The same state agency which has backed the controversial Cape Wind development could allow similar projects even closer to the Vineyard under the new Oceans Act, Cape and Islands Rep. Eric T. Turkington said this week.

The new law, signed by Gov. Deval Patrick in May, lifts the previous blanket ban on alternative energy proposals in state waters, opening up the prospect of wind or other energy projects within three miles the Island.

Vague language in the act appears to make the state energy facilities siting board (EFSB) the final arbiter on what is permissible within three miles of the Island, not the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, Mr. Turkington said.

The Cape Cod Commission and Cape Wind are currently locked in a dispute over whether the EFSB trumps the powers of the commission when it comes to reviewing the land transmission portion of the Cape Wind project. The matter is expected to be decided in court.

But Mr. Turkington said this week he believes the new Oceans Act clearly gives the ultimate decision-making power to the EFSB in any such future disputes between developers and local regulatory bodies.

Mr. Turkington’s position puts him at odds with Cape and Islands Sen. Robert O’Leary, who was involved in negotiating the provision of the Oceans Act, and who presented the new law as something which would strengthen the power of local people to determine what happens in local waters.

Mr. Turkington explained that before the Oceans Act, there was a blanket ban on alternative energy proposals in local waters, under the terms of the Ocean Sanctuaries Act.

“A number of folks over the years have promoted wind proposals in the three-mile area, [and] the response was that such structures were not permitted in the area,” he said, adding:

“A couple of years ago there was such a proposal for Buzzards Bay. The proponent got the same response and began agitating for a change in the rules.

“Now we have one. There no longer is a blanket prohibition against structures of this nature, although the new act provides a process to ascertain which were good and not-so-good places to do this,” he said. He continued:

“Part of that process involves having a review by a commission which has regulatory powers, of which there are only two, the Cape Cod Commission and the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.

“But I believe if you look through the bill, above a certain project size, the EFSB, which currently has jurisdiction over land-based energy projects, would also have jurisdiction over the sea.

“The general thrust of it all is to change the rules of the game in favor of energy projects, which is clearly this governor’s intent.”

He noted the act refers to “appropriately-scaled” energy projects, but the term is not defined.

Senator O’Leary yesterday defended what he said was “purposely unclear” language of the legislation; he said a community consultation process now in train and a broad-based ocean advisory commission appointed to further develop the Oceans Act, will clarify what is appropriate.

“In terms of what’s appropriate scale, I don’t have an answer. It’s one of those things that if you see it you know it,” he said.

“Is it seven windmills, 10 windmills or 15? I guess it depends on where it is and how big it is. No one’s quite worked it out.”

He said legislators originally considered defining the scale of acceptable proposals in terms of their power output, or some other criteria.

“But if you write that into law, things can change and come back to haunt you,” Mr. O’Leary said.

He said his “guess” was that the MVC had adequate power to set the rules, but he conceded a final definition, as in the Cape Wind case, could hinge on a future legal ruling.

“But we specifically say the commission has powers to declare an offshore proposal to be a development of regional impact. I think it puts the commission in a very strong position, relative to the energy facilities siting board,” Mr. O’Leary said, adding:

“I’m no lawyer, but that was the intent.”

About the best that can be said, both men agreed, was that the future regulatory regime remains unclear.

It is hoped it will be made more clear by the end of next year, after the advisory commission completes a round of community consultations and produces a management plan.

A first step in the process was taken on Tuesday night at the MVC office in Oak Bluffs, where Senator O’Leary, the state assistant secretary for ocean and coastal zone management, Deering Babb-Brott, and Jo-Ann Taylor, MVC coastal planner and a member of the advisory commission, heard from about 20 local residents and representatives of various stakeholders.

Ultimately, the goal is to produce a detailed set of guidelines on what uses are suited to which areas of water around the Island.

The factors to be considered are many, as the range of concerns expressed at the meeting showed. They ranged from the welfare of sea ducks to aquaculture to tidal power generation.

Senator O’Leary declared at the beginning of the meeting the intent of the Oceans Act was to “put public purpose ahead of private purpose.”

And near the end of the meeting he conceded: “We’re at the front end of this bill. By definition it’s fairly vague. The hope is over time as acquire more information, science, and public input, we can add layers to make it more responsive.”

But as Ms. Taylor noted, it is very difficult for people to make detailed submissions “when they don’t know exactly what they’re responding to.”