The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
When going green spoils the charm
Preservationists of historic homes are worried about architectural integrity.
Public apathy, gridlocked politics, wealthy industries devoted to fossil fuels — the struggle to halt the worst effects of climate change faces a long list of obstacles. But in the U.S. capital, efforts to expand clean energy use must increasingly contend with another question: Just how will they affect the slope of a 1910 mansard roof ?
The dropping cost of solar panels, combined with their promotion by federal and local officials, have brought the sun’s energy within reach of American homeowners as never before.
But some residents trying to embrace solar power are finding themselves at odds with powerful historic preservation officials.
It is a debate playing out in towns and cities across the country, as the priorities of historic districts collide with the growing enthusiasm for clean energy. From the Great Lakes to the Black Hills, property owners worried about climate change find themselves debating the fine points of dormer contours and shingle color with preservationists worried about architectural integrity.
The conflict is especially acute in Washington, D.C., where a concerted push for solar is taking place amid historic preservation agencies that in their territorial and procedural complexity rival the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. Some permit seekers have found themselves snarled for months, or even years, trying to convince regulators of the aesthetic merits of proposed solar installations.
At an October meeting of the
Historic Preservation Review Board, one applicant from the northwest area of D.C. questioned whether global warming might make the visual appeal of his American Foursquare home moot.
“My main concern right now,” Steven Preister said, “is if we do not change and loosen these standards, will the District be habitable in 100 years?”
His application was rejected. Board members reversed themselves in December, signing off on the project after Preister agreed to spend additional money on wrappers that would camouflage the solar cells on the front-facing part of his roof. The board also adopted new standards last month that may provide greater flexibility installing solar atop historic homes.
But both supporters and opponents of expanding solar panels in historic neighborhoods say the new rules are ambiguous. To complicate matters, would
be solar installers may have to seek approval from two other federal organizations — the Old Georgetown Board and U.S. Commission of Fine Arts — depending on where they live.
The D.C. Council and mayor last year launched an aggressive push to convert the city to entirely renewable energy sources by 2032, a plan that calls for 10% of that energy to be generated by solar panels. Tommy Wells, director of the D.C. Department of Energy and Environment, said those goals will be hard enough to reach without historic preservationists and green-power advocates working at cross purposes.
“Having, truly, the most ambitious goals in the nation for solar deployment within an urban area, that means that we will need as much surface area as possible for solar panels,” Wells said. “A nearly impossible goal was even further out of reach if we started exempting roof space.”
Some historic preservationists say they are being unfairly blamed, the latest targets of a doctrinaire urbanism that does not always look kindly on old, single-family homes.
“We’re responsible for the gentrification, there’s no affordable housing — so they say,” said Sara Green, a D.C. resident who worries about the effects of liberalizing historic preservation standards to allow more solar panels. “Now we’re killing polar bears.”
Green said she has no problem with existing historic district regulations that allow solar cells on flat roofs, where they cannot be seen from the street. But she believes it would be a mistake to permit installations on sloped roofs like those visible on the facades of many bungalows in her neighborhood.
“The impact on the polar bears or on climate change is extremely minor,” Green said. “However, the impact of putting solar panels on front-facing elevations in the Takoma historic district is enormous.”
States and cities vary widely in their approach to solar panels on historic buildings. California for decades has barred local officials from placing excessive restrictions on homeowners’ solar installations. Connecticut is trying to give solar adopters greater flexibility by allowing them to offset violations of historic preservation standards with other actions, such as preservation easements, said Todd Levine, a historian in the state’s historic preservation office.
Levine noted that solar panels, unlike some other modifications to historic buildings, are easily reversible — and will inevitably be replaced as technology improves.
“At the end of the day, 20 years from now, they’re all going to be removed,” he said. “We wanted to have a system where we didn’t slow down the applicants.”
As he waits to install his 12 new solar panels facing the street this spring, Preister said he hopes that District of Columbia officials will take seriously the need to streamline their own review process — and to actively encourage residents of historic districts to adopt solar. Without the contributions of those home and business owners, he said, the city’s goal of an allgreen energy supply just 12 years from now is likely to prove elusive.
“If they don’t get these people on board,” Preister said, “they’re not going to make it.”