Debating whether forests should be cut or agricultural land converted for solar and batteries misses the core issue. What matters is who decides where these installations are sited. Spoiler alert: the developer decides, everyone else reacts.
It is a myth that locating industrial scale solar and batteries involves thoughtfulness, data, and robust engagement so that the best locations are identified. This is not how the process works. Where a project is sited is determined by a profit-driven developer who then presents their plan to a municipality whose regulators then make the best of the situation. State law and regulations enable this dynamic.
It is true that not all forested and agricultural lands are equal in functional importance. Some forests are more vibrant, providing for greater wildlife, water storage, air cooling, erosion control, and other ecosystem services. The same is true for agricultural lands — land along the Connecticut River, for example, is some of the best farming in the world; land bordering farm fields may not be as productive. Unfortunately, how good the land is, isn’t a factor in a developer’s calculus of where solar and batteries are proposed.
Decisions are made based on profit. First landowners seeking financial benefit offer their land for lease or sale. Then developers, choosing from available sites, select based on profitability. Siting on forested or agricultural land is cheaper to develop than on brown fields or the built environment; if expenses are less, profits are greater. Given much open land, our region is seen as a resource-rich piggie bank to be exploited.
This dynamic has resulted in many solar and battery projects being sited in inappropriate but profitable locations. For example, there is a large solar development on great farmland along the Connecticut River. Similarly, many forested areas that are designated as environmentally important by state agencies are frequently proposed for solar and battery installations. Bad siting is the norm.
Reasonable people might ask, can’t someone determine good or bad locations? Yes, it is possible, it was done in 2023. After years of research, the state released the Technical Potential of Solar report which rated every parcel in the commonwealth with an A, B or C rating. Land that is important to protect got an A grade; land that is less impacted if developed got a C. Makes sense. Too bad this assessment was never used or required.
In 2024 the state passed a Clean Energy Law intended to speed up clean energy deployment. Shockingly it did not reference its own Technical Potential of Solar report. The subsequent 2026 regulations, similarly, ignored this rating system and its underlying data, substituting it with an ineffective Site Suitability tool.
This bad situation is compounded by a 1985 law, the Dover Amendment, which established strict limits on how a municipality can regulate proposed solar and battery projects. While the 40-year old law was intended for rooftop solar, over the past 10 years, corporate developers have exploited it to threaten communities with legal action if they don’t yield to a developer’s plans. Repeatedly, municipalities have been sued or threatened with legal action they cannot afford if they try to bring the voice of reason to bad siting decisions. As recently as July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed the Dover Amendment, stating that the only reason a municipality can regulate solar or batteries is for “public health, safety and welfare” and it cautioned that even this reason shouldn’t be broadly interpreted.
So when people suggest that the barrier to mitigating climate change is opposition to cutting more forests or converting more agricultural land, they are missing the underlying issue. If we are truly going to deploy clean energy to meet the challenge of our time, we need to be siting these projects in the best manner possible — places that will allow for resilience in our changing environment and with projects that include right-sized solar and safe battery technologies. This cannot be done unless we are clear-eyed about who makes the siting decisions and why. Currently, it is not up to a municipality or a community to determine where projects are proposed. That decision is made solely by developers seeking profits; developers are not looking for long-term, appropriate solutions. If we want to deploy clean energy that is appropriate for our communities, the environment, and for the well-being of our future, we need to change the rules and remove profit as the determinant for those decisions.
Michael DeChiara is chair of the Shutesbury Energy and Climate Action Committee and vice chair of the Shutesbury Planning Board. He wrote his first published essay in support of solar energy in 1979 when the idea of solar was more hopeful and decentralized power generation seemed like the path forward for our future.