Two Charlton residents used the board's open-forum period on April 22 to raise distinct concerns: one asked the selectmen to consider steps to limit further concentration of large-scale solar and battery projects in town under recent state clean-energy legislation, and the other questioned whether political-party endorsements are appropriate in local, nonpartisan elections.

At the start of open forum, resident Steppen Sage of Lincoln Point Road said he has long viewed local elections as nonpartisan and said he was "disturbed" to see local committees endorse candidates for town office. Sage asked the selectmen how they feel about party endorsements in local elections and invited follow-up contact; the selectmen did not provide a full response during the public comment period.

Later in open forum, Laurie Degman of Osgood Road addressed the board about the 2024 statewide clean-energy law (named in public comment as the Act promoting a clean energy grid, advancing equity, and protecting ratepayers). Degman told the board she has attended Department of Public Utilities and Energy Facility Siting Board meetings and expressed concern that the new law allows large projects (as described in her remarks, projects over 25 megawatt DC and battery projects over 100 megawatt-hours) to apply directly to the state Energy Facility Siting Board for a comprehensive permit, potentially circumventing local zoning.

Degman said Charlton already hosts more than 28 large-scale solar projects and several lithium-ion battery projects and urged the Department of Public Utilities and Energy Facility Siting Board to mandate equitable siting across municipalities. She asked the selectmen and town administrator to add the item to a future agenda and consider whether Charlton might pursue an opt-out measure if the town generates sufficient local renewable capacity, as described in the statute she cited. The board indicated they would discuss placing the item on a future agenda and suggested the Planning Board might be an initial forum for further consideration.

Both public-comment items were presented as requests and concerns; neither produced a formal motion or vote during the April 22 meeting. The remarks were recorded during the open-forum portion of the agenda.