliance “out of the box” while reducing the number of potential failure points in the safety chain.
The SAFE program features instructional content from active fire service members, including Captain Andrew Martinez of the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. Martinez noted that his department is working to incorporate these findings into its official Safety Policy and Guidelines manual, specifically considering the benefits of systems that avoid high-voltage DC runs.
To date, Enphase has shipped approximately 84.8 million microinverters globally, with more than 5 million systems deployed in over 160 countries.
(Read: “How long do solar inverters last?”)
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
Did I just read a list of Enphase’s talking points? The claim that firefighters “overwhelmingly” prefer microinverters comes from a survey run through the SAFE training program, whose lead instructor is a paid consultant for Enphase. Even the survey notes it isn’t scientific and draws from a self-selected pool. The article also strongly implies that high-voltage DC from string inverters is a major threat to firefighter safety. After decades of rooftop solar deployment, there are no documented firefighter deaths from PV electrocution in the U.S. or Europe. The risk from electricity is real but the real world numbers don’t support safety ROI of mandatory module-level shutdown gear.
Look outside the U.S. and the picture gets even clearer. Europe runs overwhelmingly on string inverters without the rapid-shutdown and they have never had a firefighter death attributed to PV. Fire codes, training, and roof-access pathways seem to work just fine without putting electronics on every panel.
Regulatory-capture is about the only way to explain how a product with such a poor cost to benefit ratio maintains can enjoy such a large portion on the market. Companies that specialize in module-level electronics sit (cough cough Enphase cough cough) on code-making committees, sponsor firefighter trainings, and produce the safety narratives regulators hear most often. When a manufacturer’s product becomes the default “safe” option, and the codes they help write make cheaper alternatives less viable, it’s reasonable to wonder whether we’re looking at independent safety policy or just another case of big money killing competition in the name of the greater good.
None of this means microinverters are bad. They solve real problems and are the right choice in some cases. But when an article presents a vendor-linked survey as firefighter consensus, downplays the lack of injury data, and ignores the global experience supporting string inverters, it’s not an article, it’s an advertisement. Safety matters, but so does honest context. Homeowners shouldn’t lose affordable options because one company’s marketing narrative managed to harden into code.
Well put Mathew thanks for that. You beat me to it.
“Zero firefighter deaths from dc voltage in the US and Europe”. The comments have the relevant facts. This safety record is the real news and should have been the headline.