On March 11, 2026, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) disapproved a proposed temporary zoning moratorium on large-scale solar installations and battery energy storage systems (“BESS”) in the Town of Blandford.The decisionis the latest in a growing line of AGO disapprovals of municipal bylaws that frustrate state law on the siting of solar and BESS facilities. The decision also offers a particularly thorough explanation of why such moratoria run afoul of the state zoning act, G.L. c. 40A.

Blandford’s Zoning Moratorium Proposal

Blandford proposed amending its zoning bylaws to prohibit the use of land or structures for large-scale solar installations and BESS through May 31, 2026, or until the Town adopted amended zoning bylaws, whichever occurred earlier. The town cited several justifications for the bylaw: three approved installations already completed or under construction, two more in permitting, and three additional projects expressing interest. Because solar and BESS uses are allowed by site plan review and special permit in the town’s Agricultural zoning district—which covers roughly 90% of the Town’s land area—and because a planned Eversource substation expansion would further increase the area’s attractiveness to developers, the Town characterized the situation as one of “unexpectedly high demand” creating “an urgent need to regulate the use.”

The AGO’s Analysis

Under Massachusetts law, proposed town bylaws (although not city ordinances) must be approved by the Attorney General as consistent with state law before going into effect. Here, the AGO disapproved the moratorium for violating G.L. c. 40A, Section 3’s prohibition against local zoning bylaws that “prohibit or unreasonably regulate” solar energy systems. Although Section 3 provides a narrow exception in the event there is a “necessary” public health, safety, or welfare justification for doing so, the AGO found no such basis, much less one sufficient to warrant even a temporary prohibition on these protected uses. 

The AGO’s decision starts with a detailed summary of the governing legal framework. The AGO emphasized that solar energy facilities have been protected under Section 3 for nearly 40 years, since the Legislature in 1985 codified “the policy of the commonwealth to encourage the use of solar energy,” and that BESS qualify as protected “solar energy systems” and “structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy.” Central to the analysis was the SJC’s 2022 decision in Tracer Lane II Realty, LLC v. City of Waltham, which held that a zoning bylaw violates Section 3 if it “restricts rather than promotes the legislative goal of promoting solar energy in the Commonwealth.” 

Applying that framework, the AGO concluded that Blandford’s moratorium impermissibly restricted solar and BESS uses without evidence of a necessary health, safety, or welfare basis for doing so. Critically, the AGO found that:

“the general stated need to put a hold on new, proposed, or anticipated projects simply to study potential impacts or to consider zoning regulations—absent any evidence of an actual project impact prompting the need for study—does not by itself qualify as ‘a reasonable basis grounded in public health, safety, or welfare.’” 

The AGO also flagged a drafting issue: while the bylaw’s title referenced a moratorium on “construction,” its operative language applied to the “use of land or structures,” potentially extending to the operation of existing installations. And while Blandford had obtained approval for a similar moratorium in 2019, the AGO explained that approval predated Tracer Lane II and is no longer relevant.

Key Takeaways

The AGO has consistently and repeatedly rejected solar moratoria as frustrating state law—the decision’s footnote recites numerous recent denials in Northfield, Ware, Carver, Wareham, Leyden, Pelham, Spencer, Wendell, and others—yet towns continue to propose them. While the result in Blandford was entirely consistent with prior decisions of the AGO, the decision provides a particularly comprehensive explanation of why the AGO believes such proposals are inconsistent with Section 3. The signal the AGO appears to be sending is that the AGO has addressed these types of moratoria many times before, and the answer is not going to change.

Although it is theoretically possible that a municipality proposing a moratorium could demonstrate a “necessary” health, safety, or welfare basis capable of passing muster with the AGO, the AGO reiterated that the standard is stringent, requiring “articulated evidence of an important municipal interest, grounded in protecting the public health, safety, or welfare, that is sufficient to outweigh the public need for solar energy systems.” Moreover, given the AGO’s increasingly firm tone, the breadth of Tracer Lane II, and the consistent pattern of disapprovals, the AGO appears disinclined to approve a blanket prohibition (even temporarily) absent a truly compelling reason, which in practice no town has yet provided.

Finally, the AGO noted recent developments under Chapter 239 of the Acts of 2024, pointing to final DOER regulations (effective February 27, 2026), forthcoming model bylaws, and an October 1, 2026, deadline for municipalities to accept consolidated local permit applications. In so doing, the AGO appears to be encouraging towns to engage with these resources, rather than pursuing zoning moratoria that are almost certain to be rejected as being inconsistent with state law.