State and local governments across the country are struggling to balance the twin aims of climate change adaptation and historic preservation. As the legislative fight over the Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act demonstrates, Washington, D.C. is no exception.

Some D.C. homeowners who live in historic districts have faced obstacles from the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) when trying to obtain permits for solar panel installation.[1] The HPRB Sustainability Guide for Existing and Historic Properties, updated in 2019, insists that solar panels should “not result in a perceptible change in the building’s massing, height or roofline, as seen from public street view” and, for sloped roofs, be located “on secondary elevations to minimize their visibility.”[2] A Greater Greater Washington article critiqued similar provisions in a 2018 proposed guide, arguing that the emphasis on hiding solar panels reduces potential installation space, especially for homes that are street-facing to the south, east, or west (preferable directions for solar panel placement[3]).[4]

The statutory provisions on which these guidelines elaborate have also come under fire recently—this time, from the Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act of 2024, which would amend the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978.[5] Currently, “[n]o permit” for exterior architectural alterations “shall be issued unless” it “is necessary in the public interest” or a denial would cause “unreasonable economic hardship.”[6] As for new construction, “[t]he permit shall be issued unless . . . the design of the building and the character of the historic district or historic landmark are incompatible,” in which case the permit may still be granted only if that permit is required for “a project of special merit.”[7]

The Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act would allow permits where a proposed alteration “includes the installation or construction of design elements promoting energy resiliency and water and energy efficiency, including solar panels, electric vehicle charging or make-ready infrastructure, heat pumps, or energy or water efficiency upgrades, or weatherization of the building or structure,” although the HPRB “may propose reasonable alternatives” with energy and water benefits that are “substantially similar” and the applicant must still “make best efforts to protect and preserve historic elements.”[8] For new construction, the amendment designates these environmental features as “compatible with the character of all historic districts,” and the same caveats apply.[9]

While adding resiliency and efficiency retrofits as a permitted class of alteration, for better or worse, makes sense under the statute, the choice to automatically classify these features in new construction as compatible with the character of all historic districts is in an odd one. Compatibility with historic character is a fact-based question that relies on the judgment of historic preservation experts and varies by neighborhood. Rather than forcing a compatibility finding, simply creating a statutory exception for resiliency and efficiency features would likely have the same effect.

Perhaps, though, the choice to classify these environmental features as compatible reflects an understanding that historic preservation and climate change are linked. Many historic sites are at risk of damage or destruction from flooding, fires, and other natural disasters,[10] so perhaps features that contribute to climate change mitigation are inherently compatible with historic character preservation—particularly features that, like solar panels, are removable rather than permanent fixtures.[11]

At a D.C. Council Committee of the Whole public hearing, proponents of the bill, including a Sierra Club representative, emphasized the city’s climate commitments and the rise in demand for solar they hope and expect will come with initiatives like the recently passed Healthy Homes Act.[12] They called for information from the Historic Preservation Office about the number of solar panel applications denied or altered by the HPRB since 2019.[13]

Opponents of the bill claimed the permitting process for energy improvements, including solar, works fine as-is.[14] The Senior Counsel from the Office of Planning, testifying against the proposal, claimed that permits for solar panels have been approved by the HPRB in all but three cases since 2019, and that as far as he knew in those three cases the board deferred to solar installers’ determinations about projects’ energy needs.[15] At least one controversial case did arise late in 2019—in December of that year, the HPRB approved a front-facing rooftop solar project provided it was wrapped in a “SolarSkin” sheath in order to blend in with the homeowner’s shingle roof.[16] This was no small concession, since the SolarSkin covering not only raises the cost of solar projects by about 8% but also reduces panels’ efficiency by about 10%; the case drew media attention.[17]

If this is an isolated incident, however, and the Office of Planning’s representations are correct, then amending the statute may not be necessary. In fact, altering a process that is already working smoothly might introduce new problems. During the public hearing, a member of the Historic Preservation League warned the proposed amendment would slow down the permitting process by moving cases from staff-level decision making into formal HPRB hearings.[18]

At the least, the Resilient and Energy Efficient Historic Properties Amendment Act reflects an attempt to move toward a more integrated model of historic preservation, one that not only acknowledges that historic preservation policies impact environmental and housing issues, but also recognizes that historic preservation itself depends upon communities taking an all-hands-on-deck approach to climate change. The one thing witnesses who testified at the public hearing seemed to agree on is that environmental and historic preservation goals are, ultimately, entwined.[19]

 

[1] Peter Jamison, When Saving the Planet Spoils the Charm of Historic Houses, WASH. Post (Jan. 19, 2020),  https://www.washingtonpost.com/DC-md-va/2020/01/19/solar-panels-historic-houses/.

[2] DC Historic Preservation Review Board, Sustainability Guide for Existing and Historic Properties, DC Historic Preservation Review Board, 39 (2019), https://planning.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/op/publication/attachments/Sustainability%20Guide%20for%20Existing%20and%20Historic%20Properties.pdf.

[3] Liam McCabe, What’s the Best Direction and Angle for Solar Panels?, Energy Sage (Jun. 3, 2024), https://www.energysage.com/solar/solar-panel-performance-orientation-angle/.

[4] David Alpert, “Green” Features are Okay with DC Preservation, but Only if They’re Invisible, Greater Greater Washington (Jun. 12, 2018), https://ggwash.org/view/67939/historic-preservation-DC-green-features-invisible-solar-panels-stormwater-green-roofs.

[5] D.C. Council Bill 25-793.

[6] D.C. Code § 6-1105(f).

[7] Id.

[8] D.C. Council Bill 25-793, § 2(c) & 2(e) (2024).

[9] Id. at § 2(d) (2024).

[10] ACHP Climate Change and Historic Preservation Policy Statement, American Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 3-4 (Jun. 16, 2023).

[11] David Alpert, In a Shift, Front-Facing Solar Panels Win DC Historic Preservation Approval, Greater Greater Washington (Jul. 30, 2012), https://ggwash.org/view/70784/in-a-shift-front-facing-takoma-solar-panels-win-DC-historic-preservation-hprb-approval. In fact, some advocates have proposed throwing out historic preservation review for solar panels altogether by categorizing them as temporary structures.

[12] Council of the District of Columbia, Committee of the Whole, Public Hearing, Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia (Oct. 8, 2024), https://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=9034.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Jamison, supra note 1.

[17] Id.

[18] Council of the District of Columbia, supra note 15.

[19] Id.