Neighbor experiencing glare, wants me to remove panels or he will take legal action

[J.P.M.]

I am not a lawyer and I dont play on on TV either, but I believe with the passage of Ab2188, effective 1/1/2015, the 20% decrease in efficiency you speak of was decreased to 10%. as in, an HOA's "suggestions" cannot decrease the efficiency of your system by more than 10%.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

You are correct. I was in error in my 20% statement. I will correct the erroneous text in that post. My apologies for the error and any confusion and/or extra work it caused.

Thank you for the correction.

[J.P.M.]

Next thing to remember is angle of incidence equal angle of refraction...

To avoid confusion, make that angle of reFLECtion. The angle of reFRACtion is f(index of refraction), not f(angle of incidence).

[Ian S]

It seems to me that the HOA itself may have some responsibility here as they actually approved the installation. Perhaps they should be the ones documenting the extent of the glare. After all, if it ever goes the legal route, there will be discovery and you can bet that the glare will have to be fully documented. Have you informed the HOA of the problem? I'd echo J.P.M.'s suggestion re dealing with the HOA: be polite and professional. Since they approved the installation, there's some incentive for them to be on your side.

[peakbagger]

Up at high latitudes sun angle and potential glare are quite variable over the course of the year, our sun angle varies significantly summer to winter there may only be glare for a couple of weeks a year. Since it a new system the glare could pop up at other locations at other times of the year. It may be worth spending some time with the solar tables http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php, you panel elevation, roof angle and the neighbors elevation. Next thing to remember is angle of incidence equal angle of refraction and then its time to do some vector geometry. to figure out when glare may be an issue. For some folks I expect the easy way is to see how often its an issue over the course of a year. A civil action usually takes a long time to get to court so you plenty of time to sse how much of an issue it is.

The other issue is that glare may just be a false claim from someone hwo has too much time on their hands. They look out the window and see something they haven't seen before and it bothers them, therefore they come up with reason why they don't like it.

Other places it can be more of an issue http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs...0/newhampshire

[tracksyde]

I am not a lawyer and I dont play on on TV either, but I believe with the passage of Ab2188, effective 1/1/2015, the 20% decrease in efficiency you speak of was decreased to 10%. as in, an HOA's "suggestions" cannot decrease the efficiency of your system by more than 10%.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2188&search_keywords=

[DanKegel]

Right, I missed the 5-8 panels comment. Fixed my post, thanks.

[J.P.M.]

Can you get some photos documenting the glare?

A shot of the building being illuminated by glare, and a reverse shot of the panels from the point of view of the illuminated building, might be... illuminating.

Are all of your panels contributing to the glare, or only some of them?

Could the glare be reduced by an awning or screen of some sort -- or trees?

Thanks for the laugh. Humor me some more. I'd like to read about the thought process you used (as in, what were you thinking ?) that led to the idea of how to get the concerned (offended ?) neighbor's compliance and cooperation to get on his property and do anything to possibly hurt his position such as taking photos to defend against his possible litigation.

Read the post. The neighbor seems to have concerns about 5-8 panels out of 48. The rest are of no concern at this time.

[category4]

I'm thinking maybe the neighbor should close the curtains for 45 minutes a day. Seems a bit picky to me, but maybe I'm a better neighbor.

[SunEagle]

Approximately 554 plus a few vacant lots. There are about 105-108 arrays, two of which are ground mounts. At this time, No one has mentioned array glare that I'm aware of, but given more solar penetration and probably more to do with the human propensity for pissing matches, it'll happen.

As a somewhat technical issue, since most or probably all decent PV panels have some type of ARC coating that will, in effect, reduce glare, even more so at low angles of incidence ("AOI") which seems to me to be the type of situation that might be most common for producing glare, Some future areas to explore might be ARC coating mods. to reduce reflectivity even more at such angles.

I can see maybe some type of window treatment be applied to reduce glare but if the person is getting "blinded" while walking the dog or watering the plants the PV owner may have a bigger (or smaller) fight on their hands.

IMO if the "glare" does not cause a traffic problem by blinding someone in a vehicle then it shouldn't be the PV owners issue because glare can come from anywhere and now can easily be mitigated with shades, polarizing tint or sunglasses.

[J.P.M.]

How many homes do you have in your HOA?

Approximately 554 plus a few vacant lots. There are about 105-108 arrays, two of which are ground mounts. At this time, No one has mentioned array glare that I'm aware of, but given more solar penetration and probably more to do with the human propensity for pissing matches, it'll happen.

