Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Offshore Wind Fisheries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fishermen urge state fund as panel weighs regional offshore‑wind mitigation plan
Summary
Fishermen and coastal lawmakers pressed for Connecticut-specific mitigation and a state seat at the regional fund, while DEEP and clean‑energy groups said a multistate fund and federal permitting process provide the best path for consistent mitigation across the East Coast.
Commercial fishermen and some coastal lawmakers told the Environment Committee that offshore wind development along the Atlantic coast has disrupted fishing grounds and marine life and that Connecticut should ensure a state‑level mitigation mechanism alongside a regional fund.
Why it matters: Connecticut is in the path of multiple offshore wind projects planned or contracted by neighboring states. Fishermen testified that turbine siting, cable corridors and construction noise can change fish behavior and reduce access to traditional grounds. Multiple testifiers asked the committee to back either a state mitigation fund or state‑specific protections to ensure fishermen, marine wildlife and local economies are compensated and protected.
DEEP’s view: Deputy Commissioner Mason Trumble and Justin Davis, bureau chief for natural resources, said the state has been working with 11 other states since 2021 to establish a single regional fund and a framework for mitigation. Davis described efforts to develop agreed eligibility criteria, a claims process and a regional fund administrator selected through procurement, with hopes the fund would be operational by 2026.
Fishermen and coastal advocates: Several fishermen and state lawmakers — including Sen. Heather Summers and Rep. Rob Callahan — said a regional fund could dilute Connecticut’s voice and called for additional state guarantees. "Putting up enough money toward mitigation doesn't mean it's not doing damage now," Rep. Callahan said. Senator Summers said Rhode Island built a state mitigation mechanism on top of regional work and urged Connecticut to consider doing the same.
Industry perspective: Renewable energy stakeholders told the committee a single regional fund offers consistency and economies of scale, and stressed that federal permitting and procurement already include mitigation measures. The American Clean Power Association warned an overlapping state fund could be duplicative and urged support for the regional administrator selected by the states.
What’s next: DEEP said it will continue to participate in regional negotiations and emphasized prior inclusion of fisheries conditions in state energy procurements. Lawmakers signaled an interest in ensuring Connecticut fisherfolk have a seat at the table as the regional fund shapes eligibility and claims processes.
Ending: Committee members asked DEEP to report back with details about state representation, the regional fund's governance and a timeline for operational readiness so lawmakers can decide whether a state supplemental fund is warranted.
