Question and Submission History

Original questions and earlier responses, linked to the consolidated answer bank.

Back to questions and answers

This history preserves the anonymized wording and earlier written responses in the imported project records. Earlier responses may describe a previous design or contain wording now under review. Use the linked consolidated question for the current response status.

A source record can contain several questions. These records are not a count of individual submissions or people. Original messages and dates are still being reconciled; this history does not establish that every project submission has been captured.

Showing 2 of 211 source records

Website and email · October 2, 2026, 10:36 PM ETWe are deeply concerned about the potential effects of this development on our groundwater, drinking-water safety, property values, local infrastructure, and overall quality of life. Before the project proceeds, the community needs clear, independently verified information about its anticipated water use, wastewater management, stormwater controls, chemical storage, emergency-response plans, and potential impacts on nearby wells and aquifers. These concerns should be addressed through a transparent, independent environmental review based on site-specific data, including baseline groundwater testing, a comprehensive assessment of contamination risks, and a plan for ongoing monitoring. Any approval should include enforceable safeguards, financial assurances for cleanup and remediation, and clear accountability if the project causes environmental or economic harm. We are also concerned that the current process has not provided residents with a meaningful opportunity to review the project's impacts, obtain complete information, and participate in decisions that could permanently affect our homes and community. Public notice, accessible records, independent technical review, and adequate opportunities for public comment are essential. In addition, residents need assurance that the developer will remain financially and legally responsible for the project's long-term impacts. If the developer leaves, changes ownership, or ceases operations, the town should not be left responsible for monitoring, infrastructure costs, environmental remediation, or losses in property value. We believe the project may be relying on gaps or limitations in the existing regulatory process rather than addressing the full range of community concerns. Regardless of how the project is being permitted, compliance with minimum requirements should not replace a thorough evaluation of cumulative environmental, economic, and public-health risks. We oppose this development in its current form. We expect our concerns to be addressed with specific evidence, independent analysis, enforceable protections, and a meaningful role for the residents who will be affected. The long-term interests of our community must take priority over the project's approval.

Earlier written draft (answers as of October 7, 2026)

Water use, wastewater, and chemical storage. Water use details have not been published. The facility is not a power plant and is not expected to need an ongoing supply from the town's drinking water for normal operation. Wastewater and chemical storage information has not been published. The only significant liquid in each battery unit is the coolant in its cooling system, and the coolant type has not been specified. The hydrology and stormwater studies are committed and will be published.

Stormwater, wells, and aquifers. The design being developed uses basins sized for storm events, with a commitment to no net increase in runoff and no wetland fill. A hydrogeologic study with a well inventory is underway. The draft Community Benefits Plan proposes testing wells within 1,000 feet of the work limit, with baseline testing before construction and retesting during and after it.

Emergency response. The Emergency Action Plan is being built with Charlton Fire and will be reviewed by an independent reviewer the town selects and the project pays for. It is not published yet.

Independent review and monitoring. The Energy Facilities Siting Board conducts the state review, which includes public hearings and environmental review. An independent third-party review of the Emergency Action Plan is committed. A separate independent review of the groundwater study has not been committed. Groundwater monitoring at the site is committed, with its terms in writing before construction. The state's Intervenor Support Grant Program, up to $150,000 per group for each proceeding, can pay for expert witnesses.

Financial assurance and accountability. A decommissioning bond is required before construction and stays with the project through any change of ownership. Pollution liability insurance is to be carried during construction and operation, and Massachusetts law keeps cleanup responsibility with the site's owner. Permit conditions bind any future owner. The decommissioning bond covers removal and restoration so the cost does not fall to the town.

The process. The project is in the state's required pre-filing engagement phase, with public meetings, a Citizen Advisory Committee, published records, and a comment period on the draft Community Benefits Plan that runs into 2027. Every comment receives a written response. A cumulative impact analysis, which looks at what is already in the area, is part of the state process and is in preparation.

How the issues were handled

A written response is recorded. Sending an individual reply, considering feedback, and making a design change require separate evidence.

  • How can residents participate and get funding or expert help?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Will anyone independent review it?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Has the combined effect of everything in the area been studied?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Will the emergency plan be independently reviewed and public?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Will my well be tested, and who pays if it changes?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Will the facility use local water or change the water table?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Has a hydrogeologic study been done?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Will property values go down?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • How do we know a new owner will keep the promises?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Who pays to remove the batteries and restore the site?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
Website and email · June 3, 2026, 4:39 PM ETI am opposed to the proposed Carpenter Hill Power battery storage project and believe the community deserves a much closer examination of both its impacts and its benefits.One of my primary concerns is the environmental impact of constructing and operating a large-scale battery storage facility in our town. While battery storage is often presented as a "green" technology, the project would still require significant site development, land disturbance, vegetation clearing, stormwater management, and long-term industrial infrastructure. Residents deserve a clear understanding of how the project will affect local ecosystems, wildlife habitats, water resources, and the surrounding landscape.I am also concerned that the benefits to our community appear limited while the impacts would be borne locally. The electricity generated or stored by the facility is not intended exclusively for our town, and it is unclear what direct advantages local residents will receive in exchange for hosting this industrial-scale project. The community would assume the visual impacts, potential safety concerns, construction disruptions, and changes to the character of the area, while the primary financial benefits flow elsewhere.Another concern is that the developers and investors behind the project are not necessarily the long-term stakeholders in our community. They do not have to live with the consequences of this project for decades to come. Residents, property owners, and future generations of town taxpayers will be the ones living alongside the facility long after the project is approved and built. For that reason, local voices should carry significant weight in this decision-making process.Before moving forward, I believe the town should require a thorough, independent review of the environmental, safety, economic, and community impacts of the project and demonstrate a clear, measurable benefit to local residents that outweighs the long-term costs and risks.

Earlier written draft (answers as of October 7, 2026)

Environmental impact. The project requires site development, vegetation clearing, and stormwater management. Clearing outside the transmission right-of-way is limited to no more than 10 acres of a 47-acre parcel. Hydrology and stormwater studies, a sound study, a cumulative impact analysis, and a site suitability analysis are part of the state process and will be public. State reviewers have asked for a formal wetland delineation and a rare species information request.

Local benefits. The facility supports the regional grid, not only Charlton, and local benefits come through the Community Benefits Plan, which residents are shaping. Topics under discussion include payments to the town, fire equipment and training, senior center support, tree replanting, local hiring, and road bonding. The draft plan has 34 open decisions, and comments are open into 2027.

Long-term stakeholders and local voice. ESA expects to sell the project to a long-term owner. Permit conditions, the decommissioning bond, and the commitments in the public tracker are written to bind any future owner. Residents have a role in the Citizen Advisory Committee, at public meetings, in the comment period, and in the state's formal hearings.

Independent review. The Energy Facilities Siting Board conducts the state review, which includes public hearings and environmental review. An independent third-party review of the Emergency Action Plan is committed, selected by the town and paid for by the project.

How the issues were handled

A written response is recorded. Sending an individual reply, considering feedback, and making a design change require separate evidence.

  • Will anyone independent review it?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Has the combined effect of everything in the area been studied?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Will our feedback change anything?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • What does Charlton actually get?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • Will you contain all of the site's runoff, with a liner?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • What about wildlife and habitat?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • How do we know a new owner will keep the promises?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.