Planning board reviews decommissioning estimate for battery storage sites; asks applicant for revisions and engineer review

ZeroPoint Development presented draft decommissioning estimates for Charlton energy-storage (ESS) sites at the Planning Board meeting on May 7, 2025. The board did not vote on a decommissioning bond but asked the developer for a revised schedule with greater detail and asked staff to route the revised estimate to the town engineer for review.

What was presented: Tom Corbett of ZeroPoint Development described per-site decommissioning subtotals and a long-range (20‑year) escalation that produced a per‑site planning figure in the low-mid six‑figure range (the draft showed a present-day subtotal of roughly $451,000 for one site and a 20‑year escalated figure of about $812,000 for that site). Corbett said battery recycling partners (LI-Cycle was cited) provide “white-glove” packaging and pick-up services and he included a recycling credit (per‑pound valuation) in the estimate. The draft included discrete line items for equipment removal, container removal and transport, wire/conduit removal, site restoration/seeding, erosion control, dumpster rentals, and contractor prevailing wages.

Board direction and requested revisions: Planning board members and staff asked for more granular cost breakdowns and clarifications that the draft did not fully provide: 1) identify prevailing‑wage categories and unit rates for each trade (excavator operator, equipment operator, electrical crew, etc.); 2) list transport mileage and number of tractor‑trailer moves for battery containers and give a per‑lift/crane or per‑truck cost where appropriate; 3) show whether and how concrete footings will be disposed of (as broken concrete vs. ground/ reclaimed); 4) itemize erosion‑control installation (fabric, staking, installation labor) and site‑restoration (topsoil/loam, seed mix, fertilizer) with per‑acre or per‑linear‑foot costs; 5) include a line item for independent town engineering inspection and acceptance of the decommissioning; and 6) attach the project’s Phase I environmental report (the developer said Phase I is in progress) and identify any sites that might require a Phase II investigation. Board members also asked the applicant to clarify the assumed recycling credits and to supply contingency assumptions if a recycler is not available when decommissioning occurs.

Operational and oversight issues: The board discussed periodic reporting requirements: the draft bylaw language requires annual proof that decommissioning assurance remains in force and a five‑year anniversary adjustment to the required surety amount. Corbett and staff agreed to provide an annual operations report identifying current owner/operator contact information and a recent 12‑month average measure of storage capacity or use so the town can detect potential abandonment or material reductions in operating capacity (a 25% loss of original capacity would trigger decommissioning/abandonment provisions in the draft bylaw language discussed).

Next steps: ZeroPoint will produce a revised decommissioning estimate with the requested line-item detail and updated prevailing-wage and transport assumptions; staff will route the revision to the town engineer (Mike) for review and return comments to the board. The board indicated it wants the decommissioning schedule stamped by a professional engineer and prefers that releases and any periodic inspections be budgeted into the surety or in a small town-inspection fee at the time decommissioning is requested.

Speakers: Tom Corbett (ZeroPoint Development) presented the draft schedule and answered technical questions; board members and staff asked for clarifications and asked staff to route the revised materials to the town engineer for technical review.