Solar energy vs. shade - Solar, Wind and Land: Conflicts in Renewable Energy Development - page 105

often disregards landowners' existing airspace rights. Neighbors of solar
energy users generally hold property rights in the low-altitude airspace
above their land under the ad coelum doctrine discussed in Chapter 1 . In
many situations, the SSCA creates the equivalent of uncompensated solar
access easements through these neighbors' airspace, as roughly depicted
in Figure 5.2 . The statute imposes these easements on neighbors solely
to benefit specific landowners with solar energy systems and provides no
compensation for this loss of airspace rights.
The SSCA not only disregards existing property rights; it is also prone to
inefficiency. The statute rests upon the tenuous presumption that protecting
solar collectors from shading is a more socially valuable use of most suburban
airspace than occupying that space with trees. As mentioned in Chapter 1 ,
well-placed trees can offer lots of benefits in such settings, from reducing
air conditioning and heating loads to improving stormwater drainage. Trees
must be sited near homes and other buildings to provide these location-
specific benefits. In contrast, many types of solar energy systems are far
less location-dependent. They are capable of capturing roughly the same
amount of solar radiation and generating equivalent amounts of energy
regardless of where they are installed within a community.
As imperfect as the SSCA may be, some state solar access statutes
are even more aggressive and more troublesome than California's law.
For example, under the solar access statute enacted in the state of
Massachusetts, landowners can unilaterally obtain “permits” that protect
their systems from shading by neighbors without compensating neighbors

Burdened airspace

Uncompensated airspace
easment

Solar panels

Property line

Neighbor's land Solar user's land
Figure 5.2 Airspace burdened under a solar access easement