Fee petition mechanics · Updated July 2026
California solar rights act attorney fee petition mechanics: date of HOA solar installation denial as primary Welch anchor, Civ. Code § 714(e) mandatory attorney fees to prevailing solar system owner
California Solar Rights Act enforcement (Civ. Code § 714 — originally AB 2641, 1978; § 714(a): voids any provision of an HOA's CC&Rs, rules, or other governing documents that 'effectively prohibits or restricts the installation or use of a solar energy system' — any such provision 'shall be void and unenforceable'; § 714(e): 'the owner of the solar energy system or the person who installed or maintains it shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs' — mandatory unilateral attorney fees to the prevailing solar system owner, not the HOA; § 714(g)(1): 'solar energy system' means equipment that uses solar energy to heat or cool a residential building, generate electricity to be used in a residential building or to be sold to a utility, or to provide solar process heat; § 714(b): the HOA may impose reasonable restrictions on the installation or use of a solar energy system but may not require the system to be installed in a location that would significantly increase the cost or decrease the efficiency of the system; § 714(c): a 'reasonable restriction' on a solar energy system means a restriction that does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance; § 714(d): a solar energy system is 'significantly' impacted when its costs increase by more than $2,000 or its efficiency decreases by more than 20%; § 714.1: similarly voids any provision of a deed, contract, or covenant recorded after January 1, 1979 that restricts solar; ONLY page in the fee-petition-mechanics series where the primary Welch temporal anchor is in the HOA MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE CALENDAR (CINC Systems Condo & HOA management platform, AppFolio Association Manager, Condo Control community association management software, TOPS Software Total Operations Platform for Condominiums, Pilera Software HOA management platform, Caliber Property Management Portal — each records architectural review committee (ARC) petition submission dates, ARC meeting dates, HOA board vote dates, denial notification dates, and appeal calendar dates on the HOA's own institutional community governance calendar entirely outside the solar system owner attorney's scheduling control); no federal solar rights statute with private mandatory attorney fee-shifting for HOA solar installation restriction disputes (the National Electrical Code provides installation standards but no private attorney fee rights; the federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) under 26 U.S.C. § 48 and Inflation Reduction Act residential clean energy credit under 26 U.S.C. § 25D provide tax incentives but no private attorney fee rights for HOA access disputes) → pure Ketchum multiplier eligible with no Dague constraint; DISTINCT from Civ. Code § 5975 HOA assessment dispute [tier_mmm — § 5975 covers HOA assessment enforcement collection disputes where the HOA seeks unpaid assessments; § 714 covers the homeowner's right to install solar over HOA objection; different plaintiffs, different subject matter], Civ. Code § 5145 HOA election dispute [tier_kkk — § 5145 covers election irregularities; § 714 covers solar installation restrictions], Civ. Code § 1940.2 landlord harassment [tier_uuu — residential tenancy; § 714 involves HOA property owner rights, not landlord-tenant]; Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001); PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000); Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF HOA'S DENIAL OF SOLAR INSTALLATION APPLICATION; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees) — solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — in actions where the primary Welch temporal anchor is the DATE OF HOA BOARD'S DENIAL OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLATION APPLICATION (the ONLY primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series in a HOA management software community governance calendar; CINC Systems, AppFolio Association Manager, Condo Control, TOPS Software, Pilera Software, Caliber — HOA's own institutional governance calendar records ARC application submission date, ARC meeting date, board vote date, denial notification date entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; ONLY page where the HOA is defendant through CC&R restriction of solar access rights; no federal solar attorney fee parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague) — generate three billing gaps driven by § 714 HOA solar restriction analysis and installation application denial documentation advisory calls, the concurrent HOA community governance calendar and local building department solar permit calendar and utility net energy metering interconnection calendar advisory calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside attorney control, and the § 714(e) attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls: § 714 HOA solar restriction analysis and installation application denial documentation advisory calls (7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr), HOA community governance calendar advisory and local building department solar permit calendar advisory and utility NEM interconnection calendar advisory (6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year), and § 714(e) attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls (5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year). For a solo California solar rights practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $5,005–$8,342.
