THE STATE’S HIGHEST COURT pressed lawyers representing a solar company and a small central Massachusetts town on Wednesday over a denial of a large solar proposal, wading into growing tensions between developers and municipalities around whether and where to site new large energy projects.

The arguments centered around a proposal from Sunpin Energy Services to construct more than 12,000 solar panels on a forested section of Petersham, a 1,200-person town sprawled across 68 square miles.

That makeup and topography of the town — one of the most sparsely populated communities in the state — raised one of the biggest tradeoffs associated with large solar farms: the clear-cutting of trees. And, the case examines larger questions over the limits of local control — Petersham has stressed that it’s supportive of solar energy, just not at the particular location that’s been proposed.

The solar farm proposed by Sunpin would generate 4.3 megawatts of power and 2 megawatts of battery storage but would require clear-cutting the majority of a 14-acre parcel, according to the town’s legal brief.

The case rests on a legal framework known as the Dover amendment, which generally restricts municipalities from prohibiting solar energy systems unless doing so is necessary to protect the “health, safety, and welfare” of residents along with a town bylaw meant to encourage solar deployment.

The justices appeared to be grappling with the genuine desire of a community to protect its character with the limited authority of localities to stall development.

While James Martin, Sunpin’s attorney, asserted that Petersham doesn’t have the authority to deny the project’s permit, Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt pressed Martin on whether the town would be powerless to stop any large hypothetical solar project that would necessitate the clear-cutting of 50 acres of trees, for instance.

“I’m not sure you’re going to win the argument that it’s unreasonable to say, ‘I don’t want you to put a large-scale solar system in a place where it is really hard to get sun, and so you need to mow down the trees in order to do it,’ Wendlandt said. “I’m not sure that that’s unreasonable.”

Yet when Petersham presented its case, Justice Serge Georges, Jr. wondered what would be so bad about a large solar project in a heavily wooded town with practically no adverse aesthetic consequences.

“If this project were to go forward and be built as proposed, we’re not talking about a major detractor from the character of the town as being forested,” he said.

Looming over the case is the fact that new regulations around how to permit and site energy projects like Sunpin’s proposal will take effect this summer, upending the current scattershot process in favor of a more uniform and standardized regime meant to speed up and offer greater predictability for permitting projects.

These new rules, borne out of the 2024 climate law, are meant to address these exact sorts of disputes heard at the Supreme Judicial Court and offer relief for developers struggling to get projects off the ground in the face of years of delays as rising power demand, high energy costs, and ambitious climate commitments spur the need for more electric generation. Case in point: Sunpin first started its legal challenges five years ago.

By the time the SJC issues its ruling, likely within 130 days, municipalities will be close to adopting the new standard local permitting process by an October deadline set by the state.

Still, the core legal issues at play in this case will shape permitting and siting decisions and disputes long after the new regulations are implemented.

“Massachusetts is one of those states that is very favorable to renewable energy development,” said Andrew Kieffer, a research fellow at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “In part, that’s what the court is ultimately interrogating here is to what extent do localities have authority to block these projects? It’s a very precedent-setting case to the extent that the Supreme Court affirms this [appeals court] opinion, because it basically just says there’s a very narrow set of circumstances in which you can actually deny a permit.”

The zoning board of appeals for Petersham, which borders the Quabbin Reservoir that provides drinking water for the Greater Boston area, denied Sunpin’s proposal in 2021, a decision upheld by the land court. The town’s denial actually came in the form of a 2-1 vote in favor of the project, but the permit was rejected because it wasn’t unanimous.

Sunpin challenged that ruling to the appeals court and won, limiting the ability for local boards to block solar projects.

Similar battles are taking place across the state as Massachusetts looks to generate more energy and quickly. Towns like Petersham believe they should have control over what their communities look like and what projects serve the best interest of residents.

The town argued in its brief that not only has Petersham been an enthusiastic adopter of solar power, permitting more than 60 such systems as of June 2023, but that the decision to deny Sunpin a permit for its project is actually rooted in a firm belief in the town’s responsibility to fight climate change by protecting trees even, in this case, if it means passing on a large solar project.

Those policy objectives shouldn’t “work against each other by siting solar by destroying forests,” Petersham wrote.

Conservation of trees is seen as critical for absorbing planet-warming carbon emissions, since 11 percent of Massachusetts’s gross annual greenhouse gas emissions are removed by land, primarily forests, according to a state forest carbon report released last year by Jonathan Thompson, director of the Harvard Forest in Petersham.

“We can meet our solar energy goals that the state has set out as part of the net-zero legislation without having to cut down our forests,” Thompson said in an interview. “It’s a false choice.”

Still, project proponents ranging from the solar industry’s national trade group to the environmental nonprofit group Alliance for Climate Transition argue that those difficult tradeoffs don’t justify the town’s rejection of the proposal.

In fact, allowing Petersham’s denial to stand would not only result in a de facto ban of solar in 97 percent of the town, but it would also result in a “dramatic weakening” of the Dover amendment, Sunpin wrote in its brief.

“They misapplied their discretion when they really shouldn’t have had the discretion that they exercised,” said Martin, Sunpin’s attorney, in court of the town’s permit denial, adding: “You’re essentially barring solar.”

The debate speaks to even broader tensions with municipalities playing out in the Bay State as Beacon Hill pushes more aggressive statewide policies to dig out of an affordability crisis, as with the MBTA Communities law that’s fueled local anxieties over a push to build more affordable housing.

And the case only underscores a near-constant reminder in Massachusetts about difficult choices around how best to lower sky-high energy costs while adding more clean power, said Caitlin Peale Sloan, vice president for climate and energy at Conservation Law Foundation.

After all, what’s better from a climate perspective: acres of trees or a solar facility?

“We could go round and round on that,” she said.