Questions and Answers

No. Batteries can overheat in a chain reaction called thermal runaway. Early projects, built with older designs and chemistries before current fire standards, had more problems. The Electric Power Research Institute keeps a public database of failures at battery sites. It shows failures per unit of energy installed fell about 99 percent between 2018 and 2025, and the 2023 rate was comparable to the failure rate of utility transformers. The batteries proposed here use lithium iron phosphate, which has no cobalt or nickel. That chemistry is safer, not safe. Tesla's data sheet states the Megapack 3 has built-in fire detection, thermal management, and automatic shutdown, and Tesla has not yet published its test report. These features lower the risk, but they do not remove it. That is why the Emergency Action Plan matters.

Battery systems are tested to UL 9540A, the standard test method for thermal runaway fire propagation. It runs at four levels: the cell, the module, the full unit, and the installed layout. In the larger tests, a fully loaded unit is forced into thermal runaway, and the neighboring units, placed at the real spacing, are monitored to confirm the fire does not spread to them. NFPA 855, the national standard for installing these systems, uses these test results to set requirements such as the spacing between units. The Megapack 2 and 2XL were tested this way, and the results are in the Fire Protection Engineering report in the Document Library. The test reports for the newer Megapack 3 are still being collected, and we will post them as they are released.

The most extreme fire test in the report on the Megapack 2 and 2XL, the earlier models, put a fully loaded unit into forced thermal runaway with its battery management and cooling systems turned off. Visible flames lasted 6 hours and 40 minutes, and flame intensity peaked about 60 to 90 minutes after flaming began. The fire stayed in one cabinet and burned about half of it. The report's fire modeling shows it would not spread to neighboring cabinets at the clearances studied. The unit was watched for several hours afterward, and no further fire was observed. The full report, Tesla Megapack 2/2XL Fire Protection Engineering (FPE) Report, is in the Document Library under Safety & Emergency Response: https://carpenterhillpower.com/documents

This project is planned to use the Megapack 3, and its test reports are still being collected, so burn-time figures for this site have not been published. The Emergency Action Plan, being built with Charlton Fire, is where the response is written down. An independent reviewer the town selects will check it.

Fire experts advise against spraying water on a burning battery unit. The response being planned is defensive: keep people back, protect the surroundings, and monitor the air while the unit burns out. It is not "doing nothing." Firefighters would work to keep the fire from reaching anything else, and the test reports show why a unit can be left to burn out. In the most extreme test on the Megapack 2 and 2XL, the fire stayed in one cabinet.

Water is still used. It can cool equipment next to the burning unit. It is kept off the burning unit itself, because water that touches it can pick up contaminants. Any firefighting water used is captured on site.

Smoke from a battery fire can contain carbon monoxide and hydrogen fluoride, and even small amounts of hydrogen fluoride can be harmful. It is a real hazard close to the fire, mainly for firefighters and anyone nearby.

What has been measured at other fires is reassuring but limited. A September 2026 report by Fire & Risk Alliance, a fire engineering firm, reviewed air monitoring at seven U.S. battery fires. At the fires where air was sampled, including in nearby communities, nothing was found above public health limits. The report also explains why: hydrogen fluoride dissolves in water, sticks to surfaces and smoke particles, and is diluted by air as smoke travels. The incident review it draws on was commissioned by the American Clean Power Association, the industry trade group. These were other sites with other equipment, and the sampling covered air only, so this does not tell us what would happen here.

We have committed to publish a gas plume analysis, which looks at where smoke and gas could travel. We have not published it yet, so we cannot tell you that any road or home would be unaffected.

Smoke from a battery fire is hot, so it tends to rise and mix with the air, and in open air it thins quickly. In the battery fires reviewed by Fire & Risk Alliance, gases were rapidly diluted in open air, and air sampling found no concentrations beyond the fire scene that posed a public health concern. The American Clean Power Association, the industry trade group, paid for that review, and it covers other sites with other equipment. The review is in the Document Library (pages 3 and 5): https://carpenterhillpower.com/files/acp-bess-fire-impacts-2025.pdf#page=5

Hills between the site and a road do not stop wind-blown smoke. Where smoke goes depends on wind and weather. The plan is to monitor the air while a unit burns out. The gas plume analysis is the study that answers this for the ground around this site. It is a published commitment, it has not been done yet, and it needs to account for the ground between the site and nearby roads.

The Emergency Action Plan is where evacuation and shelter-in-place decisions belong. It is not published yet. Residents raised two specific problems at the public meeting: Route 20 backups on holidays and in snow that could slow fire trucks from other towns, and narrow rural roads with one way out. We wrote both down for the plan.

The project's position is that fire equipment and training are a cost of the project, not something the town pays for. It is listed in the draft Community Benefits Plan for transparency. The plan is still a draft, so it is not a final commitment yet.