TL;DR
ClaimHour captures every § 714 HOA solar restriction analysis and installation application denial documentation advisory call that starts the § 714(e) fee documentation period from the DATE OF HOA BOARD'S DENIAL OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLATION APPLICATION (in the HOA's own CINC Systems/AppFolio Association Manager/Condo Control/TOPS Software/Pilera/Caliber community governance calendar — ONLY anchor in series in HOA management software institutional calendar; § 714(e) mandatory attorney fees to prevailing solar system owner; originally AB 2641, 1978; § 714(a) voids HOA restrictions that effectively prohibit solar; § 714(g)(1) solar energy system definition; no federal solar attorney fee parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague; DISTINCT from § 5975 HOA assessment [tier_mmm] and § 5145 HOA election [tier_kkk]), every concurrent HOA community governance calendar advisory and local building department solar permit calendar advisory and utility NEM interconnection calendar advisory on external institutional calendars entirely outside the attorney's scheduling control, and every § 714(e) attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory call on the post-judgment fee petition calendar — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.
§ 714 HOA solar restriction analysis and installation application denial documentation: calls on the HOA's own community governance software calendar
The DATE OF HOA BOARD'S DENIAL OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLATION APPLICATION is the primary Welch temporal anchor for § 714(e) attorney fee billing documentation in a Civ. Code § 714 Solar Rights Act action. This date is in the HOA's own community governance software calendar — recording the board vote date on which the HOA denied, conditionally approved with unreasonable restrictions, or failed to act within any applicable period on the homeowner's solar installation application, on an institutional calendar entirely outside the solar system owner attorney's scheduling control. The Hensley lodestar starts from this date for five reasons: (1) the HOA's own community governance software records the application submission and denial dates: CINC Systems, AppFolio Association Manager, Condo Control, TOPS Software, Pilera Software, and Caliber Property Management Portal each record the architectural review committee (ARC) petition submission date, ARC meeting date, board vote date, and denial notification date on the HOA's own institutional community governance calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; (2) the HOA's own CC&Rs, architectural guidelines, and solar-specific resolutions are archived in the HOA management software: the CC&Rs' solar restriction language — which § 714(a) may void as effectively prohibiting solar — is recorded in the HOA's own document management archive on the HOA's own institutional calendar; (3) the HOA board meeting minutes documenting the denial vote are in the HOA's governance system: the board meeting minutes date in the HOA's own institutional community governance calendar is distinct from but related to the denial notification date — both are on the HOA's own institutional calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; (4) the HOA's architectural review committee review period runs on the HOA's own institutional calendar: many HOA CC&Rs establish a 45- or 60-day ARC review period; the period start and end dates run on the ARC's own review calendar set by the HOA's governing documents entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; (5) any HOA appeal process runs on a separate HOA institutional calendar: if the HOA's CC&Rs provide for an appeal of ARC or board decisions, the appeal submission deadline and board's appeal decision date run on the HOA's own institutional governance calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control.
Three initial advisory call types generate untracked billing from the denial date: (1) § 714 HOA restriction analysis and solar energy system qualification advisory — arrives when solar system owner retains § 714 counsel (§ 714 eligibility analysis: [a] identify whether the HOA restriction 'effectively prohibits' solar under § 714(a) — the restriction need not expressly prohibit solar; a restriction that imposes conditions so burdensome that a reasonable homeowner would be deterred from installing solar may constitute an effective prohibition; [b] identify whether the HOA's CC&R language expressly prohibits vs. imposes 'conditions, covenants, or restrictions' on solar installation — expressly prohibitory language is per se void under § 714(a); conditional restrictions are evaluated under § 714(c) 'reasonable restriction' standard; [c] confirm the proposed system qualifies as a 'solar energy system' under § 714(g)(1): equipment that uses solar energy to heat or cool a residential building, generate electricity to be used in a residential building or sold to a utility, or provide solar process heat; PV panels, solar water heaters, solar pool heaters, and solar attic fans all qualify; [d] confirm the proposed installation location and whether the HOA's location restriction satisfies § 714(b): the HOA may not require installation in a location that would 'significantly increase the cost or significantly decrease the efficiency' of the system (§ 714(c)); if the HOA required installation on the north-facing roof, the efficiency decrease from reduced solar exposure may exceed the 20% threshold; [e] identify all HOA governing documents: CC&Rs, architectural guidelines, HOA board solar-specific resolutions — all archived in HOA management software; 42–48 min per call); (2) HOA governing document analysis and effective prohibition determination advisory — arrives when HOA's CC&R language is ambiguous (effective prohibition analysis: [a] map the CC&R restriction to the § 714(c) reasonable restriction standard: does the restriction significantly increase costs above $2,000 or decrease efficiency below 80%? § 714(d) provides the statutory thresholds; [b] identify whether the HOA applied the restriction uniformly or selectively — selective application may indicate discriminatory