Michael DeChiara: Position on updating solar law explained 

While I am greatly appreciative of the Recorder’s coverage about the important issue of municipalities being able to zone for solar development, the paper got my position wrong in the Nov. 20 story “Advocates back solar power bill.” Given my work to support and advocate for the updating of state law to allow towns to reasonably regulate large scale solar, I wanted to correct the record.

To be clear, I favor and support the rights of municipalities to reasonably regulate solar and my testimony to change the current law was highlighted by the Recorder. The limitations of towns was made more stark just this past week. On Nov. 16, the state attorney general invalidated a 2023 solar bylaw passed by near unanimous vote in my town of Shutesbury. The AG used the outdated 1985 solar law as the basis for its denial. In 1985, commercial photovoltaics did not exist; the law was focused on supporting rooftop solar. Unfortunately, the law still is being used to bully or sue towns trying to advance zoning that promotes solar and also preserves resiliency in the face of the climate crisis.

My actual testimony before the Legislature was as follows: “These bills (S 1319 and H 2082) will remove a huge barrier, enabling municipalities to do their part in aligning with state climate priorities by reasonably regulating solar. Right now, municipalities, practically speaking, cannot regulate solar without the risk of getting sued. The cause is the so-called “solar exemption,” Ch40A, Sec. 3 paragraph 9 of Mass. General Laws.

Changing the law is really important because there is no oversight of solar siting in the state. There is no state entity “traffic cop” that exists. Siting is usually left to municipalities through zoning but the 1985 prohibits our meaningful ability to do this. Removing the law would allow for meaningful involvement in solar siting.

Michael DeChiara

Shutesbury