As a somewhat technical issue, since most or probably all decent PV panels have some type of ARC coating that will, in effect, reduce glare, even more so at low angles of incidence ("AOI") which seems to me to be the type of situation that might be most common for producing glare, Some future areas to explore might be ARC coating mods. to reduce reflectivity even more at such angles.

[DanKegel]

Can you get some photos documenting the glare?

A shot of the building being illuminated by glare, and a reverse shot of the panels from the point of view of the illuminated building, might be... illuminating.

Could the glare be reduced by an awning or screen of some sort -- or trees?

[J.P.M.]

Thank you everyone for the great responses, this really helps! I am going to do some more homework before deciding how to proceed, but the mentioned information is certainly valuable. Hopefully as time and solar progresses, this topic won't be so much of a grey area. If anyone has any more suggestions/input it is again greatly appreciated.

Be deliberate and friendly but professional, and above all, patient when dealing w/the HOA. They can be real butt holes or real assets. Parapharsing LBJ when he was once talking about an ally building situation, better to have them in the tent with you pissing out than the other way around. Communication is the key. Just sayin'.

[huge]

How many homes do you have in your HOA?

[sandaboy]

Thank you everyone for the great responses, this really helps! I am going to do some more homework before deciding how to proceed, but the mentioned information is certainly valuable. Hopefully as time and solar progresses, this topic won't be so much of a grey area. If anyone has any more suggestions/input it is again greatly appreciated.

[J.P.M.]

In spite of CA being in the forefront of residential solar utilization, there seems to be not much guidance or case law as it applies specifically to glare from a neighbor's solar array as it may/may not constitute a nuisance. Your situation viv-a-vis your neighbor may indeed wind up in court. This situation has not come up in my HOA (yet), but the contingencies I've sort of planned for is to first, be proactive and try to head a problem off by suggesting solutions before approval. Second, remind solar users ( about 20% of the HOA at this time), that their neighbors will one day, probably soon, be in a reciprocal situation. Third, I'm expecting that because of the rather high solar penetration in my HOA, that we might be first to test the waters on the glare issue. I've got what I believe are decent documentation as to what happened and who said what, and some of my suggestions as to placement have been considered and a couple implemented.

I and not an attorney, and I don't play one on TV, but the way the current CA solar Rights Act is written, HOA's can require changes in resident's Solar energy systems that reduce performance up 10% (NOT 20% as originally posted) or increase cost by $1,000. The law seems not to speak as to whether those requirements are to be applied before or after array installation/startup, or if one requirement takes priority.

In my legal ignorance I'd suspect, because of the paucity of legal history with respect to the glare issue, that some legal minds might consider your neighbor's request to remove 8/48 = 17% of the panels as perhaps somewhat within the framework and the intent of the CA Solar rights act (but obviously more than 10%), even though that act does not speak directly or specifically to the glare issue as a nuisance.

You might be wise to prepare to lawyer up. I'd also consider a call to CALSEIA. I'd think they have some skin in this game and a call to them certainly would not hurt. The worst they can do is hang up on you.

In a somewhat detached way, I've occasionally wondered what's going to happen when, say for example, every home in a neighborhood or HOA has solar PV. Aesthetics? Glare? What will all the reflected light do to all the A/C bills ? Arrays may perhaps decrease A/C loads a bit on residences via roof shading. Will the net effect of glare be to add back some/all of the load that the arrays' shading reduces in the host residence ? Safety issues w/ vehicles/glare from multiple sources in a somewhat confined space ? Or, unlikely but perhaps theoretically possible (think maybe maybe in cul-de-sacs, or circular road layouts), something like a power tower effect where passing UPS vehicles would be zapped if parked in an inadvertent focal spot from a bunch of arrays.

All a bit tongue in cheek, but still having a bit of a serious side.

I saw a presentation once from some fenestration engineer (yes, there are such animals, at least maybe in their own mind) who was describing an initially humorous, but ultimately serious situation where the new (in the '80's) Playboy casino on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City had a rather (OK - a lot) gaudy façade of plexiglass, some of it mirrored. The plex reflected the solar radiation, and at various times due to wind or other forces, not being completely planar, also tended to be concentrate portions of the reflected and now concentrated light from some of the slightly concave (to sunlight) portions of the reflecting surface and casting that concentrated radiation onto the wooden boardwalk, leaving burn patterns not unlike those found on the recording paper used in the old Campbell-Stokes sunshine recorders, but worse yet, causing portions of the boardwalk to catch fire.