Solar energy vs. shade - Solar, Wind and Land: Conflicts in Renewable Energy Development - page 102

Sunlight access policies to promote solar energy development
Although laws in multiple countries have protected rights to sunlight at
various times throughout history, access to sunlight soon took on new
importance in the 1970s when solar PV energy systems first became widely
available. 19 For the first time ever, landowners could install devices on their
rooftops that converted sunlight into electric current capable of running
everything from their television sets to their toasters. Coming upon the heels
of the Arab oil embargo, these advancements in PV technologies generated
a wave of interest in solar energy development in the United States. 20
During this hopeful era for solar energy, some academicians and
policymakers in the United States began to question whether current laws
adequately protected rights to solar access. The substance of their inquiry
was straightforward: were existing policies that provided little or no
sunlight access protection still appropriate in an era of solar panels? Or
were those laws outmoded, given the advent of solar energy technologies?
Rethinking solar access laws: Prah v. Maretti
In 1982, a state court in the United States drew attention for suggesting
that recent innovations in solar energy technology might justify new legal
rules that strengthened landowners' solar access rights. The plaintiff in the
case of Prah v. Maretti was Glenn Prah, an owner of land in the state of
Wisconsin. Prah had installed “solar collectors” on his home that supplied
warm water and heat to the home for much of the year. 21 The defendant
in the case, Richard Maretti, planned to construct a two-storey dwelling
on an adjacent parcel situated immediately to the south of Prah's land. If
constructed, Maretti's planned home would cast shade that substantially
reduced the productivity of Prah's solar collectors.
When Prah learned of Maretti's construction plans, he contacted Maretti
and requested that the new home be sited several feet back from the lot line
to mitigate the shading problem. 22 When Maretti ignored Prah's requests
and commenced building in the originally-planned location, Prah filed a
legal claim seeking damages and an injunction to prevent construction
from going forward. The lawsuit eventually reached the Wisconsin Supreme
Court, where Prah argued that Maretti's proposed home would interfere
with Prah's right to “unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power.” 23
In its published opinion, the majority in Prah noted that the increasing
use of solar energy devices brought into question whether stronger solar
access protections may be warranted under the law. In the majority's words:
[A]ccess to sunlight has taken on a new significance in recent years.
In this case the plaintiff seeks to protect access to sunlight, not for
aesthetic reasons or as a source of illumination but as a source of
energy. Access to sunlight as an energy source is of significance both to