Link SUNNYVALE, Calif. — In an environmental dispute seemingly scripted for eco-friendly California, a man asked prosecutors to file charges against his neighbors because their towering redwoods blocked sunlight to his backyard solar panels. But the couple next door insisted they should not have to chop down the trees to accommodate Mark Vargas' energy demands because they planted the redwoods before he installed the solar panels in 2001. Experts say such clashes could become more common as California promotes renewable energy and solar systems become more popular. "Five or ten years ago, you wouldn't have seen this case because there weren't that many systems around," said Frank Schiavo, a retired environmental-studies professor at San Jose State University. "I can almost guarantee there are going to be more conflicts." After more than six years of legal wrangling, a judge recently ordered Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, to cut down two of their eight redwoods, citing an obscure state law that protects a homeowner's right to sunlight. The couple does not plan to appeal the ruling because they can no longer afford the legal expenses, but they plan to lobby state lawmakers to change or scrap the law. /**/ The Solar Shade Control Act means that homeowners can "suddenly become a criminal the day a tree grows big enough to shade a solar panel," Treanor said. The case marks the first time a homeowner has been convicted of violating the law, which was enacted three decades ago, when few homeowners had solar systems. The law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor's solar panels between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., when the sun is strongest. Existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt, but new growth is subject to the law. Residents can be fined up to $1,000 a day for violations, though the judge did not impose any fines against the Treanors. Vargas says the law protects his $70,000 investment in solar power, and he believes it should be strengthened. "I think it's unfair that a neighbor can take away this source of energy from another neighbor," he said. Treanor, a retired engineer, said he and his wife are not against solar power, "but we think there's a rational way to implement it." Solar power is growing rapidly in California, which is by far the nation's biggest generator of solar energy. In 2007, more than 30,000 California homes and businesses had rooftop solar panels, with the capacity to generate 400 megawatts of electricity. That's as much as eight power plants, according to the nonprofit Environment California. The boom is being fueled by the California Solar Initiative, which offers homeowners and businesses more than $3 billion in rebates over the next decade to install solar-electric systems. Both sides say they want to do what's best for the environment. Treanor and Bissett, who drive a hybrid Toyota Prius, argue that trees absorb carbon dioxide, cool the surrounding air and provide a habitat for wildlife. Vargas, who recently bought a plug-in electric car, counters it would take two or three acres of trees to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as much as the solar panels that cover his roof and backyard trellis. Bernadette Del Chiaro, clean energy advocate for Environment California, says the solar shade law might need to be revised to prevent similar disputes. "We want to make sure we are protecting individuals who have invested a lot of money in solar power, which is an important resource for the state," she said. But lawmakers might want to "take a look at the policy and make sure it's written in a way that's fair to everybody."
wow; what a debate. Trees versus Solar Energy. i'm on the side of the people with the big trees though; in the end, trees are the priority; i'm sure the solar panel people could have put them somewhere else... tree haters ):
The guy's an idiot for not checking beforehand to make sure nothing was blocking sunlight. I don't understand how someone's mind works like that. "YOU NEED TO CUT DOWN THOSE TREES SO WE CAN SAVE THE ENVIROMENT!" That guy doesn't give a shit about the enviroment, he just wants to save a few bucks on his utility bill and gas.
old growth trees dont' exchange CO2 much at all anymore. new growth trees are better for the environment. but we're sentimental.
I, too, would rather have big trees. ^Its seems the only people advocating that is timber company reps. and is based on one study done 40 years ago. Last year the journal "Nature" an study was published the refuted that - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7210/full/nature07276.html The old growth forest are also storing huge amounts carbon. If its cut down, it would be released back into the environment.
I think that the amount of pollution from using energy all those years from unclean sources would be worse for the environment than 2 trees being trimmed...
okay, fuel for both sides.... The law... it is not really any different then the laws regarding electrical companies having the right to order trees cut down to protect their lines. Which is better, cutting a couple of trees to let in the sun, or a couple of miles of trees to protect the grid feed? The trees... trees grow... in this case, they were there before he installed hi solar system. If he didn't have the sense to locate them somewhere that would be blocked by trees as they grew, the guy is a moron. If you are investing 1000's of dollars, it only makes sense to consider such factors. As for which is doing more for the environment over the long term... the pv panels win hands down. They reduce the carbon footprint in a far greater manner then those two trees EVER will.