Water would come from the supply arrangement being planned with the Fire Chief. Options include water stored at the site and water brought in by fire trucks. Charlton Fire has said water would be trucked in, and that extending the water line from Route 169 is something the town could consider. That is the town's decision, and it has not been made. The planned response to a battery unit fire is also defensive: protect the surroundings and monitor the air while the unit burns out, with water used to cool neighboring equipment and not sprayed on the burning unit.

On lightning strike mitigation: The site will have lightning protection built to NFPA 780, the national standard for lightning protection systems. That standard covers the equipment that gives a strike a safe path to the ground, such as air terminals, grounding, and surge protection. ESA has also committed to a lightning transient analysis, an engineering study of how the electrical surge from a strike would travel through the site's grounding and equipment. The results have not been published yet.

On fire-water runoff containment: Fire experts advise against spraying water on a burning battery unit. The response being planned is defensive: keep people back, protect the surroundings, and monitor the air while the unit burns out. Water can cool equipment next to the burning unit. It is kept off the burning unit itself, because water that touches it can pick up contaminants. Firefighting water is to be captured on an impermeable surface, and runoff along the southern boundary is to be captured. Testing and removal procedures for captured water are part of the Emergency Action Plan being developed with Charlton Fire.

A damaged battery could vent hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and other hydrocarbons, along with smaller amounts of hydrogen fluoride and related fluorinated compounds from the electrolyte and binder. The facility's LFP chemistry does not contain cobalt or nickel, but that does not remove this risk, since it originates in a different part of the cell. A damaged transformer could release its dielectric oil, typically mineral or synthetic ester and not PCB-containing in modern equipment. Damaged cooling equipment could release glycol coolant or a fluorinated refrigerant. Firefighting operations mainly risk contaminated runoff carrying dissolved metals, fluoride, and soot particulates, which is why on-site containment and boundary drainage measures are already committed.

In the newer Tesla Megapack 3 design, the explosion vents sit in the doors with internal diverters, so water that gets in runs down the inside of the door and not onto the battery modules. This design change was made in response to a failure at another site in which stormwater entered through improperly installed panel gaskets. Whether the units have dedicated water-intrusion sensors has not been published. Final equipment details will be confirmed in the plans filed with the state.

Water on the equipment area, including firefighting water, is to be captured on a hard surface and directed to containment so it does not soak into the ground. Water that has passed through equipment in a fire could carry contaminants, which is why capture is committed. Test results on that water have not been published. Disposal procedures are part of the Emergency Action Plan, and the groundwater monitoring program would check for any impact.

How the sensors are powered, and what backup power supports them, has not been published and is an open item in the Emergency Action Plan. The design is passive in a fire: UL 9540A fire testing checks that neighboring units stay within a safe temperature range through insulation alone, without power or air conditioning. Responders are to have real-time temperature data from a 24-hour network operations center and a local command center.

The cabinets are built for outdoor use. In the newer design the explosion vents are in the doors with diverters, so rain or snow that enters is directed down the inside of the door and away from the electronics. The battery modules carry an ingress protection rating against dust and hose-directed water. Final equipment details will be confirmed in the plans filed with the state.

No, and we avoid doing this because enclosing batteries in buildings increases safety risks. Historically, the 2019 explosion in Surprise, Arizona, showed that sealed structures allow flammable gases to accumulate, causing a backdraft when opened. More recently, building-housed fires at Otay Mesa (May 2024) and Moss Landing (January 2025) demonstrated that even with ventilation, buildings trap extreme heat, accelerate cascading runaway between racks, and block direct firefighter access, prolonging the fires for days. The outdoor cabinet design is meant to vent gas and heat to open air rather than trap them, and it is designed to keep a fire in the cabinet where it starts. It also gives responders access from every side to cool neighboring units.

The design uses four layers of safety. First, the batteries use lithium iron phosphate, which has no cobalt or nickel and is less prone to thermal runaway than nickel-based chemistries. That chemistry is safer, not safe. Second, Tesla's data sheet states the Megapack 3 has built-in fire detection, thermal management, and automatic shutdown, and Tesla has not yet published its test report. Third, the equipment sits approximately 500 feet from the nearest residential building, which is the landowner's own home. Fourth, we are drafting a community-specific Emergency Action Plan with Charlton Fire. Fire experts advise against spraying water on a burning battery unit. The response being planned is defensive: keep people back, protect the surroundings, and monitor the air while the unit burns out. Recordings of the two fire safety sessions are posted in the engagement log.

