Trees vs. Solar Panels

Has anyone else heard about this story of the neighbors in Sunnyvale, CA - one planted 8 redwoods in her yard and the other has 120+ solar panels powering his house that are getting increasingly more shade due to the Redwoods...who wins?

"Under a 1978 state law protecting homeowners’ investment in rooftop solar panels, trees that impede solar panels’ access to the sun can be deemed a nuisance and their owners fined up to $1,000 a day. The Solar Shade Act was a curiosity until late last year, when a dispute over the eight redwoods(a k a Tree No. 1, Tree No. 2, Tree No. 3, etc.) ended up in Santa Clara County criminal court."

Now a Palo Alto state senator is trying to introduce a new law to protect trees that pre-date the installation of the panels (which would protect these trees)

I for one am siding with the panels in this case...the trees were planted in 1996, it's not as though they're from the 1800s...I'm all about counter arguments on this one...

Wow, now that is a bizarre scenario.

It seems to me like the best solution would be to plant some shorter trees.  The solar panel guy said he'd be willing to pay for something like that.  Either that, or just keep the trees trimmed below a certain height where they shade the solar panels, but that would require a lot of work.

It would be interesting to calculate whether the trees or solar panels would end up causing a greater reduction of CO2, but they should be able to find a compromise that's not either-or.

I think I am going to side with the senator from CA.  There is no reason why a pre-existing structure should be removed due a private citizens sudden want to decrease their electric bill.  Destroying nature to supply "green energy" seems antithetical and counter to the whole pursuance of green energy.  I think the neighbor should counter-sue the solar-panel owner for being a smug a**