This June, installation work for the nation’s first commercial-scale, offshore wind farm began in the waters south of Martha’s Vineyard. Vineyard Wind, developed by offshore wind giants Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, is a 800 megawatt (MW) venture that aims to provide clean energy for thousands of Massachusetts residents come 2024. In the context of today’s burgeoning climate crisis, reduced electricity bills and spinning turbines only tell a fraction of Vineyard Wind’s story: The project is facing staunch political and industrial opposition that seeks to impede and undermine its development. Vineyard Wind has been championed by environmentalists and climate-conscious policymakers as a trailblazer for carbon-free electricity — the symbol of a future that fossil fuel and commercial fishing interests will do anything to stop.
Offshore wind is widely considered to be the next game-changer in renewable energy. Wind turbines constructed in shallow coastal waters unlock access to greater average wind speeds, which dramatically increases energy generation capacity. As such, offshore wind energy has the potential to meet the high electricity demands of dense coastal population centers while simultaneously reducing fossil fuel reliance. Policy-wise, President Biden has made his offshore wind ambitions unmistakably clear: His administration is committed to deploying 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030 to power 10 million homes and cut 78 million metric tons in carbon emissions.
In Massachusetts, the Commonwealth’s groundbreaking Clean Energy and Climate Plan pledges to develop 23 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2050, on the road to reaching a 100% clean energy supply and net-zero emissions. Approved projects in the first three rounds of procurements for offshore wind totalled 3,200 MW of capacity, and Governor Maura Healey recently announced her intentions to add at least 3,600 MW to in-development or under-contract projects in the next round. Vineyard Wind, the crown jewel of Massachusetts’ offshore wind initiative, accounts for a fourth of the commonwealth’s approved MW of capacity. The project is predicted to generate electricity for over 400,000 homes and businesses across the commonwealth while also reducing annual carbon emissions by 1.68 million metric tons.
Despite these lofty projections, a dark storm of opposition brews over the project. Four lawsuits have been filed against Vineyard Wind thus far, all of which claim that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management failed to adequately evaluate the project’s potential impact on local fishermen and marine mammals such as the endangered North American right whale. These lawsuits cite reports from fisheries scientists that outline how repeated construction blasts into the ocean floor could contribute to massive “fish kills”, as the sound waves produced by blasts can cause stress for marine animals and ultimately disrupt their feeding and spawning habits. Additionally, construction of extensive trenches to connect turbines to onshore transmitters could lead to increases in the amount of suspended sediment near the ocean floor — which likewise interferes with reproductive and feeding behaviors of aquatic life — and the permanent loss of juvenile cod habitats.
Loss of livelihoods and lack of compensation for commercial fishermen is another major concern of the project’s opponents. Scott Lang, the former mayor of New Bedford, Mass., stated that “The great majority of the people who rely on going out to fish will be squeezed out of the industry. This is going to be the final nail.”
In response to the lawsuits, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management claimed that it had conducted a thorough, cumulative impact analysis before approving the project. This included the removal of six initial turbine locations to accommodate fishing traffic and the establishment of agreements restricting vessel speeds, limiting construction noise, and stopping construction during migration season to protect the right whale. Vineyard Wind developers also added that they installed bubble chains to absorb sound during foundation installation, laid down subsea cable corridors to avoid sensitive benthic habitats and eelgrass beds, and aimed to minimize sediment dispersion and dredging with the use of jetplows.
Nevertheless, it seems that certain “concerns” over marine life and the fishing industry disguise ulterior motives. Investigative sources including HuffPost and Fast Company have found that several opponents of offshore wind farms across the Northeast are funded by the fossil fuel industry. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which represents five fishing companies and the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind, has a long history of attacking solar and wind energy projects and promoting fossil fuels. The foundation is sponsored by major oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. Likewise, Fast Company tracked funding for local nonprofit Nantucket Residents Against Wind Turbines to the Caesar Rodney Institute, which receives donations from fossil fuel industry groups like American Energy Alliance and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
On the Congressional front, Republicans led by Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., issued a resolution in March 2023 urging President Biden to impose a nationwide moratorium on offshore wind until further studies are conducted on environmental and economic impacts. Rep. Drew had conveyed his strong opposition to offshore wind in a tweet earlier that month, remaring that “Pro-wind activists and the Biden admin are hiding the REAL issues of offshore wind development from the public, and many in our media are refusing to properly examine these concerns. They hurt the environment, raise energy prices, and will destroy existing industry.”
Conservative opposition to offshore wind, especially in the context of Biden’s climate agenda, is certainly not a surprise. Support for traditional fossil fuels has long been an ideological cornerstone of the GOP — the key to boosting domestic energy production and American prestige on the international stage. The irony of Republican concerns over offshore wind-related environmental damage was not lost on Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., who noted that “this interest in whales just suddenly springs up when offshore wind is starting to take off and threaten fossil fuels.” Thus, while it is unclear whether political opposition to offshore wind stems primarily from a distaste for left-leaning climate agendas or the encouragement of fossil fuel campaign funds, the offshore wind industry has quickly become a prominent policy issue embroiled in American political polarization.
As a result, the future of offshore wind in the U.S. is as uncertain and vulnerable as ever. The Biden administration hopes that Vineyard Wind will launch America into a new era of carbon-free electricity: Over the next decade, 3,411 turbines and 9,874 miles of underwater cable are expected to be installed across 2.4 million acres of federally-controlled ocean. But this presents a perfect opportunity for fossil fuel interests to halt the development of future American offshore wind projects and stamp out ambitious federal and state renewable energy goals. The financial woes looming over the offshore wind industry, stemming from persistent inflation and supply chain shortages, complicate matters even further. Whether Vineyard Wind prevails to fulfill its energy and environmental promises, the project’s outcome may very well determine the future of renewable energy in the U.S.
