By Christine Rasmussen
Weighing the loss of local control of land use decision-making versus having rural towns provide power to the rest of the state is the subject of a court case, SUNPIN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, vs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF PETERSHAM, which is a microcosm of the permitting of global energy transition that Massachusetts towns with forest and farmland may face.
Petersham, is a small town of 1,200 residents sprawled across 68 square miles, located roughly 29 miles northwest of Worcester, near the Quabbin Reservoir. Petersham is in a legal battle with Sunpin Energy Services, LLC (Sunpin), a California limited liability company, and landowner, Ralph P. Lapinkas, Jr.
Sunpin proposed to install a 12,000-panel solar array that will generate 4.3-megawatt (direct current) photovoltaic generation and 2.0-megawatt energy storage system through the construction of a ground-mounted solar array and battery racks. It would require the clear-cutting of approximately fourteen acres of forest land in the 24-acre parcel. In 2021, the town, after a public hearing, denied the project. Sunpin appealed. The Appeals Court found that local boards have “exceptionally limited” discretion to deny solar permits and reinforced the precedent that a town cannot deny a permit based on a subjective preference for maintaining forest land over solar energy.
This past week, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reviewed the lower court decision that highlighted the conflict between municipal land-use controls and the state’s renewable energy goals focusing on whether clear-cutting forests for solar development violates a town’s “health, safety, and welfare” under the Dover Amendment. A decision is expected in September or October.
If SJC agrees with the town, it could be because the court found that protecting “natural ecosystems” and mature forests constitutes a legitimate “public welfare” interest under the Zoning Act and would be seen as giving towns the authority to reject large-scale solar projects, for instance, if clear-cutting trees is deemed to conflict with climate goals related to carbon sequestration.
If the SJC denies the appeal, the town will be required to issue a special permit expeditiously for the large-scale solar installation.
Meanwhile, the new Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) finalized regulations in early 2026, effective on October 1, that overhaul how solar projects are approved. They directly address the “forest vs. solar” conflict at the heart of the Petersham case by replacing vague zoning battles with a standardized, data-driven scoring system.
More on these regulations will appear in an upcoming edition of Stockbridge Updates.
A Proposed Ballot Question:
While it is still not confirmed, a ballot question that voters may have an opportunity to vote on in November is the “Protect Water and Nature” initiative. The initiative proposes dedicating sales tax revenue from sporting goods—roughly $100 million annually—to a dedicated fund for land preservation and water quality.
This proposal, backed by a broad coalition called Nature for Massachusetts, seeks to solve the state’s chronic underfunding of land conservation. Currently, Massachusetts ranks among the lowest in the nation for state park funding per capita. This conservation push highlights a deepening rift between advocates and the Healeyadministration. While Governor Maura Healey has set ambitious goals to conserve 30% of state land by 2030, her recent budget proposed an 8% cut to the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Advocates argue that without the dedicated funding from the ballot measure, the state will fall hundreds of millions of dollars short of its biodiversity targets.
Editor’s note: Thank you, Christine, for focusing on “theconflict between municipal land-use controls and the state’s renewable energy goals.” The conflict directly affects Stockbridge and Berkshire County. It also mirrors the conflict between municipal land-use controls and the state’s affordable housing goals under the Affordable Homes Act (AHA) and its Seasonal Community’s section. While municipalities may have to go to court to protect control over land use under the AHA, it has the power to vote down the Seasonal Communities section. Unless we want to lose local control, we should exercise that right.
