BOSTON — Supporters of several offshore wind bills told the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy on July 9 that the measures would strengthen Massachusetts’ clean‑energy transition, create jobs and protect consumers and wildlife. They urged the legislature to give favorable reports to bills including House Bill 3501 and Senate Bill 2279 and related measures addressing procurement, wildlife protections and community benefits.

The bills “support climate progress through sustainably developed offshore wind,” Casey Bowers, vice president of government relations for the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said in testimony. Amanda Barker, clean energy program manager at Green Energy Consumers Alliance, called offshore wind “Massachusetts’ most scalable clean energy resource” and said long‑term contracts would protect consumers from fossil‑fuel price spikes.

The bills would expand state procurement targets and add provisions that, supporters said, would require developers to offer workforce development commitments, registered apprenticeship participation and local hiring priorities. Ryan Murphy, executive director of Climate Jobs Massachusetts Action, urged attention to workforce standards so offshore projects produce “good paying union jobs” and long‑term operations and maintenance employment.

John Rogers, associate director for energy analytics at the Union of Concerned Scientists, highlighted reliability benefits. He summarized analysis indicating that 1,500 megawatts of offshore wind — roughly the capacity of Vineyard Wind plus Revolution Wind — would have reduced winter blackout risk, and that 8,000 megawatts would reduce the average number of high‑risk winter days from about 60 to two in the analyzed period.

Supporters also said properly sited offshore wind attracts port and manufacturing investment and reduces local air pollution. Joshua Litke of the Sierra Club and Dr. Tara Miller of the National Wildlife Federation said the bills include measures to protect wildlife, including advisory councils and monitoring requirements to minimize impacts on species such as the North Atlantic right whale.

Industry and trade witnesses urged complementary storage and interconnection reforms that would allow the grid to integrate wind and solar at scale. Kate Daniel of a community solar trade group and Kat Burnham of Advanced Energy United supported provisions to expand storage procurement and a 2035 solar deployment goal to give market clarity.

Opposition was not central to this panel, but members of the committee and later witnesses pressed proponents on details including labor timing, interconnection timelines and how the bills interact with the administration’s energy affordability package. Nathan Rake of Renew Northeast cautioned that some bill provisions risk duplicating or conflicting with regulatory work required by the 2024 Climate Act and the Energy Facilities Siting Board rules that are still being implemented.

The hearing produced no votes. Proponents asked the committee to advance the bills with language that preserves federal and state permitting authorities while ensuring community benefits and wildlife protections.

If the committee reports the bills favorably, supporters said, Massachusetts could signal continued state leadership for offshore wind while aligning investments with labor standards, wildlife monitoring, and measures to stabilize rates for residents.

Sources: testimony to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, July 9, 2025. Quotations and data points come from Casey Bowers (Environmental League of Massachusetts), Amanda Barker (Green Energy Consumers Alliance), John Rogers (Union of Concerned Scientists), Ryan Murphy (Climate Jobs Massachusetts Action), Joshua Litke (Sierra Club), and Dr. Tara Miller (National Wildlife Federation).