The steel enclosure has an IP66/NEMA 3R weather rating to prevent dust and water ingress, but it is not armored. A gunshot will likely pierce the skin. If a puncture breaches the cells, it triggers an internal short. This initiates a sequence identical to a standard internal cell defect. The Battery Management System automatically isolates the unit, and standard site safety protocols manage the response. We address physical security threats through site-hardening measures, including secure perimeter fencing, 24/7 camera monitoring, setbacks, and vehicle barrier bollards.

Our spacing complies with the manufacturer's safety specifications for current-generation Tesla Megapack 3 units, which are designed to prevent thermal spread while allowing responder access. The units require a minimum clearance of 25 inches side-to-side, 9 to 24 inches back-to-back (depending on the configuration), and 108 inches (9 feet) at the front of each unit. Beyond these unit-to-unit clearances, the outer perimeter fence sits approximately 50 feet away from the battery layout, with a 26-foot access road running inside the fence to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles.

Budget and direct aid. Carpenter Hill Power will maintain liability insurance for the project. The project is still in preliminary development, so coverage limits and policy details have not been finalized and no dollar amount can be given. There is currently no separate budget for direct resident relief outside applicable insurance coverage or government programs. Obligations and available resources would depend on the circumstances of an incident, the applicable insurance policies, and the legal requirements in effect at the time. The draft Community Benefits Plan proposes additional protections for close neighbors, including well testing and property value protection within 1,000 feet of the work limit. Those are drafts and not yet commitments.

Insurance rates. ESA is not aware of evidence that proximity to a battery energy storage facility, by itself, raises residential insurance premiums. Homeowners' rates are generally based on factors specific to the property, such as construction, age, claims history, and proximity to emergency services.

Yes, independent review is committed, with the reviewer selected by the town and paid for by us. The plan is being completed with the fire department before we file, and the state review that follows is public and formal.

These were specific asks from a Planning Board member, and they are on our list. Testing each unit to the fire standard is routine. We told the committee member that testing the whole site as a system is best practice and should be in the plan. Replacement parts and recalls are also tied to the equipment warranty, which gives the owner a reason to stay with the maker. None of this is a commitment yet.

Since July, we have looked at two ways. One is moving the equipment on the site, which has mostly not worked for several reasons. The other is a different technology. We are watching sodium-ion batteries, which are promising on safety but are not yet available at scale. Any change in the battery technology would have to go back through approvals. Nothing is decided.

No study yet answers this for a fire. We have committed to a groundwater monitoring program with terms in writing before construction starts, and to publish the hydrology and stormwater studies. A well inventory within one mile is complete, and a door-to-door survey within half a mile is next. If you rely on a private well, send us your road so we can check it against the site plans, and we add wells to our list each time someone notifies us.

Two commitments are already in place: water used to fight a fire will be captured on an impermeable surface, and runoff along the southern boundary will be captured. Testing and removal procedures are part of the emergency management plan being developed with the Charlton Fire Department, which the town's independently selected reviewer will also examine, at no cost to the town.

The state's well database holds 87 records within about a mile of the site. Seventy-one of them can be placed on a map. Sixteen records on Carpenter Hill Road carry no street number and cannot be placed. A screen of how water runs over the land surface puts two domestic wells on T. Hall Road, 0.39 and 0.45 mile away, downhill in the pad's own drainage. That screen follows the land surface, not groundwater moving through bedrock, and it does not say whether any well would be affected. The details are in section 6.5 of the September 10 engagement packet, page 77: https://carpenterhillpower.com/files/carpenter-hill-dpp-packet-2026-09-10.pdf#page=77

The hydrogeologic study includes the well inventory, and the published study will include the counts and mapping requested. As of that packet, the door-to-door well survey within half a mile had not started.

The draft Community Benefits Plan, released September 30, proposes that the project pay to test every eligible private well within 1,000 feet of the work limit before construction, so each household has a baseline. Wells downhill of the site on T. Hall Road and any well the Board of Health identifies as downgradient are also covered. Testing would repeat once during construction and once within 12 months after construction ends. The plan is a draft, and well testing is among its open decisions.

If a well were affected, the draft Community Benefits Plan proposes that the project pay for bottled water within 48 hours and for treatment or a replacement well if a test shows a change linked to the site. This is a draft and not yet a commitment. The project is also to carry pollution liability insurance during construction and operation, and under Massachusetts law cleanup responsibility for contamination rests with the site's owner, regardless of fault. The emergency response plan defines how a release would be contained and addressed.

Water protection must stay with the project through agreement terms that bind future owners, permit conditions, or secured funds, because ownership is expected to change. Our position on the record is that well-water protection belongs among the items that receive binding treatment. The specific instrument will be determined through the plan process and the town's negotiation, supported by its own experts.

Environmental liability under Massachusetts law does not end when a facility closes. That default standard still requires a resident to establish the claim and wait for resolution, which is not sufficient on its own. Discovery after closure will be addressed within the same enforceable framework as the late-discovery question above, with its mechanism stated in the draft plan and the decommissioning conditions.

