The Right to Sunlight: Solar vs. Redwood Trees
February 7th, 2008 by Andrea Kissack
In Silicon Valley, a battle between neighbors has turned into a different kind of face off: solar energy versus trees. It turns out that growing redwood trees can actually be a crime in California, if they block solar panels… as one couple in Sunnyvale found out the hard way. David Gorn reports on a new kind of legal battle — the struggle over who has the right… to sunlight.
You may listen to the “The Right to Sunlight: Solar vs. Redwood Trees” Radio report online, as well as find additional links and resources.
Andrea Kissack is Senior Editor for QUEST at KQED Public Radio.
Tags: California Solar Shade Control Act, KQED, kqedquest, pbs, public radio, QUEST, redwoods, renewable energy, Science, solar, solar energy, solar panels, sunnyvale
Related posts:
,
Posts
A Crime?!?
You’ve gotta be kidding. I can see filing a lawsuit for the purpose of recovering damages for the lost value of the sunlight…
I can even understand that contracts may have been broken (electric supply, guaranteed delivery, 3rd parties etc.)… and even if it was foreseeable that the trees would block the panels… Settle it you morons!
But a crime? And I make solar panels for a living! So what’s up with you people (CA lawmakers)?
BTW: Topping the trees is *always* an option! If the trees live, great! If not at least the attempt was made… Oh, oh-well, fell the tree is a _moronic_ first step approach, you twits!
The guy with the panels has got to be a lawyer, or have access to “cheap” legal services. I would have liked to have sold him $100,000 of panels, but it the real world he’s being an ass! Especially with the panels he erected after the trees were in. He should have known!
The problem is no one wins here, except the lawyers. Top the trees or pay the neighbor the pro rated value of the portion of the electricity the trees are shading…
Might be a whopping $50/month. Someone should write a friend of the court letter, advising the judge to exhibit a little wisdom… As him/her to throw the thing out, and set a precedent that nonsense like this will not be tolerated.
Just my $0.02 — 5 cents please!
I hope that solar power will be a partial solution to the energy crisis. I am saddened that erecting photovoltaics may lead to clear-cutting trees. As Joni Mitchell said, “they’ve PV’d paradise.”
This is absolutely ridiculous. Vargus installed the solar panels AFTER Trainer planted the redwood trees. Shade producing trees should not be treated as a public nuisance. Trees provide more benefits than do solar panels to an overall community. Trees should be considered a common-pool resource, and the last thing we should be doing is cutting down trees– especially since the trees were there before Vargus installed the solar panels. Even though the trees were only about 5ft tall when planted, I’m sure Vargus was aware that they would grow much taller. He should have had the foresight to install pole-mounted solar units rather than panels.
people need trees, people do not need electricity. I agree wholeheartedly that the judge should have thrown it out and set a precedent.
I read about this on some arborist forums too. Seems that the issue is just picking up steam.
Maybe this is why I enjoy taking a break in the forest so often to get out of the city.
Redwoods…
http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml
We expect to move back to Portland area again, to the more populated area. Now I can brace myself for more of this kind of haggling - even if about other tree issues.
Seems odd how one property can control another property.
Just looking at global warming, the solar panels win, see the calculations at http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2008/04/solar_energy_or_growing_trees.html