DEERFIELD — With climate change a present threat, Michael Pill and Carol Holzberg have been exploring installing a dual-use solar array on their farmland.

The Shutesbury couple’s project, though, has run into a roadblock due to the Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) that was placed on their 29-acre parcel on Hillside Road in Deerfield. Pill and Holzberg — under the limited liability companies Dovi and Simcha — want to install a 500-kilowatt, dual-use solar array, commonly known as “agrisolar,” on fewer than 3 acres of land. Agrisolar installations allow solar energy to be generated while still allowing the land to be used for agriculture because concrete is not used to mount the system into the ground.

Due to regulations laid out by the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture (MDAR) and its Agricultural Lands Preservation Committee, however, ground-mounted solar arrays, including agrisolar systems, on protected farmland cannot exceed two times (200%) the “documented historical or projected annual agricultural” energy use on the land.

The issue? Pill and Holzberg’s land is a farmed field with no dwellings or buildings and is rented by a neighbor, who grows corn and harvests hay. With no electrical output on site, they cannot install any sort of solar installation on their land because 200% of zero is zero.

“If you can put solar on farmland and not take the land out of agricultural production, then what’s wrong with that?” Pill said.

Pill, an attorney with Northampton-based Green Miles Lipton LLP, requested MDAR amend its regulations to allow agrisolar installations under different requirements.

After receiving no response, he filed a Land Court petition seeking judgment on the matter, although he has emphasized in both court documents and a phone interview that litigation should not be seen as an adversarial move.

“If I have to pursue litigation, that is not intended and should not be construed as an attack on the dedicated people at MDAR and members of the ALPC,” Pill wrote in a September memorandum to MDAR. “Rather, such an action would seek to clear a path for MDAR and the ALPC to support rather than hinder argrisolar renewable energy generation on APR land, while keeping that land in agricultural production.”

In the court filing, Pill notes that “under the ground-mounted solar guidelines, MDAR allows traditional ground-mounted photovoltaic systems on APR that take the land on which the system is installed out of agricultural production,” while his proposed installation would still allow the land to be used for agriculture. If installed, Pill’s court filing states he and his wife would sell the array’s output to the local electric utility.

When reached for comment, an MDAR spokesperson said the department is unable to comment on pending litigation.

Ground-mounted renewable energy structures on APR land must go through a certificate of approval process, which was adopted by MDAR in 2018. In this process, MDAR examines a list of eight criteria, which include ensuring “negative impacts to agricultural productivity” are minimized, an approved site plan and other guidelines, including the aforementioned 200% output limit at the center of Pill’s complaint.

To date, the agency has recommended approvals of 34 projects totaling 47.14 megawatts of electrical capacity to the Department of Energy Resources, according to MDAR.

Pill framed his project as a chance to create a clean energy source on his property, which can help contribute to a future where his grandchildren don’t have to worry about the effects of climate change.

“As a citizen with grandchildren whose lives may extend into the 22nd century, I can no longer wait for the Legislature to act. Western industrial civilization’s reliance on fossil-fueled energy is coming to an end with the realization that we humans have fouled our own nest,” Pill wrote. “Electricity literally powers the benefits of modern life. With water, wind and sun, we can have electric power as long as water flows, the wind blows and the sun shines. Agrisolar can and must be part of that transition.”

In his memo to MDAR, Pill said he met with MDAR Commissioner Ashley Randle and several staff members on a video call in August, where the two parties shared their concerns around the issue. He acknowledged MDAR staff members are working within the bounds of the APR terms and the agency’s policies, and said he doesn’t fault them for erring on the side of caution.

“When you’re a public employee, whatever you do or don’t do, you’re going to get clobbered by somebody. … It’s always best to err on the side of not doing anything,” Pill said. “I want to provide the public officials with the legal protection that they need.”

With a court declaration, though, Pill said MDAR could allow his project to move forward because there would be no legal issues preventing the agency from changing its policies. Additionally, he said this type of project is right in line with the Healey-Driscoll administration’s climate change goals and the litigation could provide an interesting wrinkle because the state could argue against Pill and his green energy installation.

“What I think will be very interesting … is Gov. Healey’s attorney general going to come into the Land Court fighting solar power in light of her state policies?” Pill said.

Chris Larabee can be reached at clarabee@recorder.com or 413-930-4081.