Carpenter Hill Power is a battery storage facility, not a power plant that needs a continuous supply of water to generate electricity. Each battery unit has its own liquid cooling system. The project is not expected to need an ongoing supply from Charlton's drinking water system for normal operation. Cooling and water use details have not been published. The hydrology and stormwater studies are committed and will be published, and a groundwater monitoring program is committed.

Not yet. The hydrogeologic study is committed and underway, and it will be published when it is complete. A well inventory within one mile is complete, and a door-to-door survey within half a mile is next.

Engagement is happening before the studies finish so that residents' questions can shape what the studies examine, rather than arrive after the fact.

Trees slow and store water during a storm. Part of the area is already inside National Grid's easement. We have committed to no net increase in runoff and to no wetland fill. Soils on the site drain poorly, so water tends to run across the surface, and water also flows onto the site from the north. The design being developed uses basins on both the north and south sides, sized for storm events. We have not published the engineering numbers. Our mapping shows rain that lands on the equipment area draining south into a chain of wetlands. That covers surface water only. It does not tell us about groundwater.

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.

Our 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. State reviewers have asked for a formal wetland delineation during design.

For exact distances, reach out directly: jsantiago@esa-solar.com or 407-232-7440 ext. 251.

It has not been decided whether blasting is needed. There is ledge on both sides of the site, and how much rock the work would meet will come from test borings. Rock can sometimes be removed by hammering or ripping instead of blasting, and that choice is made in the construction plan. Blasting can send vibration through rock, and how far that matters depends on the amount of rock removed, the distance to a well, and the local geology. No study yet shows whether any well would be affected.

The draft Community Benefits Plan proposes testing private wells within 1,000 feet of the work limit, plus wells on T. Hall Road, at the project's cost before construction. Those wells would be tested again after any blasting near a well. If a test shows a change linked to the site, the project would pay for bottled water within 48 hours, then for treatment or a replacement well. The draft is not final.

Wells about a mile from the site are outside that distance. The hydrogeologic study and the well survey are meant to show which wells need to be part of this work, and their results are not published. If you rely on a private well, send us your road and we will check it against the site plans and the well records.

No. That spill is a different location and is not in the area this project is part of. We are sorry that your well was affected.

The state noise policy sets the limit. Sound from the facility may not be more than 10 decibels above the existing background sound at the property line and at the nearest homes. Meeting that limit is a condition of the state permit, and it binds any owner. The first screening found that the two closest property lines, along the transmission line, would be above that limit. The closest dwelling to the equipment is the home of the landowner who is leasing the site to the project. The screening used stand-in equipment data, because sound data for the Megapack 3 is not available yet. The project is testing design changes to bring those property lines within the limit, including a sound wall. The full sound study will measure background sound at nearby homes and predict the sound level at each. It will be published, and its results, not the screening, set the design. Decibel figures mentioned at the meeting came from preliminary data and varied. The figures to rely on will come from the full study.

Three sources: the cooling heat pump in each battery unit, the inverters that convert the electricity, and the transformers that raise the voltage. Each cabinet has all three.

Yes, this equipment can operate at night. Cooling runs according to battery needs, charging and discharging follow grid demand, and transformers remain energized continuously. This is why nighttime modeling and nighttime limits are part of the study and the permit conditions.

This is what the sound study will produce: predicted levels, home by home, under maximum operating conditions, including tonal character, low-frequency sound, and worst-case rather than average conditions. The study's scope is set by the acoustic professionals conducting it, independent of both the project and any single submission.

Measured background levels are the foundation of the sound study, which is committed and in progress. They will be presented in the published study rather than stated in advance of it.

These are standard inputs for an acoustic assessment of this kind, and the published study should address each of them. The study's scope is determined by the acoustic professionals conducting it, independent of both the project and any single submission, which is part of what makes the result credible.

A sound contour map showing residences is a standard output of a professional acoustic assessment, and the published study is expected to include one.

Increase over background is the appropriate measure, and it requires the measured baseline first. Both the baseline and the resulting increase, home by home, will be included in the published study.

Tonal character, low-frequency sound, vibration, and maximum-condition analysis are standard elements of an acoustic assessment for a facility of this kind, and we expect the published study to address each. An average alone can understate what a resident experiences at specific times, such as at night, so the study needs to go beyond averages to answer that question.

These are recognized inputs to an acoustic assessment, and the published study should address each condition or explain why not. The scope itself remains with the professionals conducting the study, which keeps it independent of both the project and any single submission.

Measuring only at the property line would not answer what residents will actually hear at home, so measurement locations need to reflect that. Choosing specific measurement locations is a decision for the acoustic professionals, but the published study will state where measurements were taken and why.

