Trees Versus SPVs: Which Do You Hug?
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 01.27.08
You would think that a row of 10-year old Sequoia or "redwood" trees, with prospects of living hundreds of years, would hardly be able to grow fast enough to shade a nearby residential solar panel array, which has a design life of only 30 years. But, in California, legal precedent is being tested over just such a struggle. At the 'root' of the debate - and at the root of the law - is contention over which entities, trees or SPV's, have the greatest potential for climate mitigation.
In a case with statewide significance, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office is pursuing a Sunnyvale couple under a little-known California law because redwood trees in their backyard cast a shadow over their neighbor's solar panels...
"It's not that we think trees are more or less important than solar collectors. 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.
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 panels wouldn't see a drop in their investment from nearby trees.
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 a.m. and 2
p.m.
It does not apply to trees or shrubs that were there before the solar panels were installed. 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. A violation is an infraction, like a parking ticket, but with fines of up to $1,000 a day.
Wasn't it Robert Frost who poetically challenged the idea that 'good fences make good neighbors?' Apparently this 19'th Century platitude is getting another challenge where trees make the fence and solar panels are involved. Surpassing the stone fence age, in the Age Of Climate Change, we must find new ways of Mending Wall.
Via::San Jose Mercury News, "Sunnyvale homeowners told to cut redwoods that block solar panels" Image credit::Mercury News.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 7 Great Weekend Solar Power Projects
- How to Use a Solar Oven: Beans and Rice Recipe
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- 5 Ways Climate Change Will Affect Your Health, Plus How to Cope
- Got Guts? Stand Up to Summer Heat Without Air Conditioning
I think this law is reasonable. I see no significant problem. The tree can be seasonally pruned to keep it at a maximum height. And if the tree must be cut down because it can not withstand topping, then the wood can be put to good use, such as for building, composting or as firewood, thereby either storing or putting to good use the CO2 in the wood. And a new tree can be planted in its place (one that doesn't end up growing too high), thereby capturing more CO2. I don't see an inherent environmental contradiction. However, I have no doubt that those environmental aesthetes who prioritize looks over results will argue that: natural beauty = environmental responsibility, so don't cut down the trees!
If you read the original article including the photo caption, the resolution is that 6 of the 8 trees remain in place, 1 is moved to a new location on the property, and 1 will be removed.
Tree topping damages most trees so severely, that it simply should never be done. Prune the tree if possible, or remove it completely.
There are 8 coast redwoods growing along maybe 40' of fence. They are simply too close together and some would have to be cut eventually.
This has all the stink of a neighbor dispute rather than an environmental one. Both parties are being unreasonable but solar panel guy happen to have the law (California Public Resources Code Section 25982) on his side.
Prune. Simple.
Everyone remember the "Ancient Sunlight" deal in UK? All us TH readers seemed to be all on-board with that. Same basic deal, except here you can have the trees and simply prune. There is was about new building height. Doesn't much matter the source of the new shading.
You, my neighbor, do not have a right to deprive me of the sunlight I got from the first day I moved in, be it with a tree, or a new building.
Hey 'Houston' ... and any others ... there's more value in this (and all other trees) than simply the aesthetic 'looks'.
Indeed, the cooling 'results' which, evidently seem to evade your reasoning, are very significant.
How much of the electricity generated by the PV solar array is going (intended) to mitigate the effects of the electrical air conditioning for the purpose of cooling that very house? Hmmm?
Trees are much more than ornaments. In fact they provide a functional value far beyond what most people (evidently) understand. And in the case of the 'cooling effects, which in a hot climate is obviously a primary concern, the trees need to be tall.
Clearly, 'systems thinking' is in order.
1) Cut down the tree. It's not that old.
2) Plant another tree(s) somewhere else to make up for it.
3) Save legal fees!
'there's more value in this (and all other trees) than simply the aesthetic 'looks'.'
