This Op-Ed was published in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette on August 2, 2026.
By Laurie Belsito
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision allowing Sunpin Energy Services to move forward with a 4.3-megawatt ground-mounted solar array and battery storage facility in Petersham is disappointing because it elevates one environmental priority at the expense of another. The project is insignificant as far as greenhouse gas reduction goes but it requires clear-cutting 14 acres of forest.
For many observers, the debate has been oversimplified into a choice between supporting solar energy or opposing it. That is a false choice.
The net zero by 2050 climate law currently forces Massachusetts into more renewable energy, and solar power is built in as part of the self-imposed mandates. However, where we build matters just as much as what we build, and weighing the pros and cons matters.
The primary justification for grid-scale solar projects is that they reduce carbon dioxide emissions by replacing gas-fired generation. In this case, the damage is far greater than the emission reductions, which are trivial.
The numbers tell the story. First, the solar side.
The proposed Sunpin Energy project has a generation capacity of just 4.3 megawatts. That being said, solar is highly intermittent, producing no power for much of a day and none on cloudy days. The Department of Energy Resources reports that in Massachusetts, solar typically produces just 13% of capacity each year. Thus the Sunpin project is likely to average just 0.56 megawatts a year. This is an extremely small number.
Additionally, the Energy Information Administration says Massachusetts power generation emissions are around 7,100,000 tons per year. Back-of-the-envelope math, assuming 50% of the electricity that will be replaced is generated using natural gas, using the state energy use makeup as a guideline, estimates this project would reduce emissions by roughly 980 tons. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 980 tons, some of it out of state since not all of our energy comes from within Massachusetts, is clearly insignificant.
Petersham is one of the most heavily forested communities in Massachusetts. Its forests are not vacant land waiting for development. They are living infrastructure that stores carbon, filters drinking water, supports wildlife, moderates temperatures and defines the rural character that residents have worked for generations to preserve.
Clearing more than 14 acres of mature forest for an industrial-scale solar project raises an unavoidable question: Are we attempting to solve one environmental problem by creating another?
The land would be effectively sterilized by pointless industrial development. Forests are a well-known way to remove carbon dioxide via photosynthesis. Forest carbon dioxide absorption is highly variable, but 8 tons per acre per year is a reasonable possibility. At this rate, 14 acres of forest removes 112 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Losing this sequestration reduces the effect of the solar replacement.
The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Petersham's zoning regulations, as applied in this case, conflicted with state law encouraging solar development because they did not leave developers with a reasonable opportunity to construct large-scale solar facilities. That may be a sound interpretation of the law as it currently exists.
But courts interpret laws. Legislatures write them.
If this case reveals anything, it is that Massachusetts' clean energy policies, including the overzealous net zero by 2050 mandate, have not been written in a way that takes into consideration many complex realities of land conservation. It should be the catalyst for a broader conversation about how Massachusetts clean energy mandates affect preserving the landscapes that make the commonwealth environmentally rich and ecologically durable.
Laurie Belsito is policy director for the Fiscal Alliance Foundation.