enforcement independent of § 714; [c] analyze the ARC review process timeline: if the HOA failed to act within any applicable CC&R review period, the failure to act may constitute constructive denial; [d] research comparable HOA board decisions in the HOA's own institutional governance archive: CINC Systems, AppFolio Association Manager, and Condo Control each archive historical board meeting minutes and ARC decisions that may establish the HOA's pattern of solar restriction; [e] analyze whether the HOA's restriction imposes aesthetic conditions that exceed § 714(c): roof mounting angle requirements, panel color restrictions, screening requirements may be reasonable on their face but unreasonable in application; 42–48 min per call); (3) § 714 pre-litigation HOA demand letter and cure period advisory — arrives before filing (pre-litigation analysis: [a] § 714 does not require pre-litigation demand, but a demand letter establishing the § 714 violation and the HOA's denial date is best practice for Ketchum multiplier purposes at fee petition — the demand date is the earliest date from which fees-on-fees may run under Missouri v. Jenkins; [b] identify the correct HOA defendant: the HOA (the legal entity holding the CC&Rs) vs. the HOA's property management company (Caliber, Pilera, AppFolio — who administers the HOA but is not typically the defendant); [c] identify board members who voted to deny as potential individual defendants for willful § 714 violations; [d] calculate § 714(d) damages: actual damages (contractor cancellation fees, system cost increase from delay, lost utility savings during delay) plus § 714(e) mandatory attorney fees; [e] confirm solar contractor's license status with CSLB (Contractors State License Board) — licensed contractor requirement under California Business and Professions Code § 7028; 42–48 min per call). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% = 323.4 min / 60 = 5.39 hours = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr.
HOA community governance calendar and local building department solar permit calendar and utility NEM interconnection calendar: calls on external institutional calendars entirely outside attorney control
A California Civ. Code § 714 Solar Rights Act case typically involves three concurrent external institutional calendars that run entirely outside the solar system owner attorney's scheduling control: the HOA management software community governance calendar [CINC Systems, AppFolio Association Manager, Condo Control, TOPS Software, Pilera Software, Caliber Property Management Portal each record: (a) the homeowner's solar installation application submission date: the date the homeowner submitted the ARC petition for solar installation is recorded in the HOA's architectural review system on the HOA's own institutional calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; (b) the ARC meeting date: the architectural review committee's meeting to review the solar application is set by the ARC on the HOA's own institutional governance calendar — the ARC meeting date is not within the solar system owner attorney's control; (c) the HOA board vote date: the board's vote on the ARC's recommendation — whether to approve, deny, or conditionally approve the solar installation — is set by the board on the HOA's own institutional calendar; (d) the denial notification date: the date the HOA formally notified the homeowner of the denial is recorded in the HOA's correspondence log in the HOA management software; (e) the appeal filing deadline and board's appeal response deadline: if the HOA's CC&Rs provide an appeal process, the appeal deadlines run on the HOA's own institutional calendar; (f) the HOA's annual meeting calendar: if the solar installation dispute is raised at an HOA annual meeting, the annual meeting date is on the HOA's own institutional calendar]; the local building department solar permit calendar [Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) solar permit portal, San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) permit and project tracking, San Diego Development Services Department permit tracking, Sacramento Community Development solar permit portal each record: (a) solar installation permit application submission date: the date the solar contractor or homeowner submitted the building permit application is on the local building department's own institutional permitting calendar; (b) plan check review date: the date the plan check reviewer reviewed the solar installation plans is set by the building department on its own institutional calendar; California AB 2188 (2022) and SB 2 (2017) require cities and counties to approve solar permit applications within 30 days for residential systems — the permit application date and 30-day deadline run on the building department's own institutional calendar; (c) solar permit issuance date: the date the building permit was issued is on the building department's own institutional calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; (d) solar permit expiration date: building permits typically expire 180 days after issuance if construction has not commenced — the permit expiration date is on the building department's own institutional calendar; if the HOA's denial caused the building permit to expire before installation, the permit expiration date creates a damages calculation anchor]; and the California Energy Commission and utility interconnection calendar [the utility interconnection calendar runs on the utility's own institutional systems: (a) Southern California Edison (SCE) net energy metering (NEM) interconnection application submission date: submitted through SCE's eSolar interconnection portal; approval date and permission to operate (PTO) date on SCE's own institutional interconnection queue calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; (b) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) NEM interconnection application submission date: submitted through PG&E's online interconnection application portal; PTO date on PG&E's own institutional interconnection calendar; (c) San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) NEM interconnection application date and PTO date on SDG&E's own institutional calendar; (d) California Public Utilities Code § 2827.1 NEM 2.0/NEM 3.0 interconnection deadlines run on the utility's own institutional calendar; if the HOA's denial of the solar installation prevented the homeowner from applying for NEM interconnection before NEM 2.0 grandfathering deadlines lapsed, the NEM grandfathering deadline (on the utility's own institutional calendar) creates a separate damages calculation anchor]. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DATE OF HOA DENIAL. Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Three concurrent external institutional calendar advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) HOA community governance calendar monitoring advisory — arrives when HOA's institutional governance calendar controls case deadlines (HOA calendar analysis: [a] CINC Systems/AppFolio/Condo Control/TOPS/Pilera/Caliber board meeting calendar: the next board meeting date — at which the solar installation appeal, settlement offer, or injunction compliance will be addressed — is set by the HOA's own institutional governance calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; [b] HOA annual election calendar: if the solar installation dispute coincides with an HOA board election cycle, the election date on the HOA's own institutional calendar creates a parallel institutional calendar constraint that may affect the HOA's legal posture; [c] HOA special assessment calendar: if the HOA has proposed a special assessment that the homeowner disputes as retaliatory for pursuing § 714 rights, the special assessment notice date and payment deadline are on the HOA's own institutional calendar; [d] HOA legal counsel response calendar: the HOA's own legal counsel response deadline to the § 714 demand letter or litigation is set by the HOA's board or its insurer on the HOA's own institutional calendar; 44–50 min per call); (2) local building department solar permit calendar monitoring advisory — arrives when permit status affects litigation timeline (building permit calendar analysis: [a] solar permit expiration monitoring: if the building permit will expire before the § 714 litigation is resolved, the permit expiration date creates an urgency that affects litigation strategy; [b] plan check revision calendar: if the building department required plan check revisions, the plan check revision submission deadline and review date are on the building department's own institutional calendar; [c] California AB 2188 (2022) solar permit approval deadline: AB 2188 standardizes solar permit applications and requires building departments to approve applications within 30 days for residential systems — monitoring the building department's compliance with the 30-day deadline on the building department's own institutional calendar creates an advisory call at each deadline; [d] inspection scheduling calendar: after permit issuance, the building department's own inspection scheduling calendar sets the date of the final inspection and certificate of occupancy — on the building department's own institutional calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control; 44–50 min per call); (3) utility NEM interconnection calendar monitoring advisory — arrives when utility PTO date affects damages calculation (utility interconnection calendar analysis: [a] SCE/PG&E/SDG&E NEM interconnection queue position monitoring: the utility's own interconnection queue position determines how long the homeowner must wait for NEM approval — if the HOA's denial delayed the interconnection application, the queue position loss creates a calculable damages period; [b] NEM 2.0/NEM 3.0 grandfathering deadline monitoring: California's NEM 2.0 to NEM 3.0 transition created a grandfathering deadline — homeowners who submitted NEM 2.0 applications before the CPUC's grandfathering cutoff receive NEM 2.0 rates for 20 years; if the HOA's denial caused the homeowner to miss the NEM 2.0 grandfathering deadline, the lost NEM 2.0 value over 20 years (typically $5,000–$30,000 depending on system size) is a major damages component; [c] permission to operate (PTO) date: the utility's own PTO date determines when the homeowner can begin generating solar power and earning NEM credits — the delay period between the HOA denial date and the PTO date (caused by the HOA's denial) establishes the damages period for lost NEM credits; [d] no federal solar rights statute with private attorney fee-shifting → pure Ketchum no Dague for entire § 714(e) state claim; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.
§ 714(e) attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier: calls on the post-judgment fee petition calendar
Civ. Code § 714(e) provides mandatory unilateral attorney fees to the prevailing solar system owner: 'the owner of the solar energy system or the person who installed or maintains it shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.' The § 714(e) fee petition requires a Hensley lodestar from the DATE OF HOA BOARD'S DENIAL OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLATION APPLICATION through § 714 HOA restriction analysis, solar energy system qualification analysis, HOA community governance calendar monitoring, local building department solar permit calendar monitoring, utility NEM interconnection calendar monitoring, litigation, and fee petition. Because there is no federal solar rights statute with private mandatory attorney fee-shifting (the National Electrical Code, ITC, and IRA residential clean energy credit do not create private attorney fee rights for HOA solar access disputes), no Ketchum/Dague split is required — the pure Ketchum five-factor multiplier applies to the entire § 714(e) state claim. Only the solar system owner (not the HOA) may recover attorney fees under § 714(e) — the unilateral fee structure eliminates bilateral fee risk as a Ketchum contingency factor but concentrates all other contingency factors on the solar system owner's claim. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001). PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000). Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983). Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees.