---Too true. But cutting down one or two trees if pruning doesn't work, does little to damage those other values that groupings of trees provide, especially if you replant with new trees or large bushes.
'Indeed, the cooling 'results' which, evidently seem to evade your reasoning, are very significant. How much of the electricity generated by the PV solar array is going (intended) to mitigate the effects of the electrical air conditioning for the purpose of cooling that very house? Hmmm?'
---If you are asking how much extra electrical cooling that house would need because the tree is no longer shading it, I would say next to none. Why? Because the solar array on the roof is blocking that solar energy from heating the roof (which is where most of the solar energy gets picked up and into the house) and converting into electricity. And by the way, in southern California it is perfectly possible to use an evaporative cooler, which uses very little electricity. So the PV is BOTH blocking the house from overheating AND providing more than enough electrical energy to meet the cooling demands that it would have whether the tree was there or not.
'Trees are much more than ornaments. In fact they provide a functional value far beyond what most people (evidently) understand. And in the case of the 'cooling effects, which in a hot climate is obviously a primary concern, the trees need to be tall.'
---Too true. Trees are extremely important and serve crucial multiple tasks, and I have stressed that over, and over, and over, and over, and over again ad naseum in this website. But trees provide most of these tasks in groupings - such as a forest. Cutting down one or two trees here and there for purposes that provide greater environmental benefits than the loss of one or two trees is not just acceptable but is absolutely necessary in order to have buildings that can heat and power themselves, thereby eliminating the need for huge amounts of fuel - whether in the form of fossils, or biomass (like burning trees). I have a passive solar house in Spain (climate almost identical to California) that gets most of its energy from the sun. I have a masonry stove wood-burner as backup that I power with wood from the pine forest on my finca. If I had to cut down two trees to let the sun heat my house, I would not miss a heartbeat in doing so since it would save me MORE than two trees A YEAR in biomass heating. Similar benefits apply for getting ones electricity from the sun.
'Clearly, 'systems thinking' is in order.'
---Indeed! Very much so. I couldn't agree more. But your systems thinking is, in my opinion, overly constricted.
Those trees have been planted there. Thats already messing with nature (in a good way). So move them, or chop one down and plant two elsewhere (in a good way).
Hey Houston ... excellent follow-up.
I apologize for unintended snarkiness. Yes, my comments were constricted, it was a quick response and based on the photo. Now that you mention your commenting 'over and over ...' on this blog, I do recall your many good points.
Your right about not missing a heartbeat in cutting down a tree (or multiple) when there are clear benefits. You're obviously living accordingly, and I'm only talking. I was judging by the photo in which the trees seem to be mostly 'singular'. Very seldom are there clumps, though, in typical residential subdivisions. For the record, I'm not a typical 'treehugger': there are trees that have been improperly located in the first place ...
As for the shading of the tree to provide cooling ... the 'protection' afforded by the panels on the rood are minor compared to the total exposure including wall (of course, mid-day sun in all down on the roof) ... keeping the house cool before mid-day arrives is a big part of the solution, no? The long shadows of even a single tree while the sun is rising/setting is something to be valued.
I'd love to hear more of your personal passive solar experiences. Care to share? ecoguy@mac.com
Cheers.
David.
'I apologize for unintended snarkiness.'
---I don't have a problem with some 'snarkiness' if it is pointed at the right direction and as far as I can tell yours generally was. No apology needed from my part.
'As for the shading of the tree to provide cooling ... the 'protection' afforded by the panels on the rood are minor compared to the total exposure including wall (of course, mid-day sun in all down on the roof) ... keeping the house cool before mid-day arrives is a big part of the solution, no? The long shadows of even a single tree while the sun is rising/setting is something to be valued.'