Enforceable noise limits are set as permit conditions in the state siting process, informed by Massachusetts noise policy. They bind whoever owns the facility and are enforced by regulators. A structured post-construction review is a standing plan topic, since residents have said commitments need to be checked after construction is complete. How noise complaints are investigated, by whom, and with what consequences will be specified rather than left undefined.

The complaint investigation process is being defined in the plan's accountability framework and the post-construction review topic, and it will name a party independent of the project.

If operation exceeds permit-condition limits, compliance is mandatory and enforced by the permitting authorities against whoever owns the facility at the time. Noise that remains within limits but is still disruptive is a separate question, addressed through the plan's neighbor-protection and post-construction review items rather than through the permit alone.

A curtailment provision would need to be established through enforceable terms negotiated with the town's experts. Raise it during the plan comment period and the state review, where it would bind whoever owns the facility.

Residents pointed to another town's storage project that has a sound barrier built in. This has been recorded as feedback. A sound wall is one of the fixes being tested.

Construction is temporary, about 12 to 18 months, during the day. We will plan truck routes with the town.

The rainfall comparison describes loudness, offered because a decibel number alone means little to most people without a familiar reference. It does not describe duration, and duration is what matters most to someone living near a continuous source. The facility can produce sound at night. Predicted levels at the nearest homes will come from the sound study that is now in progress.

The draft Community Benefits Plan proposes that if a home within 1,000 feet of the work limit sells for less than an independent appraisal says it is worth without the facility, the project pays the difference, up to a cap that is still to be set, for five years after commercial operation. This is a draft and not yet a commitment. Separately, the project has offered a property value study by a Massachusetts-licensed appraiser, comparing properties near comparable operating projects with similar properties farther away, published so residents can review the evidence directly.

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.

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.

Construction is temporary, with limited truck traffic, restricted work hours, and a defined duration. We have committed to control erosion, to hold total clearing to 10 acres, and to plan construction traffic with the town.

Few grid-scale lithium battery facilities anywhere have ten years of operating history, since the industry at this scale is younger than that. We can provide Massachusetts projects now in service, including Carver's 150 MW facility, online since 2025, along with their agreements, already in our public document library, and safety and incident data from the national fleet. We are compiling additional comparable-project materials residents have requested, including items submitted by committee members. The property value study described in the property value answers uses matched pairs of homes near operating projects and is the strongest evidence available on that question.

That is what the Community Benefits Plan is for. It is a draft with open decisions, and your comments can change it. Topics under discussion include payments to the town, fire equipment and training, senior center support, tree replanting, local hiring, and road bonding. The draft is at carpenterhillpower.com/benefits/plan, and comments are open into 2027.

PILOT stands for payment in lieu of taxes. A battery project loses value on paper as the equipment ages, so ordinary property taxes shrink over time. A PILOT sets a predictable payment each year instead. Developers like it for the same reason towns do: both know what to expect. The town negotiates it, usually through the town administrator, with the Select Board and Planning Board having a say. Other towns have agreed to 20-year terms.

We do not have a Charlton figure. Four Massachusetts agreements shown at the meeting, in Carver, Revere, Medway, and Chelsea, work out to roughly $8,500 to $11,300 per megawatt per year. That range is only for context, and it is not a promise or an estimate for Charlton. Our tax and assessment research is still open.

We have not promised any share of a household's electric bill. Rising electricity prices are a national trend driven by higher demand. Charlton buys power in bulk, so a benefit tied to bills would have to be negotiated with the town and with National Grid. At the public meeting this was raised as one idea. Nothing is agreed.

The regional grid operator decides, not ESA and not the state, and electricity goes to the nearest demand. The project is built to support the grid as a whole. It is not built to back up individual homes.

The state does not enforce it. The plan binds the project's owner. We are discussing putting some items into a community benefit agreement between the owner and the town, which would be legally binding on the owner.

The state does not require it. We expect a supplemental meeting before it goes to the state, so that Charlton has substantial input and a way to sign off. That is not decided.

Residents proposed solar and batteries for the senior center and the police and fire stations, ongoing well testing, an escrow for takedown and failures, property value protection, extending town water lines, and replanting 15 acres of trees elsewhere in Charlton. All of these are logged as input. None is decided, and the draft has 34 open decisions.

Residents in the 12:30 PM session picked their top benefit topics by phone. Money for the town budget drew the most picks, followed by fire equipment and training, conservation land and habitat, and help with home energy costs. The full results are in the session summaries at carpenterhillpower.com/documents/public-forum-sept-30-summary. The 6:30 PM session ran out of time for the activity. The activity is advisory only. It is not a budget and not a commitment.

