Sounds like a great effort at going Green but, like Audra's sidewalk repair bill, Cameron's bill isn't needed. It's a waste of the Assembly's time. The law is virtually all on the side of the solar system installer, whether you live in a condo or are part of a neighborhood HOA.

Sounds like more of the conservative's efforts to make themselves look like good stewards of the environment....by promoting smoke & mirror legislation that does nothing. These efforts simply use tax payer funds to help legislators get reelected. No wonder Sacramento can't get around to passing a single budget item.

GS,

So cynical! The bill was supported by Democrats so I assume that it isn't all show. If it only helped him and provided him cover then partisan Democrats would be expected to stop his bill and introduce a rival version so that he is limited in claiming successes for higher office.

This isn't a complaint about state level Democrats but rather how politic by both parties is frequently played.

Assembly Member Smyth should thank Democrats for supporting his bill.

State Dems may not have much backbone but they aren't stupid. There's no upside and lots of downside to opposing the bill, due to its 'green" and "homeowner-friendly" labels. Still, the practical effect on the environment & for the homeowner is nil. Its a waste of Sacramento's time and a distraction for legislators.

GOP candidates all over are being told to adopt environmental themes, at least in name only. Any wonder Repubs suddenly became interested in alternative energy? In water resources? In mass transit? I'm not complaining because all that attention helps get voters thinking about the environment but it also gives these neo-environmentalists a stronger position when it comes to developing and enacting environmental policies...especially when anti-environmental special interests are still paying for their campaigns.

There are plenty of good Repubs out there. Smyth might be one of them but pushing fluff legislation like AB1892 isn't going to prove it to cynics. There are more important things to do with the Assembly's time.

Brian:

I think it's important to put what is going on in a broader context. What we are seeing is the renewable energy discussion going from a stage one "Great Society" mentality where we throw a bunch of hooey against the wall to see what sticks to a stage 2 mentality where harder more thoughtful discussions on constraints, costs, benefits, and unintended consequences begin to become more apparent.

For Instance:

A large discussion was being had on how firefighters can maneuver on solar installed roofs if a fire broke out. Solar panels may create a risk for firefighters who are trying to put out a house fire, but also complying with the new guidelines makes it even more expensive for homeowners or businesses to install them in the first place.

Who would have known that wind farms may actually cause a national security issue as they create blind spots in radar and may hinder national security response and deterrence time line?

We will continue to see back and forth over renewable energy as kinks are worked out and new issues emerge.

Smyth's bill addresses this stage two thinking and while it's not as exciting as New Deal "dam building" it actually will do something to move us to a more renewable energy future.

Scott,

Complying with the new guidelines from this bill are costly or another bill?

Hi Brian:

No, those were examples as to the growing pains related to renewable energy.

I was showing illustrations of renewable issues still needing to be worked/thought out such as firefighter specifications on how solar will be situated on the roof, so as not to create a firefighter danger during an emergency.

Check out the link.

GS,

If they are real smart and partisan why not stop his bill and get a Democrat to write an almost identical bill? That would deprive him of the record he is trying to build up.

If the bill is unneeded why hand him a gift? They could stop it in this session and bring it up in the next session by another legislator.

Maybe state Democrats aren't as partisan as critics would assume.

Scott,

I will read over the links and get back to you. Overall, do you support this new law which limits HOA's powers to control solar panels in their associations?

Brian:

So long as the installation is compliant with firefighter safety guidelines, I'd have to say yes.

Scott,

What about the idea of small, local government. Why should the state overrule the contracts between neighbors?

I think the energy crisis is more important than the personal views some have on solar panels as far as how they look.

If it is a fire safety issue that should be a city or county law, not a CC&R power.

Brian:

You're the only person I've seen in politics that goes after people who agree with them on an issue. Are you saying the bill is a good bill or a bad bill?

Or is this an academic exercise?

While academic exercises can be fun, the reality is there is a great opportunity to grow alternative energy opportunities in communities throughout the state.

Smyth's bill is part of this emerging paradigm.

I'm just not sure why you are arguing on behalf of the opposition to renewable opportunities.

Scott,

I was pointing out a few things:

1. I support this new law.

2. It was passed by a Republican even though Democrats are in charge, which proves he can work in a bipartisan manner.

3. The bill had some serious opposition. Smyth wouldn't deserve any credit if he wasn't going against any opposition at all and everyone pretty much agreed on the bill. His willingness to go over the heads of local HOA's and their requests to help push alternative energy is impressive.

I am glad you support the legislation too even though some groups were against it.

Brian:

You wrote, "What about the idea of small, local government. Why should the state overrule the contracts between neighbors?"

How do you reconcile the fact that you support "contracts between neighbors" and this bill where state law supersedes on that contract?

Were you putting forward an argument you don't personally agree with?

As the treasurer of my HOA I have only one question. When the solor panel is installed, and creats a leak in the roof or damage to the building structure, who will be paying for the repairs? The homeowner or the Association? I think this is fine if the HOA is for single detached homes, but if its also for condo's and townhomes, well it could be a different story. Just a thought.

Scott,

Yes, I was pointing out that Smyth was up against that argument that I put forth when he passed this law over the requests of of some HOA's.

Most good bills have decent reasons for supporting them and for opposing them. It is most difficult when ideology and pragmatism conflict and they cannot both carry the day. I do think HOA's and local government should be able to run themselves. But I also think they shouldn't be able to slow down alternative energy for aesthetics. That is why I support the law. I understand it is needed and it didn't mean Smyth took no risks in getting it passed.

I support this law and I appreciate that Smyth went for a bill for the greater good even if many people object to it.

I wouldn't have written about it if everyone agreed it was needed and there wasn't opposition.

Thank you for reading and commenting on this entry. I appreciate your thoughts.

Brian

Just what does AB1892 do that CC 714 doesn't already do? Current code says HOA's can't prevent applicants from installing solar power/heating applications on their own property. Neither does it prevent them from being installed in common areas...if members choose to do so. So why is AB 1892 such an important piece of legislation?

GS,

So important? I don't think this law is really important. It doesn't seem that many people were trying to install solar systems but were prevented by their HOA's before it.

You have a link to the CC you mentioned?

People are prevented by the COST of installing solar applications. HOA's may NOT prevent owners from installing such applications on their own property. AB 1892 has virtually no effect on condo owners and very little practical effect on detached home HOA neighborhoods. It simply prohibits HOA's from including in their contracts, language that is already unenforceable under law. That's like an assembly person introducing a bill prohibiting auto dealers from including language in their sales contracts that prevents you from driving with the windows open.

To answer Barbara's question, Civil Code Section 714, as a practical matter, applies only to single-family homes and perhaps to townhomes where the owners own their individual roofs. California Civil Code Section 714.1 is an exception to CC 714 for most condominium projects and which allows community associations to continue to regulate the installation of solar energy systems proposed for common areas and separate interests not owned by the individual applicant.

To answer Barbara's question, Civil Code Section 714, as a practical matter, applies only to single-family homes (which are located within community associations) and perhaps to townhomes where the owners own their individual roofs. California Civil Code Section 714.1 operates as an exception to CC 714 for most condominium projects and allows community associations to continue to regulate the installation of solar energy systems on common areas and on separate interests not owned by the individual applicant. There is no community association that I can imagine that would allow an individual owner to install a solar system on the community's roof!

Our HOA does not want solar panels...single family planned community. It sounds like CC 714 and SB 5136 HOA can not prohibit installation of solar...am I correct?