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 · August 4, 2026Was avoiding forested or otherwise undeveloped land a formal siting criterion?
Earlier written draft (answers as of October 7, 2026)
Site selection was led by the interconnection point, and this parcel happens to be wooded. What we control now is how much of it we disturb: no more than 10 acres of clearing outside the transmission right-of-way, roughly 5 acres fenced, and the rest of the 47-acre parcel left undeveloped. Tree replanting is already a committed item, the committee has asked us to go further, and that discussion is shaping the draft benefits plan now.
How the issues were handled
A written response is recorded. Sending an individual reply, considering feedback, and making a design change require separate evidence.
Was this picked as the best and safest site? Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
Website and email · August 4, 2026Is Charlton being selected because it is the best and safest location, or simply because the developer has secured land next to a useful interconnection point?
Earlier written draft (answers as of October 7, 2026)
The site was identified because of the interconnection point and a willing landowner. It was not selected because it was judged the best or safest location in the region. Whether it is safe and suitable is decided by the studies and the state review, not by how the site was chosen. A preliminary Site Suitability Analysis is published now at https://carpenterhillpower.com/reports/site-suitability, along with a preliminary Cumulative Impact Analysis. The hydrology and stormwater studies, the sound study, and the gas plume analysis are committed, and an independent reviewer the town selects will review the Emergency Action Plan. The state's Energy Facilities Siting Board then reviews the project in public hearings and can approve it, attach conditions, or deny it.
How the issues were handled
A written response is recorded. Sending an individual reply, considering feedback, and making a design change require separate evidence.
Was this picked as the best and safest site? Individual reply: not confirmed. Consideration: not recorded. Design change: not confirmed.
