"120 deference to the public waterworks and sewer; the terrace and the garden, to the need for more complete occupancy…. Strict limitation [on the recognition of easements of light and air over adjacent premises is] in accord with the popular conception upon which real estate has been and is daily being conveyed in Wisconsin and to be essential to easy and rapid development at least of our municipalities. Miller v. Hoeschler , supra , 126 Wis. at 268, 270; quoted with approval in Depner , supra , 202 Wis. at 409. Considering these three policies, this court concluded that in the absence of an express agreement granting access to sunlight, a landowner’s obstruction of another’s access to sunlight was not actionable. Miller v. Hoeschler , supra , 126 Wis. at 271; Depner v. United States National Bank , supra , 202 Wis. at 410. These three policies are no longer fully accepted or applicable. They reflect factual circumstances and social priorities that are now obsolete. First, society has increasingly regulated the use of land by the landowner for the general welfare. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. , 272 U.S. 365 (1926); Just v. Marinette , 56 Wis. 2d 7 (1972). Second, access to sunlight has taken on a new significance in recent years. In this case the plaintiff seeks to protect access to sunlight, not for aesthetic reasons or as a source of illumination but as a source of energy. Access to sunlight as an energy source is of significance both to the landowner"