Local hiring and businesses. Local hiring and the use of local businesses are Community Benefits Plan topics, and no commitment has been made yet. ESA has met with the Central Massachusetts Workforce Board and Bay Path Regional Vocational School about workforce development and employment. ESA is exploring ways to work with local contractors, tradespeople, suppliers, and service providers during construction and, where appropriate, over the life of the facility. Residents are invited to say what they would consider a meaningful local hiring commitment.

Conservation groups. Funding local conservation work is a plan topic and is not promised. If the community considers it valuable, it will be evaluated through the Community Benefits Plan.

Oversight board. The Citizen Advisory Committee is open to any resident, meets regularly, and posts its materials and notes. Its charter and roster are published in the Document Library. The draft plan proposes keeping the committee open for the life of the facility, with an annual public review of what was delivered.

Defining community needs. Charlton residents define them. Benefits are decided through the Community Benefits Plan process, shaped by residents and the committee, and the town and the project decide together which items go into a signed agreement.

You do. Benefits are decided through the Community Benefits Plan process, shaped by residents and the Citizen Advisory Committee. The town and the project decide together which items go into a signed agreement.

It is a great idea and has been shared with our team. School and training ideas are part of the conversation, including early talks with Bay Path about students in trades programs. Nothing is decided yet. Send your own ideas through the Participate page.

The project's position is that costs the facility creates, including fire equipment and ongoing training, belong to the project, not the town. The draft Community Benefits Plan, section 3.1, proposes that the project owner pay directly for the equipment and training the Fire Chief identifies, plus an annual equipment and training allowance paid to the town. The amounts are not set yet: https://carpenterhillpower.com/files/carpenter-hill-community-benefits-plan-draft.pdf#page=12

We do not have a figure for what Charlton would receive, so a side-by-side comparison of town revenue and town costs has not been published.

Three things bind any owner to this project. The conditions of approval attached to the state permit are legally binding on whoever owns the project. Each condition is enforced by the agency that covers it, and an owner who breaks one can be ordered to fix the problem and fined. A decommissioning bond is required before construction. And the Community Benefits Plan, plus any signed agreement with the town, goes with the project. Anyone who buys it sees all of this before they buy.

The owner is responsible, and the decommissioning bond is there so that money exists even if an owner fails. The bond is required before construction, and the amount is not set yet. A third-party engineer works out the cost of removal, with the town's review. Battery systems are modular, so removal is relatively simple. The site would be restored toward forest.

Not decided. Residents asked, and we have written it down.

A resident asked whether ESA would put money in escrow for legal enforcement. We said it goes on the list. It is not decided, and anything that is committed will be in the Community Benefits Plan.

We cannot speak to other projects. We can say that the new state process we are following requires a community benefits plan, and our plan is a draft that you can comment on.

The decommissioning bond is the primary protection. It is posted before construction, sized by an independent published estimate, updated on a schedule, and not reduced for assumed scrap value. The bond funds removal even if the owner does not complete it. Permit conditions govern operation and maintenance regardless of ownership.

Learning the local habitat. ESA has met with MassDEP, MassWildlife's Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, and the EEA MEPA Office to learn more about the local habitat. The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program has asked ESA to submit a formal information request for rare species data, and state reviewers have asked for a formal wetland delineation. ESA is open and available to learn more from residents who want to share their local knowledge. Residents can do that through the Citizen Advisory Committee, public meetings, the weekly virtual office hours, or directly with Jonathan Santiago at jsantiago@esa-solar.com or 407-232-7440 ext. 251.

Engagement with the town. ESA is the developer, not the long-term owner or operator. The project is expected to be sold to a long-term owner before it is built and operated. Permits, approvals, and other legally binding project requirements continue with the project and apply to the future owner, and the Community Benefits Plan is being written to state who is responsible for each commitment, how it is funded, and how it is monitored. Until a sale, ESA attends meetings in Charlton, takes part in community outreach, works with town officials and emergency services, and continues the Citizen Advisory Committee meetings. The draft Community Benefits Plan also proposes one named community contact with a posted phone number and email. Residents will be told who the owner is once the project is sold.

Every promise is tracked in the public Commitment Tracker with its status. Permit conditions run with the project even if the owner changes, and design commitments are carried into the plans we file with the state. The draft plan also proposes an annual public review of what was delivered.

ESA Solar is a pre-development firm specializing in engineering, zoning, and permitting. We do not construct or operate the facilities long-term. Instead, we partner with major utility-scale capital partners to handle construction and operation. We will provide reference links to similar BESS facilities operating successfully under these exact same permitting and safety standards to demonstrate the project's long-term viability.

No. This project has not been approved, and no permit exists. We are in the pre-filing phase, which is the best time to shape the design. The state's Energy Facilities Siting Board makes the final decision, with public comment and hearings.

