Question and Submission History

We understand your frustration and respect the town's history with past infrastructure decisions. Siting battery storage systems under the 2024 Climate Act (Chapter 239) consolidates permitting under the state's Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) rather than local municipal boards. However, the regulations require developers to conduct meaningful engagement before filing: informing residents, gathering input, and documenting how that input was incorporated into the project. The pre-filing period is the best time to shape the project because the design is still open. When community input leads to a design change, such as a visual setback or a safety measure, we record it in the public Commitment Tracker on this site and carry it into the plans we file with the state. We are also required to pursue a Community Benefits Plan with the town, and that process is where broader benefit topics get worked out together. The state review itself also gives residents formal standing. When the project files with the EFSB, residents can comment on the record, and community groups, nonprofits, and the town can ask the Siting Board for intervenor status, which makes them full parties to the case. The same 2024 law created the Intervenor Support Grant Program to fund that participation. It pays intervenor groups up to $150,000 per proceeding for attorneys, expert witnesses, and other participation costs, and it covers proceedings that begin on or after July 1, 2026, which includes the future review of this project.

We have noted this recommendation. Our containment design is built to keep an incident to a single battery unit; in the US record, fires at the older Megapack sites stayed within one or two units. Our site plan will fully account for adjacent properties, including the power plant, the energy storage facilities, and the nature preserve.

The state looks at this directly. The census block group around the site scores 80.9 out of 100 on the state's burden measure, and anything over 75 is considered burdened. Drivers include the power plant, the gas storage, a closed landfill, a small spill, and the impaired Cady Brook. Our aim is for the project to add no burden, or to help reduce it. That is part of why the Community Benefits Plan exists.

Each project is considered on its own merits, and we take cumulative burden into account. It is high for this census block. Storage is different from solar: it does not produce new power, but makes more efficient use of power already on the grid.

Charlton was not chosen so much as the Carpenter Hill Substation was. The 345 kV and 115 kV transmission lines meet there, and it connects eastern and western Massachusetts. Because the project connects at an existing substation, it needs only a short line to the substation and no new long-distance transmission.

Each project is considered on its own merits, and cumulative burden is taken into account. The burden is high for this census block. A cumulative impact analysis is part of the state process and will become part of the public record. If the project is built, tree clearing outside the existing New England Power (National Grid) transmission right-of-way is committed at no more than 10 acres, on a 47-acre parcel.