Until then, they believe, they are groundbreakers. It doesn’t seem fair.”īissett and Treanor plan to ask state politicians to modify the law. “This is going to turn into a nightmare for some homeowners. “If you have trees you should be left alone,” said Schiavo, who also has solar panels on his roof. “On average a tree only sequesters 14 pounds of carbon dioxide a year and a solar electric system offsets that every two or three days,” he said.īut Frank Schiavo, a retired San Jose State University environmental studies lecturer, said the law needs fixing. Access to a wide range of financing, including 0-down options. 100 online solar quotes, no phone calls required. By joining EnergySage, you will be able to receive: Competitive pricing from pre-screened installers near you. DSIRE has teamed-up with EnergySage to help you go solar. But it’s actually better for the environment to put solar on your roof than to plant a tree,” said Newick, who is also chairman of the global warming committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club. Go solar with confidence, and save up to 20. They increase property values and provide shade and cooling. Kurt Newick, who sells solar systems for a San Jose company says he loves trees as much as anyone, but he falls on the side of solar energy. Meanwhile, Vargas says he can’t move his solar panels - on his roof and his trellis - because his roof doesn’t have enough room. Rosenblatt said prosecutors in Sonoma County are watching the case because they have a potential violator.
“But then this could start happening in every city in the state.” “We could be done with this and walk away,” said Bissett. Their lawyer can find no other conviction under the shade law. They are worried that their case sets a precedent. In a partial victory for each side, he ruled that six of the trees can remain and that the two generating the most shade must be removed. In December, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kurt Kumli found the couple guilty of one count of violating the Solar Shade Control Act. The redwoods, which Treanor and Bissett say they planted for privacy, are now between 20 and 40 feet tall. A violation is an infraction, like a parking ticket, but with fines of up to $1,000 a day. But - and here’s the key distinction - it does apply to existing trees and shrubs that later grew big enough to shade the solar panels. It does not apply to trees or shrubs that were there before the solar panels were installed. It affects only trees planted after 1979, and bans trees or shrubs from shading more than 10 percent of a neighbor’s solar panels between 10 am and 2 pm. The law was written by former Assemblyman Chuck Imbrecht, a Ventura Republican, as a way to guarantee, amid the energy crises of the 1970s, that people who installed solar wouldn’t see a drop in their investment from nearby trees. It’s that our state’s leaders have said under the following circumstances, solar takes precedence,” said Ken Rosenblatt, supervising Santa Clara County deputy district attorney for environmental protection. “It’s not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. But county prosecutors say Treanor and Bissett are breaking it. They sent Treanor and Bissett a letter informing them that they were in violation of California’s “Solar Shade Control Act” and that if they didn’t “abate the violation” within 30 days, they would face fines of up to $1,000 a day. Also exempted are trees and shrubs that are subject to a local ordinance, or the replacement of trees or shrubs that had been growing prior to the installation of the solar device.After several years of squabbling and failed mediation, Vargas filed a complaint with the Santa Clara County district attorney arguing that the trees reduce the amount of electricity he can generate.
California solar shade control act code#
SB 1399 of 2008 amended the Public Resources Code to exempt trees and shrubs planted prior to the installation of a solar system. if the tree or shrub is planted after the installation of the solar collector. Specifically, the law provides that a tree or shrub cannot cast a shadow which covers more than 10 percent of a solar collector's absorption area at any one time between the hours of 10 a.m. California’s Public Resources Code (25980) contains the Solar Shade Control Act, which encourages the use of trees and other natural shading except in cases where the shading may interfere with the use of active and passive solar systems on adjacent properties. California’s Government Code (65850.5) provides that subdivisions may include solar easements applicable to all plots within the subdivision in their plans. California’s Civil Code (801.5) ensures that neighbors may voluntarily sign solar easements to ensure that proper sunlight is available to those who operate solar energy systems. California’s solar access laws appear in the state’s Civil, Government, Health and Safety, and Public Resources Codes.
0 kommentar(er)
