July 16, 2026:

Massachusetts’ Highest Court

Confirms Municipal Powers to Regulate Industrial Solar

Statement on the SJC’s Sunpin Decision 

The Supreme Judicial Court’s July 14, 2026 Decision in the closely watched Sunpin v. Town of Petersham case is a bottom line win for local control over regulating industrial solar.

Dover Amendment Legislative History Overlooked

As a threshold issue, the SJC did not examine the 50-year old legislative history of G.L. c. 40A, Section 3—the so-called Dover Amendment for solar energy systems. The Dover Amendment for solar legislation was never intended to protect large industrial scale solar that clear-cuts up to hundreds of acres in one location from local zoning. It was for to residential systems. Unfortunately, Sunpin, the real estate bar, and developers have weaponized paragraph 9 to strong-arm municipalities into approving destructive projects for short term profits. The forests are cut, projects built, and then sold to a solar REIT or venture capital portfolio.

Deny Improperly Sited Solar, Tie Reasons to Public Health, Safety and Welfare

On the other hand, the Court correctly recognized that Massachusetts law allows municipalities to deny industrial scale solar facilities. It clarified the law to limit the denial where it is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and the denial decision must be based on site specific factors.  It acknowledged the positions of the eight public interest groups who filed an Amicus Brief and the Town of Petersham that forests provide important public benefits, including carbon storage, water protection, cooling, and biodiversity. Read the Amicus Brief below. The Court cautioned against decisions that effectively operate as blanket prohibitions to prtect forests as inconsistent with zoning.

Science, Common Sense Support Denials

While the Decision requires highly site-specific findings when denying a solar project, municipalities have science on their side. It is “reasonable” to base a permit denial on findings that forests that provide clean air, clean water and climate resilience. This is protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Millennia of human experience tells us forests not only protect the public health, safety and welfare, but they are essential to human survival, clean drinking water, clean air and ecosystems.  The MassAudubon and Harvard Forest study, Growing Solar: Protecting Nature shows the state can meet its solar energy goals without clearing forests. Thus, common sense, science and a recent policy report support denying solar projects on the basis of protection of public health, safety and welfare.

“Important Decision for Every Municipality in Massachusetts” according to knowledgeable lawyer

While now it may take an expensive scientific debate between volunteer boards in the under-resourced small towns targeted by multinational corporations and legions of consultants, lawyers and experts, munipalities how have legal guidance to support fact based site-specific findings for denying inappropriately sited solar. This decision directs municipalities to ask a simple question and explain why. Is protecting drinking water, wetlands, biodiversity protection of the “public health, safety and welfare?” If the facts say yes, the improperly sited project can be denied.

For more information:

Responsible Solar Massachusetts

SJC decision is here:Sunpin v. Petersham SJC 7.14.26

Commonwealth Beacon article here.

What’s happening on the ground: the front lines in Wareham MA, March, 2026:

AD Makepeace Co. clearing “112 acres in 12 days” for a “solar project on the cranberry bogs” and turning ancient Pine Barrens Forests into “chipper food.” Watch the Video here:

One commenters perspective on the Sunpin Decision:

Some news stories describe it as a “win” for Sunpin because the Court vacated the 2021 decision of our Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and sent the case back to the ZBA. That’s true, but it’s only part of the story.

The decision is a significant improvement over the Appeals Court’s 2025 ruling, which had ordered the ZBA to grant the permit. The developer asked the SJC to do the same. Petersham asked the Court not to. The SJC declined.

Instead, it agreed with us that local boards are not required to grant a special permit. It made new law by establishing a site-specific review process, which applies state protection for solar energy systems and relevant local bylaws. It also held that forest preservation is a legitimate public health and welfare consideration when part of a site-specific review.

The SJC sent the application back to the ZBA to reconsider under the new standards it announced, which is one of the outcomes we asked for. That review would take place under current law (not 2021 law), including the new statewide solar siting standards enacted in the 2024 Climate Bill.

The case isn’t over, and reasonable people can disagree about the ultimate outcome. But this is an important decision for every city and town in Massachusetts. It preserves local authority while making clear that forest preservation remains an appropriate consideration in reviewing solar projects.

 Eight Groups’ Amicus Brief: March, 2026

  Urge Court to Protect Municipal Powers Over Industrial Solar

Suffolk County, Massachusetts: A coalition of environmental, conservation, and grassroots organizations filed an Amicus Brief to preserve local control over solar siting in our communities. The brief argues communities have a legal right to reasonably regulate solar projects where they deem necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The groups are:

Community Land and Water Coalition, Inc., Wareham Land Trust, Save Massachusetts Forests, RESTORE: The North Woods, Trees As A Public Good Network, Carver Concerned Citizens, Climate Action Now Western MA, Concerned Citizens of Franklin County, and the East Quabbin Land Trust.

The groups position does not impact solar on rooftops, garages, parking lots, or the developed land, which are often allowed by-right in many municipalities.

SUMMARY OF AMICUS BRIEF ARGUMENTS:

• Municipalities can deny solar special permits when necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare and still be consistent with the Dover Amendment zoning protections for solar under the Zoning Act, G.L. c. 40A, § 3, ninth paragraph.
• Under judicial interpretations of the Zoning Act, courts defer to local boards’ bylaw interpretations and will uphold denials supported by a rational view of facts.
• Protecting forests, drinking water, and biodiversity fits within the purpose of zoning which is to protect “public health, safety, or welfare,” so deforestation-based denials are reasonable.
• The Town of Petersham ZBA’s  denial of the Sunpin Special Permit is a lawful, bylaw-based decision preserving local environmental interests and neighborhood character and based on a sound legal and factual analysis under the town’s zoning bylaw.
• State policy and SMART incentives now discourage clearing high‑carbon forests or core habitats, aligning with municipal denials and actions to protect forests and the public, health, safety and welfare when siting solar.
• The Dover Amendment paragraph 9 was aimed at residential or accessory solar, not utility‑scale commercial projects like Sunpin’s.
• Statutory text, structure, and related provisions (§§ 1A, 9B) are cited to limit § 3, par. 9 to small-scale, on‑site solar uses.
• Legislative history of the Dover Amendment for solar, 1985 ch. 637, shows a focus on protecting solar access for homeowners, not exempting large ground‑mounted facilities from zoning.
• We urge affirming the Land Court decision that upholds the Petersham denial of Sunpin’s permit, and allowing municipalities to decide where solar is appropriate to avoid environmental harm.

Read the full Amicus Brief here:

Sunpin Energy Services v. ZBA of Peterham Amicus Brief and Appendix 3.18.2026 (1)