Question and Submission History
Original questions and earlier responses, linked to the consolidated answer bank.
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
Community Public Forum · September 30, 2026Will you design the site to contain all of its runoff, with conveyances, a basin, and filtering?
Earlier published response
Containing all of the site's runoff would have to be part of the filing. Staff also said we could show it in the site plan sooner. Firefighting water is already a commitment to capture on site on a hard surface, and so is runoff along the southern boundary. Whether the site needs a full liner is an engineering question for a geotechnical survey and is not answered here.
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 you contain all of the site's runoff, with a liner?
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.