---The shading provided by trees can be of significant value if located appropriately. How much shading and during what times of day will depend in large part on house design and the geographical location (above a certain latitude shading is virtually of no use, below a certain latitude you might want to have your house completely surrounded by trees). But much of the US and Europe is located in latitudes that require some degree of summer cooling and of winter heating. In most of these areas, heating is more of a concern (even if summers are scorching) because heating actually requires much more real energy than cooling. With cooling all you are doing is pumping hot air (or water) out of your home, or in the case of evaporative coolers, using a small pump and fan. Pumps and fans don't typically draw that much energy. A typical air conditioning unit is basically a (large) fridge. And an energy efficient fridge (like mine) draws 100W per hour. An energy efficient AC would draw maybe ten times that (depending on size) during central hours of the day (and much less than this if using an evaporative cooler). If lucky enough to have a geothermal heating system, this system can probably be used in reverse to take heat out of the house and store it in the ground - this would probably require considerably less electrical energy than an AC unit but more than a swamp cooler. In any case, we are talking about use of pumps and fans which use relatively little energy in comparison with heating the same amount of space. Heating almost always requires the burning, in one form or other, of something to release large amounts of energy - solar energy is basically the 'burning' of hydrogen in a fusion reaction, biomass burning of wood or pellets of one form or other, and fossil fuels is the most common. Of course, you can pump heat from the outside into your house (in a geothermal system), but most often the heat extracted from the outside can only do so much and supplemental heat is required to bring the water in the tubes up to the right temp (this is often done with LOTS of electricity). Anyway, point I am trying to get at is that you have to balance the energy requirements of summer cooling with the energy requirements of winter heating and a tree out in the south yard can lead to a very significant reduction in solar energy that can heat a home (if the home is minimally designed to take advantage of that solar heat) thereby greatly displacing any summer cooling energy savings.
Furthermore, a tree directly to the south is basically only shading against summer solar noon solar heat - the morning and evening shade of such a tree actually shades the house little (unless the house or the tree or both have a really weird twisted shape that I can't phathom). In this case, as I said before, the tree does little more than the large PV-roof array to keep the home cooled. Why only little more? Because the portion of the tree shading hitting the walls does pratically nothing - the south wall, at about solar noon, basically bounces off the virtual totality of the solar rays due to the high angle on incidence and due to the very light colors typical of exterior house walls. And because the shading of the large PV array itself is constantly large, as opposed to the shifting size of the shade provided by the tree which goes from very small to large (if the tree has a large canopy high up) to very small. One important point to consider is that south wall windows would not get shading if there is no south yard tree, and this can be a significant problem if not addressed in some other way - like overhangs, exterior louvres or curtains or shadeclothes, special low-e window treatment, etc. Trying to shade the house from the morning, but more critically the evening sun is somewhat helpful in keeping the home cool, but in these cases it is best to place trees (which canopies shouldn't be too high) to the west-southwest and east-southeast in order to block the sun hitting the east and west walls and much more crucially the east and west wall windows. The wall shading does something to cool the house, but more beneficial is simply to paint the walls white. White walls reflect away over 90% of the sun's rays. And if you paint with reflective insulation paint, you are getting pretty close to 100%. In any case, trees to the east and west would do little to interfere with the PV energy production of roof-mounted southfacing panels, and would therefore probably never have to be pruned or cut down.
'I'd love to hear more of your personal passive solar experiences. Care to share? ecoguy@mac.com'
---I'll send you a line tomorrow. It is now late here in Spain.
People need clean air. Santa Clara has bad air. Redwoods whereever they grow clean the air and should be revered over a dam solar panel. If someone wants to plant a 100 Redwood trees on their property they should be given the Nobel Green Prize. Redwoods should win 100% of time in a CA court!!!!!!!
It certainly seems like the solar panels could be moved easier than the tree.
If you move a tree it may or may not live, the solar panels should live unless you're really clumsy.
So anybody can use this solar panel excuse to forcibly cut down your hated neighbors tree? Seems kind of wrong. The family could easily relocate their panels or extend it upward
OR even mount them on the tree.
