GREENFIELD — Western Massachusetts residents say the state needs to reconsider recent updates to its solar incentive program.

In June, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) filed emergency regulations updating its Solar Massachusetts Renewable Target (SMART) program. The regulations took effect immediately upon filing on June 20. However, as they were filed as emergency regulations, the DOER has the authority to make revisions for three months after filing.

The updates include a new mitigation fee for ground-mounted solar projects with a capacity greater than 250 kilowatts that were built on previously undeveloped land; allowing the incentive rates to be reviewed and reset annually; and boosting incentives for rooftop arrays and solar on already developed land.

DOER representatives heard from both opponents and supporters at a public hearing at Greenfield Community College on Friday, and took notes on what western Massachusetts residents said regarding which parts of the updated regulations work and which ones don’t.

“There’s a number of reasons it doesn’t work,” said Claire Chang of Greenfield Solar. “Restricting the metering credits will restrict the number of residential installations, particularly out here in western Massachusetts.”

Chang explained that 225 CMR 28.00 requires solar installations to be registered with SMART to receive metering credits, but the SMART regulations do not work in rural western Massachusetts and with smaller installations. For example, she said the regulations require SMART meters to be within 10 feet of the utility meter, making it nearly impossible for a farmer who wishes to put solar on a barn or outbuilding to do so. Additionally, many automatic reporting meters require internet, which is not widespread or reliable in the region.

Installing the infrastructure required to meet these regulations is costly and will deter many residential projects, Chang said, making it only possible for companies that plan to develop larger arrays to meet regulations.

“We need to look at the program holistically to really understand the impact,” Chang said.

Shutesbury Planning Board member Jeff Weston said SMART 3.0 “doesn’t make sense” to him, and believes the regulations provide subsidies to companies that are destroying critical habitats.

“The new SMART regulation should not give huge financial incentives for solar projects on forested land,” Weston said. “Cutting forests is actually counterproductive to our goal of reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

In addition to protecting forests, Northampton farmer Fred Beddall said the regulations need to be reworked to protect agricultural land, as installing solar arrays can make crop rotations difficult and lead to production being downscaled. He added that edits need to be made to ensure that farmers who choose to work with solar developers are adequately compensated for the use of their land.

“There’s a hunger crisis as well as a climate crisis. Massachusetts needs to protect its farmland and produce more food, not less,” Beddall said. “As usual, the farmer only gets a small crumb of the solar feast.”

However, others who attended Friday’s public hearing felt differently from Beddall and Weston. Nicholas Shaw, a retired ecology and environmental science teacher from Amherst, said he is glad the state is incentivizing solar energy development, and more solar farms are needed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and help curb global warming.

“Given the momentum of global warming and the devastation that it’s causing, I disagree with the restrictions for clear-cutting on core habitats,” Shaw said. “Preventing solar farms in my mind is shortsighted. We need to cut some trees now to save greater forests in the future.”

Jake Marley, owner and CEO of Amherst solar developer Hyperion Systems LLC, added that while preserving agricultural land is a priority for his company, more energy production is needed.

“Massachusetts will need considerable in-state generation,” Marley said. “We need rooftop solar and parking lot solar, but we know from research there simply isn’t enough roof or parking lot space to generate the gigawatts needed.”

Shutesbury resident Laura Wall said the DOER should use more transparent language, as most people likely cannot conceptualize how much land is required to produce a megawatt of energy.

“I think it’s dangerous to speak in megawatts and kilowatts,” Wall said. “It is accepted that 1 megawatt is considered to be the equivalent of 5 to 10 acres of land, or seven football fields back to back. … It almost seems like a fool’s errand to think about the goals that we are trying to meet.”

Other commenters argued that instead of prioritizing the production of more energy, the state should incentivize reducing energy usage.

“We’re not gonna survive if we continue to consume the way we do,” said Conway resident Priscilla Lynch.

The public comment period on the regulations ended with the Friday hearing. However, DOER representatives said that anyone with questions on SMART 3.0 can email DOER.SMART@mass.gov or visit mass.gov/info-details/smart-30-program-details.

Reach Madison Schofield at 413-930-4579 or mschofield@recorder.com.