Below is a letter to Michael Gendron at the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) written by Murray Miller, a neighbor and resident of Falmouth Heights, regarding his “concerns with the Proposed Changes to Massachusetts State Constitution Article 97 as outlined in the draft regulation 301 CMR XX.00”.
Mr. Miller asked if we could post his “opposition letter to the cables project that still may land in our neighborhood” saying that he is “certain that many residents and close neighbors don’t even know about this and if we have any chance of stopping it, we’re going to need everyone to pull together.”
While FHMNA has been notifying our members about this issue, we agree with Mr. Miller that it can’t hurt to forward his letter with organized, bulleted concerns.
Please feel free to forward this letter as well as all of our information (on fhmna.org or in your email boxes) to anyone you think might be interested in writing a letter to Mr. Gendron by tomorrow at 5 PM.
Dear Mr. Gendron,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to Massachusetts State Constitution Article 97 as outlined in the draft regulation 301 CMR XX.00. I am deeply concerned that these changes would significantly weaken the protections afforded to the people of the Commonwealth under Article 97, which safeguard clean air, clean water, and natural resources, while ensuring environmental preservation and local community input.
My specific concerns are as follows:
1. Erosion of Environmental Protections:
- Article 97 was enacted to protect the public’s right to clean air and water, and to preserve the natural, scenic, and historic resources of the Commonwealth. The proposed changes prioritize expedited permitting for energy projects over these vital protections. This would set a dangerous precedent, allowing developers to bypass safeguards that ensure environmental and community well-being.
2. Diminished Local Input and Oversight:
- By streamlining permitting processes under a centralized state authority, such as the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB), the proposed changes would significantly reduce the influence of local governments and communities in the decision-making process. This undermines the voices of the residents who are most directly affected by these projects.
3. Impacts on Falmouth and Similar Communities:
- As a resident concerned about the potential designation of Falmouth as a cable landing site for the SouthCoast Wind project, I am alarmed by the implications of weakening Article 97 protections. Our community’s natural resources and quality of life should not be sacrificed for the convenience of developers.
4. Lack of Public Awareness:
- Many residents remain unaware of the proposed changes and their long-term implications. The limited outreach and initial notice regarding the December 2024 public hearing suggest a lack of transparency in the process. Extending the comment period and holding additional hearings is a step in the right direction, but more effort is needed to ensure widespread public engagement.
5. Balancing Clean Energy Goals with Environmental Integrity:
- While I support clean energy initiatives, I firmly believe they must not come at the expense of fundamental environmental protections. The proposed changes shift the balance too far in favor of expedience, threatening the very resources that clean energy projects aim to preserve.
I urge the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to reject these proposed changes and preserve the integrity of Article 97. Protecting our natural resources and ensuring fair and transparent processes should remain a top priority as we pursue a sustainable energy future.
Thank you for considering my concerns. I would appreciate confirmation that my comments have been received and recorded.
Sincerely,
Murray Miller