|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A longtime offshore wind critic is now employed by the federal agency regulating offshore wind.
Meghan Lapp, who has served as a fisheries liaison for Rhode Island commercial fishing company Seafreeze Ltd., now works for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, The Light confirmed Monday.
Lapp has been a longtime critic of BOEM over its review and approval of offshore wind projects, often citing concerns about impacts to the commercial fishing industry and whales.
She was involved in lawsuits against the federal government over its approval of wind projects, including Vineyard Wind. As a fishing industry representative, she often expressed opposition through detailed comment letters (complete with figures and footnotes) during BOEM’s yearslong reviews of projects, several of which are now in the water.
It is unclear what her position is within BOEM, or when she started. A spokesperson with the Interior Department late last week declined to confirm whether Lapp was employed by BOEM or answer questions, stating the agency has no comment related to personnel. A spokesperson for BOEM, a bureau within Interior, has not responded to inquiries.
Ahead of submitting a public records request on Lapp, The Light confirmed her employment with BOEM through its Freedom of Information Act office. The office had no information to share on her position or title within the agency.
Lapp has a master’s degree in legal science from Queen’s University Belfast. She sits on an advisory council for the New England Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm that addresses “policy and constitutional concerns related to free enterprise,” according to its website.
She also used to work in New Bedford, making nets and gear for commercial fishing vessels. With Seafreeze, she represented the company’s interests regarding offshore wind and fisheries management with government bodies at the local, state and federal level.
Lapp has appeared on Fox News several times to talk about offshore wind, stating last fall that offshore wind farms “will destroy the planet” and “degrade national security.”
National security is the latest argument the Trump administration has used to try to stop offshore wind construction, citing it when it suspended the construction of five projects off the East Coast in December. In January and February, federal judges issued injunctions allowing all five projects to resume.
“I would have a lot of concerns about [Lapp’s] ability to play any sort of objective role at BOEM and the conflicts of interest given her participation and Seafreeze’s participation in past lawsuits and maybe ongoing lawsuits,” a former BOEM official told The Light.
The Light attempted to reach Lapp on Friday by phone, and on Monday by text and email, but has not heard back.
This isn’t the first offshore wind critic the Trump administration has hired. Annie Hawkins, the former head of the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, a fishing industry group that has criticized offshore wind development, became legal counsel at NOAA Fisheries last year.
The fisheries agency works with BOEM in reviewing offshore wind projects, and holds the authority to approve or deny permits that developers need to begin or continue construction.
The permitting of offshore wind projects has been essentially frozen since last January, when President Donald Trump assumed office for his second term. BOEM, under new leadership, has sought to suspend the projects it once approved, and as a result, some developers are pulling out of U.S. waters entirely.
In a 2022 article on the Texas Public Policy Foundation website, Lapp said that offshore wind “poses the biggest threat to commercial fishing in the history of the United States.”
“BOEM approved the project regardless of impact to U.S. lives, businesses, and U.S. food production. They ignored what they knew was true,” she said. “There is nothing standing in the way of government overreach but you — the American citizen. You cannot leave it to the ‘professionals’ or take the attitude that ‘they’ will do something to address the problem. You are ‘they.’ If you stand back and do nothing, there is nothing holding it back.”
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
Finally! She’s brilliant, tireless, and knows how bad this industry is on the eastern seaboard of this country. I don’t know if she can undo ALL of the damage wrought by Biden’s BOEM, but I know she will be fearless and her sleeves will be rolled up.
What harm has wind done?
The industrial offshore wind industry started seismic testing before receiving all the necessary permits resulting in a marine mammal mortality rate that was anticipated within their own EIS. If the permits had been filed in a timely manner, mitigation measures could have been implemented.
The biggest threat to commercial fishing is commercial fishing. They won’t be satisfied until every one of their boats crumbles from poor maintenance and takes it’s crew to Davey Jones’ Locker.
There is no one more qualified than Meghan Lapp to work in ANY capacity at BOEM. She is highly intelligent and experienced. Bravo for her appointment!
We humans have much to lose with Trump, his policies, and lack of balanced science involving our environment. The wind and ocean currents are things that are available to us living here on the coast to utilize. It’s time everyone realized these natural elements can help the planet and save us from higher pollution and higher energy costs with good engineering and planning. I do not believe the whales and fish are what should be the most considered factor. We humans are most important in the long run. I’d like to think that much smarter folks and balanced scientists understand this and want to help our fragile environment for human and oceanic futures. I’ll continue to follow Denmark, Germany, Spain and others who have made great strides with wind power whose citizens totally approve of the cost reductions and less pollution in the air. As usual, Trump’s panels and such are not for the good of all, just a handful of cronies who will prosper from these schemes so that oil and coal can return to the glory days Trump seems to like so much.
What a superficial article.
Meghan Lapp is paid for by oil and gas bribes made to Trump. The reason we all know this is BS is that for one, Republicans have never cared about the environment. For them, our oceans are something to pillage and make money from. Secondly, fishermen are the worst destroyers of the environment. They have overfished our waters, destroyed oyster and scallop and eel habitat through dredging, and they think the ocean owes them a living without taking care of Mother Nature, which is the source of their bounty. Commercial fishermen are their own worst enemies.