Bah but you guys are right this falls under a weekend quarrel with your neighbor.
this kind of conflict will happen increasingly in the future. Check your history for the conflict in urban spaces where a building (new or old) is shielding another building from sunlight. My personal principle is that what I do should stay on my property and if I annoy my neighbor, then it's a fair bet that I should change, not them.
No matter how much cooling trees provide, they fall. A tree fell on my house last year and cost me well over $6,000 to repair. that damage would have wiped out any energy savings the tree might have provided. when you add in the cost of pruning and maintenance of the health of the tree, we definitely came out on the financial short end of the stick. Additionally, trees cause long-term damage to property trees by holding excess moisture on or around the roof which encourages intrusion by carpenter ants, growth of moss, mildew, and algae. Again, this damage can wipe out any energy savings. A third aspect of damage is providing refuge for various insects that carry disease such as mosquitoes. West Nile anyone?
Trees also get in the way of food production. We've pruned many trees on the southern edge of our property so we can have enough sunlight for food Garden. If the dispute was between someone's ability to produce food instead of over solar panels, what character would the dispute have? Would the shaded person somehow be more worthy of sunlight if it was for a garden?
trees do cool the local environment by a small number of degrees. But when it comes right down to it, they will never drop the temperature below the local air temperature. if it's hot, it's hot. the amount of cooling provided by trees is not sufficient to provide any significant comfort benefits enabling people to do their work. Given a choice between having enough solar panels on the roof to run the air conditioning and having trees shading the house temperature down to ambient temperature, most people take the solar panels. At least when your average outdoor temperature is in the 80s and high humidity, you can be more comfortable while you work.
I like trees, they are great for shade, places for raptors to hang out, and hanging up wire antennas for amateur radio, but they suck if you're into food production, astronomy or want to use photovoltaics..
This is a bad law, tree or no tree.
If trees happen to block my ocean view, I can put up a solar panel and cut the trees down. Later, I can take down the solar panel and voila - legal clear cutting.
What about the shadow cast by the cell-tower, or utility pole? Can I sue the power company for making shade on my property where I want to put solar panels?
Your property is either suited for SVP or not.
My suggestion is that the tree owner install solar panels on the trees.
--
85% of coastal redwoods(sequoia) in California (their only habitat) have been destroyed by development. They are in fact an endangered plant species.
SOURCE: M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E. Puckett Haecker, and P. D. Doran, "Table 1. Human-Caused Reductions in Westside California Plant Communities and Formations (after Noss and Peters, 1995)," in The Status and Trends of Our Nation's Biological Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 1998
Like i said earlier Just Plant the Solar Panel on the top of the tree. Voila problem solved
Check the law. If the tree casts shade on the solar panel within the first year that the panel is installed, the tree takes precedence. If that tree later dies, it can be replaced.
So no, you cannot install a solar panel in order to have your neighbor's tree removed.
The law specifically says "plant" so no the cell tower - even if it is tree shaped is not covered by this specific law. The plant has to shade more than 10% of the panel during the hours of 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
Clear cutting is legally defined in California. Removal of a single tree is not clear cutting.
Endangered is another legally defined term. Coast redwoods are not endangered, nor are they threatened, nor are they a "species of special concern". If you trace the citations regarding the "85% destruction of coastal redwoods" you find that th original author J Wilburn - Outdoor California, January-February, 1985 noted that 85% we IMPACTED by development including logging, not destroyed.
Putting a solar panel in a tree would be bad for the tree and inefficient for the panel.
CC, thanks for your last comments. You saved me the trouble of writing more or less what you wrote and did it more elegantly than I would have done. Thanks again.
I'd like to know what idiot sets up a solar panel under a tree???
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."
Has no one considered the rights of the property owner. What if i wanted a better view. What if I had an allergy to my neighbors trees but decided to move there anyway. Should I put up solar panels so as to make my neighbors cut their trees? Should all arguments between neighbor go to court. Dont you think we have already lost enough of our privacy and constitutional rights?