Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Decommissioning Bond Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlton planning board begins rewrite of decommissioning/surety language, flags attorney‑general review for energy storage
Summary
Board members and counsel discussed tightening decommissioning and surety language for renewable energy and battery energy storage projects, with staff recommending separating battery storage provisions from the town’s solar bylaw and asking town counsel to draft language likely to withstand Attorney General scrutiny
The Charlton Planning Board spent an extended portion of its Sept. 17 meeting discussing proposed changes to the town’s decommissioning and surety requirements for energy projects, and specifically whether to fold battery energy storage into existing solar regulations or handle it separately.
Board member discussion and staff comments focused on two goals: tightening the town’s surety language to ensure decommissioning funds cover hazardous‑materials and wetland mitigation claims, and avoiding collateral risk that the Attorney General’s office might strike down unrelated provisions of an older solar bylaw. A staff member said a separate provision for battery energy storage systems (BESS) would reduce the chance that revising surety language for batteries would reopen or undermine the town’s existing solar bylaw.
Planning staff and the board said they will work with town counsel to redraft the surety and decommissioning provisions. The staff asked counsel to recommend language that the board can present to town meeting that accomplishes the board’s policy goals while minimizing the risk of an adverse Attorney General review. The board emphasized the need to tighten the definition of acceptable forms of surety and to require surety instruments that cover environmental and hazardous remediation in addition to ordinary decommissioning activities.
Board members said developers of solar and battery projects had pushed back on a proposed policy that would require a 25% cash escrow (a town staff suggestion intended to ensure funds remain available for decommissioning). Counsel and board members acknowledged that projects that applied under the older law or during legislative extension periods may not be subject to a new cash requirement; the board discussed negotiating acceptable forms of surety (cash deposit, surety bond, standby letter of credit) and reviewing the issuer’s strength before acceptance.
The board instructed staff to work with town counsel (Jonathan, referenced in the meeting) on language that clarifies the town’s expectations on forms of surety, environmental coverage and claim windows, and to prepare a separate bylaw or article for battery energy storage if that approach reduces legal risk. Board counsel volunteered to draft suggested language and to advise on AG office scrutiny. No binding vote was taken; the board agreed to continue work on the draft and to return with legal language and a recommended approach to present to town meeting.