I feel like every time The Light does an article about Wind it is a superficial take as they don’t want to alienate Trump supporters. Instead, why not do an article about how many countries are eliminating their need for oil and gas and powering homes on renewables?
The Light sources an article on Lapp from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a right wing “non profit” funded by oil and gas.
A quick search on Google came up with this:
The Texas Public Policy Foundation is funded through private donations from individuals, corporations, and conservative foundations. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit, it is not legally required to disclose its donor list.
Key Funding Sources:
Corporate & Fossil Fuel Interests:
Major donors historically include energy companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Koch Industries.
Conservative Foundations:
The think tank has received millions from organizations like the Charles G. Koch Foundation, Stand Together Trust, and the State Policy Network. Wealthy Individuals:
The organization was originally founded in 1987 with backing from prominent Republican donors such as James Leininger.
Advocacy & Transparency:
While the Texas Public Policy Foundation frequently advocates for free-market policies and deregulation, critics and transparency advocates often scrutinize their “dark money” operations due to the lack of public donor disclosure. You can explore more on their financial structure via the InfluenceWatch Profile or the OpenSecrets Organization Summary.
Where is the in depth reporting?
The Light needs to do better.
By the way, my dad was a lobster fisherman.
The hiring of Meghan Lapp by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has attracted attention because of her long history as one of the most prominent critics of offshore wind development in the northeastern United States. Before joining the federal agency responsible for regulating offshore energy projects, Ms. Lapp served as a fisheries liaison for Seafreeze Ltd., a Rhode Island-based commercial fishing company. In that role, she became a leading voice for fishermen concerned about the rapid expansion of offshore wind projects along the Atlantic coast.
The significance of Ms. Lapp’s employment stems from the fact that she spent years challenging BOEM’s decisions, often arguing that the agency underestimated the impacts of offshore wind development on commercial fisheries and marine ecosystems. She participated in public comment processes, submitted detailed technical critiques of environmental reviews, and supported legal challenges against federal approvals of projects such as Vineyard Wind. As a result, her transition from outspoken critic to employee of the very agency she criticized has generated both support and controversy.
Ms. Lapp’s primary concern has been the effect of offshore wind development on the commercial fishing industry. She has argued that large wind-energy lease areas occupy productive fishing grounds and may restrict access for fishing vessels. According to her critiques, arrays of turbines, associated cables, and increased vessel traffic could alter fishing operations, increase transit times, create navigational hazards, and reduce the economic viability of certain fisheries. She has also contended that federal environmental reviews often relied on assumptions and mitigation measures that were insufficiently tested or inadequately supported by long-term data.
Beyond operational concerns, Ms. Lapp has frequently questioned whether offshore wind development could affect fish populations and marine habitats. She has argued that construction activities, including pile driving and seabed disturbance, may influence fish behavior and distribution patterns. Her position has generally been that regulators should proceed more cautiously until additional scientific research can better quantify these effects.
One of the most widely publicized aspects of Ms. Lapp’s advocacy involved whale mortality. During a period when multiple humpback whales and other large whales stranded along the Atlantic coast, Ms. Lapp and several fishing-industry advocates argued that offshore wind surveys and development activities warranted greater scrutiny. She maintained that federal agencies had not adequately investigated possible links between offshore wind-related activities and whale deaths and called for more comprehensive research and monitoring.
Federal scientific agencies, however, have consistently stated that they have found no evidence establishing a causal connection between offshore wind site surveys and the recent increase in whale strandings. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reported that many whale deaths examined through its investigations were associated with vessel strikes, fishing gear entanglements, or causes unrelated to offshore wind development. While acknowledging that ongoing research is necessary, federal scientists have repeatedly stated that available evidence does not support claims that offshore wind survey activities are causing whale mortality.
Ms. Lapp’s concerns also extended into the courtroom. She was involved in efforts by fishing-industry organizations and other opponents of offshore wind development to challenge federal approvals of projects, including Vineyard Wind, one of the first large-scale commercial offshore wind farms in the United States. These lawsuits generally argued that BOEM and other federal agencies had violated environmental laws by inadequately assessing impacts on fisheries, navigation, marine mammals, and cumulative regional effects. Opponents contended that agencies relied on incomplete information and failed to fully evaluate the consequences of multiple wind projects being developed simultaneously along the Atlantic coast.
Federal courts largely rejected these challenges, allowing Vineyard Wind and other projects to proceed. Judges generally concluded that agencies had followed the procedures required by environmental review statutes and that the challengers had not demonstrated legal grounds sufficient to overturn the approvals. Nevertheless, the litigation highlighted continuing disagreements over how offshore wind projects should be evaluated and regulated.
The debate surrounding Ms. Lapp’s hiring reflects broader tensions in American energy policy. Supporters may view her appointment as an opportunity to bring fishing-industry expertise and a critical perspective into regulatory decision-making. Critics, however, may question whether a longtime opponent of offshore wind can serve impartially within an agency responsible for evaluating and permitting such projects.
