Processing Your Payment

Please do not leave this page until complete. This can take a few moments.

October 1, 2021

Over town objections, $100M Charlton natural gas pipeline and facility slated for final approval

Photo | Google Earth Land along Route 169, to the right of the solar field and neighboring Incom, Inc.'s headquarters, is the proposed site of a natural gas liquidation plant in Charlton.
By Katherine Hamilton

A pipeline and natural gas liquidation plant proposed in Charlton was recommended for approval on Sept. 20 and will go up for a final vote before the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board next week, according to a notice on Mass.gov.

Northeast Energy Center, LLC, which is registered to Philadelphia energy infrastructure company Liberty Energy Trust, is proposing construction of a liquefied natural gas facility and pipeline in Charlton. The project will cost $100 million, including the cost of land acquisition, according to the siting board's tentative decision report.

The plant would liquefy pipeline natural gas, store the LNG, and load tanker trucks. It would be capable of storing 2 million gallons of LNG and producing up to 250,000 gallons per day, according to the siting board’s tentative decision.

The siting board’s tentative decision, which recommended approval of the project, said it will consider and compare two sites for the project, one along Route 169 and one along Route 20.

Northeast Energy Center’s proposed location is 304 Southbridge Road along Route 169 in Charlton, which neighbors the headquarters of Incom, Inc., a fiber optic products supplier. Incom, Inc. owns the land at 304 Southbridge Road, which is assessed at $197,900 by the Town of Charlton.

In a letter on Sept. 24, the Charlton Planning Board expressed disappointment with the siting board’s tentative decision as it would exempt the project from zoning bylaws and exclude the town from formally reviewing the project. 

The siting board will vote on the project at a virtual meeting on Wednesday. Public comment will be heard, and commenters must notify the committee they wish to speak by Tuesday.

Sign up for Enews

WBJ Web Partners

Most Recent

Most Recent

1 Comments

Anonymous
October 3, 2021
It is unfortunate that this location was chosen, due to the proximity of nearby residents. There was another location in town that was available on a much larger tract of land (over 200 acres), and it had a large buffer zone to residents, but the development company went with the site on route 169 to save money. The state siting board has a job to find locations for these operations. Charlton could have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and stop them from constructing the facility at this location, but the ultimate decision is with the siting board; the probability of siting the project in Charlton was almost a forgone conclusion from the onset. This is another example of a small town with limited financial resources losing a battle against undesirable development.
Order a PDF