Two § 714(e) post-judgment advisory call types generate untracked billing: (1) § 714(e) damages calculation and fee petition component assembly advisory — arrives at judgment (§ 714(e) damages and fee components: [a] actual damages from HOA denial delay: the contractor cost increase caused by the HOA's delay (if contractor repriced during delay), the utility cost during the delay period that would have been offset by solar NEM credits, and any NEM grandfathering deadline loss — all calculated from the HOA's own governance calendar denial date and the utility's own NEM interconnection calendar PTO date; [b] § 714(d) 'significant increase in cost' or 'significant decrease in efficiency' damages: if the HOA imposed a location restriction that increased costs above $2,000 or decreased efficiency below 80%, the damages are the difference between the as-proposed installation costs and the HOA-restricted installation costs; [c] § 714(e) attorney fees Hensley lodestar from DATE OF HOA DENIAL through HOA restriction analysis, solar energy system qualification analysis, HOA governance calendar monitoring, building permit calendar monitoring, utility NEM calendar monitoring, and fee petition; [d] Missouri v. Jenkins fees-on-fees: attorney fees for preparing the § 714(e) fee petition itself are recoverable as part of the lodestar; [e] costs of suit: expert witness fees (solar contractor expert to testify about efficiency decrease), building department plan check fees, court filing fees; 44–50 min per call); (2) pure Ketchum five-factor multiplier analysis advisory — arrives at fee petition (Ketchum five-factor multiplier for § 714(e) fee petition [Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001)]; pure Ketchum — no Dague constraint — because no federal solar rights statute with attorney fee-shifting exists: [a] § 714 'effectively prohibits' statutory coverage uncertainty — whether the specific HOA restriction 'effectively prohibited' solar under § 714(a) vs. constituted a permissible 'reasonable restriction' under § 714(c) required analysis of the HOA's CC&R language, the ARC's decision, and the § 714(d) quantitative thresholds entirely from the HOA's own institutional governance records at inception; [b] HOA defense of 'reasonable restriction' — many HOAs will assert their restrictions were 'reasonable' under § 714(c) and did not significantly increase costs or decrease efficiency; defeating this defense required expert testimony at inception; [c] NEM grandfathering deadline damages uncertainty — whether the HOA's denial actually caused the homeowner to miss the NEM 2.0 grandfathering deadline (vs. whether the homeowner would have missed the deadline anyway) required utility interconnection queue analysis at inception; [d] HOA defendant asset uncertainty — whether the HOA entity had sufficient assets to satisfy a § 714(d) and § 714(e) judgment required financial investigation at inception; [e] multiple institutional calendar dependencies — the concurrent HOA governance calendar, building department permit calendar, and utility NEM interconnection calendar each imposed independent scheduling constraints on case development at inception; PLCM Group 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) prevailing market rate for HOA and real property litigation; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees; 44–50 min per call). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 242 min / 60 = 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.
How ClaimHour fits California § 714 solar rights act practice
California Solar Rights Act Civ. Code § 714 solos billing hourly on mandatory attorney fees — with § 714 HOA solar restriction analysis and installation application denial documentation advisory calls arriving when solar system owner retains § 714 counsel (DATE OF HOA BOARD'S DENIAL OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM INSTALLATION APPLICATION = primary Welch anchor; in HOA's own CINC Systems/AppFolio Association Manager/Condo Control/TOPS Software/Pilera/Caliber community governance calendar — ONLY anchor in series in HOA management software institutional calendar; § 714(e) mandatory attorney fees to prevailing solar system owner; originally AB 2641, 1978; § 714(a) voids HOA restrictions effectively prohibiting solar; § 714(g)(1) solar energy system qualification; no federal solar attorney fee parallel → pure Ketchum no Dague; DISTINCT from § 5975 HOA assessment dispute [tier_mmm] and § 5145 HOA election dispute [tier_kkk]), HOA community governance calendar monitoring advisory calls on the HOA's own institutional governance calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control, local building department solar permit calendar monitoring advisory calls on the building department's own institutional permitting calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control, utility NEM interconnection calendar monitoring advisory calls on SCE/PG&E/SDG&E's own institutional interconnection queue calendar entirely outside solar system owner attorney's scheduling control, and § 714(e) attorney fee petition and pure Ketchum multiplier advisory calls arriving at judgment — and if your § 714(e) lodestar documentation must satisfy the Hensley contemporaneous-record standard from the DATE OF HOA BOARD'S DENIAL through HOA restriction analysis, solar energy system qualification analysis, HOA governance calendar monitoring, building permit calendar monitoring, utility NEM interconnection calendar monitoring, and § 714(e) damages, pure Ketchum multiplier, and fee petition, ClaimHour was built for that gap.