Because BOEM has not publicly detailed Ms. Lapp’s specific duties or explained the reasons for her hiring, the ultimate purpose of her employment remains uncertain. What is clear is that her career has been defined by persistent advocacy on behalf of commercial fishermen and by challenges to the federal government’s approach to offshore wind development. Her move into BOEM places one of the industry’s most influential critics inside the agency at a time when offshore wind policy is a subject of significant national debate.
While Ms. Lapp has argued that whale deaths deserved greater investigation in relation to offshore wind activity, federal agencies and most marine mammal researchers have not found evidence that offshore wind surveys or construction caused the recent whale mortality events.
If you don’t like her because she is a Trump appointment just say so. Stop with the forever comments that just show your far left liberal bias.
Perhaps Ms. Lennon intends to write a longer piece on the back and forth between wind advocates and our government agencies. Here is a piece the NBL participated in back in 2023.https://www.propublica.org/article/fishermen-endangered-offshore-wind-political-power
I am glad to see Meghan Lapp get this position, after reading article after article, weighing the pros and cons on how Offshore Wind Projects affect our fishing industry, search and rescue operations, energy production, helping lower the coast of utility bills, and the short and long term effects on our environment there is no way that Offshore Wind is worth the investment.
How has wind affected our fishing industry, search and rescue operations and energy production?
Stop being so lazy and learn to read and do your own research.
I have .
Can you enunciate the negative affect of on our fishing industry, search and rescue operations and energy production?
You should never wonder why anyone does not respond to you. Again do your own research, Meghan Lapp and others have wrote at length on these subjects. So like so many others this request will be ignored. If you have some thing to say (agree or disagree), just make the comment, and move on.
I did do my research.
I found no negative impact of wind, other than 20+ $120,000 a year wind jobs.
See wind Crew Transfer Vessel salaries.
No New Bedford residents.
Two from Acushnet, one each from Dartmouth and Fairhaven.
One was from New Bedford, he moved to a Texas, living cosys.
What does your research show?
Maybe you should do YOUR own research which might show you her biases and why she is inappropriate for this job. She is a paid shill for big oil and gas and not really for fishermen at all.
That’s what the current administration advertises and wants you to think. Why do you think that is?
We all have to face reality over the energy we use—it has to come from somewhere! Better if it’s out of sight where we don’t have to look at it. We all need to grow up and smell the coffee. Yes there are drawbacks, but wind does not pollute our planet and stories of windmills killing whales or menacing the fishing industry are overblown! (forgive the pun) The best thing about windmills is once we have reliable nuclear energy we can just take them all down!
Our first nuke came on line 69 years ago
It was shut down 25 years later.
The maximum number of U.S. nuclear reactors to operate at the same time is 104, a peak reached in the early 1990s according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).Following decades of retirements, consolidations, and a few recent additions, the active fleet currently consists of 56 commercially operated nuclear power plants.
There are zero large-scale nuclear power reactors currently under construction in the United States.
Why should windmills be taken down.
Who will pay to take them down?
I think you need to grow up and smell the facts. You look pretty silly with ignorant comments like this. What do you mean out of sight!? How dare you make that assumption. Do you live on the Atlantic coastline. I would wager not. Take them down!? Are you kidding.? Look at the derelict Kamaoa Wind Farm turbine graveyard in Hawaii as an example.
What about fossil fuels? For example, just to operate Revolution Wind offshore of Rhode Island, this is the amount of fossil fuels required to operate. Diesel fuel: 157,213 gallons, bearing grease: 7735 gallons, hydraulic oil: 9864 gallons, transformer oil: 158,504 gallons, gear oil: 4094 gallons, glycol coolants: 30940 gallons. (Source: Revolution Wind’s numbers in their COP, tables 3.3.3-2 and 3.3.8-2)
These numbers don’t include what fuels and dirty materials are required to build any turbine or what is spilled or lost in the sea or wash up on a beach during construction. You think wind is does not pollute our planet or has an effect on our fragile oceans or coastlines? Green? Safe? Don’t think so.
Love my coffee and the way it smells, but I will disagree, and say the energy needs of our state are too great and we can not solely rely on Green Energy alone. It will always take a combination of Nuclear, Hydro, Fossil Fuels, Geothermal, Waste to Energy, Solar, and Wind to provide energy at affordable costs for all our residents that live in our cities and towns.
Supporting Meghan Lapp 100% and again to have an energy plan that solely relies on Green Energy alone (putting all our eggs in one basket) is very short sighted and makes no sense. The state of Massachusetts needs new Leadership, a new Direction, and a new Vision for our future.
Our eggs have never been in one basket.
Wind is an ‘egg’.
Like you comment, your eggs are scrambled, we all know you’re a wind cheerleader and that’s great, everyone is welcome to their opinion, but not everyone has to agree with you. You stating you found no negative impact from wind is nothing more than laughable. You need to take the blinders off, their are tons of negative articles out there and many comments here on the light that are not in favor of wind.