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 7 of 211 source records

Public Community Meeting #1 · July 8, 2026What about the environmental impacts, the noise, and damage to the environment and wildlife, driving wildlife away?

Earlier published response

We will clear about ten acres of mature trees. To offset this, we are planning replanting programs and conservation partnerships. We design the site to minimize noise and manage runoff. Our engineers also account for the nearby conservation land and wildlife throughout the design process.

How the issues were handled

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

  • What about wildlife and habitat?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
Website and email · September 10, 2026, 9:13 AM ETHabitat restoration- as mentioned, Charlton, MA is a rural town with an agricultural history. Creating this plant will disturb local wildlife (including deer, birds, bats, and more), insect populations, and natural vegetation. Do you have a specific plan to assist these disturbed populations? Not just through construction, but through the entire operation of this facility. How do you intend to support and fund future efforts for habitat restoration and protections as an effort to give back to the community?

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

The current design limits clearing outside the transmission right-of-way to no more than 10 acres of the 47-acre parcel, and the fenced battery area is about 5 acres or less. Existing vegetation is to be kept where possible and used to screen the facility. State reviewers have asked for a formal wetland delineation and a formal information request on rare species during design. A full wildlife and habitat plan has not been published.

Habitat restoration, tree replanting, additional screening, and a conservation fund are Community Benefits Plan topics. They are under discussion and are not promised yet. ESA has not committed to specific programs or funding amounts before hearing from Charlton about what would be most valuable, and the project is looking at opportunities to work with local conservation organizations. The decommissioning bond, required before construction, covers restoration so it does not fall to the town or residents.

How the issues were handled

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

  • What about wildlife and habitat?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
Website and email · August 4, 2026Will the land be fully restored and replanted after decommissioning?

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

Removal and site restoration are covered by the decommissioning plan and bond, and tree replanting is already a committed item on the project record. The decommissioning plan filed with the application will state the restoration standard in enforceable terms.

How the issues were handled

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

  • What about wildlife and habitat?
    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, 6:56 AM ETAs someone who just moved into my dream home in this very neighborhood, this project is nothing short of devastating to my family. We came to Charlton very specifically for its rural appeal. Projects like these slowly destroy the landscape and peacefulness of beautiful towns like Charlton.

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

The project is industrial equipment on a rural parcel. The design keeps clearing outside the transmission right-of-way to no more than 10 acres of a 47-acre parcel, keeps equipment under 10 feet tall and set back from homes, and keeps existing trees for screening where possible. Close-neighbor protections, including screening, noise, and night sky, are Community Benefits Plan topics under discussion. Comments on the draft plan are open into 2027.

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 it change the rural character, views, and quiet?
    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.
Website and email · June 11, 2026, 1:11 PM ETHello Carpenter Hill Power I would like to discuss the hazards that you cannot ignore and will affect Charlton and the surrounding areas once this is put in place. Noise pollution is a common factor for projects such as these LOUD or SOFT noise will still cause irritation amongst people even at a long range level. Even when the noise has met specific levels it has hurt people through headaches/sleep disturbance/stress/etc. This also come into claim about hurting surrounding wildlife as well it forces them to move elsewhere when they need the essentials in certain spots of a area. Speaking of wildlife the project itself is extremely closely aligned with important water bodies like cady brook and other important areas like Capen Hill Nature Center/ElderBus/

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

Noise. Early noise screening, based on stand-in equipment data, found that the two closest property lines would be louder than the state noise policy allows. Fixes, including a sound wall, are being tested, and a full sound study is next. Enforceable noise limits are set as permit conditions in the state process and bind any owner. A post-construction review is a Community Benefits Plan topic. Anyone who wants to discuss this directly can reach Jonathan Santiago at jsantiago@esa-solar.com or 407-232-7440 ext. 251, or join the weekly virtual office hours starting October 14.

Wildlife and nearby natural areas. Clearing outside the transmission right-of-way is limited to no more than 10 acres, and state reviewers have asked for a formal wetland delineation and a rare species information request. Project mapping shows rain that lands on the equipment area draining south into a chain of wetlands, not into Cady Brook. A detailed project location map and a preliminary wetlands index are in the Document Library. For exact distances to a specific natural area, contact Jonathan Santiago.

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 close is it to Cady Brook?
    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 loud will it be?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
  • What will the sound study measure?
    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.
Website and email · June 2, 2026, 9:26 PM ETWe do not want this in our town. It is terrible for the environment and will not bring any benefits to our town.

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

The comment is recorded. Environmental protections and the benefits to Charlton are being shaped through the studies required by the state process and the Community Benefits Plan, and the draft plan is open for comment into 2027. The project has not been approved.

How the issues were handled

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

  • Is this going ahead whether we like it or not? How do we stop it?
    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.
  • What about wildlife and habitat?
    Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.