Charlton's bylaw limits battery projects to 5 megawatts, and this one is 150. Because of its size, the project is reviewed by the state board, which can issue a consolidated approval covering some local permits. We know many residents object to that, and we have written it down.

The state's Intervenor Support Grant Program funds attorneys, expert witnesses, and other participation costs for eligible community groups, nonprofits, and towns, up to $150,000 per group for each proceeding. The state decides eligibility, and the process starts after the application is filed. Details are at mass.gov/info-details/intervenor-support-grant-program. We have also been asked to support the cost of a negotiator for the town, which is not decided.

No. We do not have permits yet. We remain in the pre-filing stage and have not submitted any applications. We want to gather community feedback first to incorporate your concerns into our design. We expect to file our application with the state Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) in 2027. Once we file, the EFSB review becomes a formal public proceeding. Residents can comment on the record, and community groups and the town can seek intervenor status to participate as full parties. The state's Intervenor Support Grant Program helps fund that participation, paying intervenor groups up to $150,000 per proceeding for attorneys and technical experts. It covers proceedings that begin on or after July 1, 2026, so it will be available for this project's review.

The state's Energy Facilities Siting Board reviews the project. We have also committed to an independent third-party review of the Emergency Action Plan, with the reviewer's name and findings posted on the site. The town selects the reviewer and the project pays for it. We have not yet committed to a separate independent review of the groundwater study. The state's Intervenor Support Grant Program can pay for expert witnesses.

Reviews of environmental, economic, and community impacts beyond this need a longer answer. Please reach out directly: jsantiago@esa-solar.com or 407-232-7440 ext. 251.

A preliminary Cumulative Impact Analysis is published for comment at https://carpenterhillpower.com/reports/cumulative-impact (draft v0.4, October 11, 2026). It follows the state's method in 980 CMR 15.00 and asks whether this project adds to burdens the area already carries. The site is in a census block group the state has designated a Burdened Area, so every step applies. A preliminary Site Suitability Analysis is published at https://carpenterhillpower.com/reports/site-suitability. Both are drafts, and the versions filed with the state become part of the public record. On property values, we have offered a study by a Massachusetts-licensed appraiser comparing matched pairs of properties near comparable operating projects.

Yes, it already has. Earlier public feedback led to cutting the layout from 156 units to 136. The Citizen Advisory Committee and the extra public meetings go beyond what state rules require.

No decision is being requested on the basis of benefits that have not been quantified. The studies, financial commitments, emergency plans, and agreements described in these answers are being completed and published, and decision points come after they exist. Engagement continues while the studies are underway so that residents' input can shape them. Every commitment is listed on the public tracker at carpenterhillpower.com, with a status that can be checked at any time.

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. We described it as an interchange on a highway, where voltage can be stepped up or down to serve the region. Battery storage fits best at a substation like this one. When we find a suitable substation, we reach out to the surrounding landowners to see whether any are willing to lease land to host a project.

ESA has looked at essentially every substation in ISO New England, the region's grid operator, with a focus on Massachusetts, where electricity demand is highest and growing the most. A site has to meet three tests: a substation that can support storage, land that can actually be built on (many sites are wetlands or otherwise unbuildable), and a landowner who is willing to lease. Very few sites passed all three. ESA has site control at other substations as well. At others, another developer already had site control of the available land.

ESA did. We start by looking at the grid. When electricity prices swing up and down, that signals a need for storage to smooth them out. We are all part of one New England grid, so that need is regional. The substation here is also close to where the power lines already are, so it needs very little new infrastructure.

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.

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.

There is no single score. The tool looks at several criteria, and the results are provisional until it is re-run on the full area. Two points matter most: there is no farmland within the project footprint, and the main tradeoff is trees, which store carbon and provide habitat. We are looking at clearing fewer trees or adding habitat elsewhere.

No. National Grid planned and carried out those upgrades for future use, and not for this project. National Grid does have to approve our connection, and it studies whether we can connect safely under its standards.

The landowner benefits through a lease agreement. ESA and the project's eventual owner benefit if the facility is built and operates. The town receives tax revenue or a PILOT, a negotiated payment in lieu of taxes. The project also includes a Community Benefits Plan developed with residents.

A 150 megawatt battery energy storage system with about 600 megawatt-hours of storage, which is about four hours at full output. The latest design uses 136 battery units, down from 156 in July. It stores electricity from the grid and sends it back. It does not generate any power, and there is no solar or gas. It is not backup power for homes in an outage. It adds capacity to the grid, which matters most when supply is tight, such as during major storms or peak demand, and it helps keep voltage and demand steady.

The equipment area would be about 5 acres, fenced, inside a leased area of about 15 acres on a 47-acre parcel. We have committed to hold total clearing to 10 acres. The project is 150 megawatts, or 600 megawatt-hours, about four hours of storage.

No, this is not a data center. Carpenter Hill Power is a battery storage facility. It stores electricity from the grid and releases it when demand is high. It does not generate power or burn fuel. The equipment has control and monitoring systems, but it does not host computing or data storage for anyone else.

A battery storage system stores electricity from the grid and sends it back when demand is high. It does not produce new power. It makes more efficient use of power already on the grid. Under state rules it is an energy facility, the same broad category that includes power plants, but ours falls in a specific category: a Large Clean Energy Storage Facility, which means an energy storage system of 100 megawatt-hours or more. The state's Energy Facilities Siting Board will review the project and decide whether to approve it.

Carpenter Hill Power, LLC is developed by ESA, an independently owned solar and energy storage company based in Central Florida. ESA has said the project will be sold to a long-term owner and operator. ESA pays the cost of early-stage development, and that cost is folded into the price of the project. We have not published other financing details.

The project is planned on leased land, not purchased land. Lease terms are not published.

Building the project will cost roughly $200 million to $300 million. ESA creates value by developing and permitting the site, which represents a small fraction of that total cost. The future buyer will purchase the permitted project before construction begins.

An owner could be a utility, an infrastructure fund, or an energy company. We cannot name any, because none has been selected. Owners earn money in three main ways: charging the battery when power is cheap and selling it when power is expensive, payments for being available as capacity when the grid needs it, and services that keep the grid balanced second by second.

The current proposal is 150 megawatts. A larger project, or a second one, would need its own state review with public comment and hearings.

The facility is planned for an operating life of 20 to 35 years. The batteries use lithium iron phosphate, which has no cobalt or nickel. Recovery rates vary by component and processor, and the recycling industry is likely to look different when the facility is decommissioned. A decommissioning plan is required and is filed with the application, covering removal and disposition. Verification of the final disposition of the batteries will be built into the decommissioning conditions. The decommissioning bond is posted before construction.

We have not modeled this yearly figure yet. The total storage depends on the final equipment selection and our ongoing interconnection study. We will share this calculation as soon as we run the models.

We heard three requests on September 30: a technical person who can answer water, noise, and fire questions, meetings longer than an hour and a half, and a different venue. We took all three on board. The third public meeting follows the Community Benefits Plan comment period, which has been extended into 2027. The date and place will be mailed and posted at least a month ahead. Before then, the Citizen Advisory Committee meets before the end of the year to go over the comments received.

Yes. Weekly virtual office hours run on Zoom on Wednesdays from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. Eastern. Join by computer, phone, or tablet, and no RSVP is needed. The link and dial-in numbers are in our project emails, and Jonathan Santiago can send them to you. You can also call or email him any time: jsantiago@esa-solar.com or 407-232-7440 ext. 251.

Recordings of both September 30 sessions, the meeting slides, and the session summaries are in the engagement log. Written September 30 answers are in the Document Library.

Use the comment form on carpenterhillpower.com, or email or call. Every comment gets an acknowledgment within 24 hours and a published response within 7 days. What we heard and what we did is posted in the engagement log. Comments on the draft Community Benefits Plan are open into 2027, and the closing date will be posted at least three weeks before comment closes.

Select Participate in the menu at the top of carpenterhillpower.com. It goes to the Participate section of the homepage, which has the email sign-up, the comment form, and advisory committee information.

Membership is open to any resident. Email jsantiago@esa-solar.com and say you are interested in the advisory committee. Every meeting is open to anyone who wants to attend.

If this reached you by email, you are already on the list and getting updates. To sign up someone else, or yourself if you read this elsewhere, use the sign-up form on the Participate page of carpenterhillpower.com. If the form does not work, email jsantiago@esa-solar.com or call 407-232-7440 ext. 251 and ask to be added. We have committed to send project updates at least quarterly.

The Document Library has maps, the site plan, safety reports, and the draft Community Benefits Plan. The engagement log shows what we heard and what we did at every meeting. The Commitment Tracker lists every promise and its status. Some studies are still underway, and we publish results as we get them.

Email jsantiago@esa-solar.com or call 407-232-7440 ext. 251. Media and research requests go to the same contact.

Meeting dates, times, and places are on the events calendar on the homepage of carpenterhillpower.com. In-person meetings do not have an online link. For virtual meetings and office hours, the link, meeting ID, passcode, and call-in numbers are in the project emails. To RSVP, get a link, or confirm a time, email Jonathan Santiago at jsantiago@esa-solar.com or call 407-232-7440 ext. 251.

The suggestion is recorded. Project information is currently shared through carpenterhillpower.com, the project email list, mailers, public meetings, and weekly virtual office hours.