The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have both filed petitions with the country’s highest court, arguing that the Department of Interior did not follow the law when approving the project.
A national fishing group and a conservative think tank are pushing for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a pair of appeals centered around the permitting process for Vineyard Wind.
The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have both filed petitions with the country’s highest court, arguing that the Department of Interior did not follow the law when approving the project.
The petitions are the latest of many legal challenges that have been aimed at the planned 62-turbine offshore wind energy farm to the Vineyard’s south. So far, Vineyard Wind has beaten back several previous lawsuits and continues to be built about 14 miles off the Island.
Past rulings have upheld the federal government’s approvals for Vineyard Wind, and the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year declined to hear a challenge by a group of Nantucket residents.
RODA’s petition hinges on the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which allows the secretary of the interior to grant leases in areas offshore.
RODA claimed that the law requires the secretary to ensure the protection of the sea for a fishery. But in the Vineyard Wind approval, the secretary reinterpreted the requirement as only a single consideration weighed against the emerging offshore wind energy industry, according to the lawsuit.
“The commercial fishing industry has fed our country, and the world, since before the United States became a nation,” RODA said in a statement. “Now their livelihoods, along with their safety, shoreside-based family businesses, and our nation’s sustainable domestic seafood production hangs in the balance.”
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, which is representing several commercial fishing entities in the northeast, argued that Vineyard Wind will result in “momentous adverse impacts on marine navigation, public safety, the environment and national security.”
“It is part of an ambitious initiative of the former Biden Administration to diminish demand for fossil fuels throughout the nation,” the foundation wrote in a statement. “The Vineyard Wind 1 project was rushed through and approved despite environmental, safety, and national security risks.”
A spokesperson for Vineyard Wind, which has its operations headquarters on Beach Road, declined to comment on the case.
Vineyard Wind is still waiting to complete building its project after a blade snapped on one of the turbines in July. The project was the first offshore commercial-scale farm to be approved in the U.S.
Chances of having a case heard at the Supreme Court are slim. The Supreme Court gets about 7,000 requests to review cases every year, but only takes up about 100 complaints.
Offshore wind energy has been a target since the Trump administration took officer earlier this year. President Donald Trump has ordered all permitting of projects to be halted until a comprehensive review is undertaken by the secretary of the Interior.
Comments
Bravo! Hopeful common sense
Unwinding EdgartownBravo! Hopeful common sense will prevail and SCOTUS weighs in on this issue.
This is not good at all, we
Carol formerly ChilmarkThis is not good at all, we need that clean electricity. I'm sorry that the climate change deniers (and oil company funders of them) are once again trying to get the Supreme Court to block this - it's so stupid. People who worry about their views while ignoring sea level rise - hard to understand.
We need clean energy, but it
Jen EdgartownWe need clean energy, but it doesn’t need to be at the expense of our pristine views. The developers could have spent a little more money to place the turbines farther offshore, but instead they chose the cheapest route and the government went along. Placing them farther offshore won’t silence the oil companies, but it would silence many who believe in clean energy, but want it implemented responsibly.
Yes, Jen - in concert with
Carol formerly ChilmarkYes, Jen - in concert with regulatory pressure, they chose the least costly place that would hurt the oceanic environment the least. I read the EIR. Because those costs are recovered in electric rates, and MA already has the highest rates in the lower 48. I know that those with water views on MVY don't care about the electric bill, but most of our neighbors are not that fortunate.
Clean energy isn’t being
Liz Durkee Oak BluffsClean energy isn’t being implemented responsibly because it interferes with your pristine views? Fossil fuels are killing people, displacing people, starving people, and wreaking havoc with the natural world that we rely on for our lives. The problem is far more significant than a pristine view.
This should have never been
JHess EdgartownThis should have never been approved in such sensitive waters for Multiple Reasons. Sure there is a demand for renewable sustainable energy but start on land first and have a plan in place.
Hopefully this matter will be
John EdgartownHopefully this matter will be taken up and permission to build windmills revoked by the SJC. Ocean based wind energy is unreliable, expensive and destructive to the marine environment. Whales are dying at an unprecedented rate along the east coast likely due to the environmental insult imposed even at this early stage of construction. Yet these whale deaths are ignored and not reported by the news. The fishing industry is essential to life as we know it. The negative impact on views is less important but not inconsequential. If this goes forward it will turn out to be the biggest boondoggle scam in history.
You might want to research
Jackrun West TisburyYou might want to research the TPPF and see where their money comes from to bankroll their opposition to windmills and other energy initiatives. You decide if their motives are really to protect the environment.
These windmills are horrible.
Bruce David BarnstableThese windmills are horrible. Threat to the fisheries, whales, aircraft and vessels. Not to mention a blight, future eyeshore, unreliable and expensive electricity. Meanwhile, Julian Cyr and Maura Healy continue to force them on us.
The data has determined that
Robert Skydell Antigua, GuatemalaThe data has determined that the biggest threat to whales at this time is vessel strikes, not wind turbines. Additionally, the acidification of the ocean waters caused by over a century of burning coal and the subsequent rise in ocean temperatures has altered the marine ecosystem to the detriment of a wide range of species that call it their home. Invoking esthetic judgements is purely subjective.
RODA has already filed and
Tim Johnson TisburyRODA has already filed and lost two prior lawsuits. This is about delay and obstruction. Please look at the actual funding sources for RODA lawsuits. The hand prints on the checks are covered in oil.
Add new comment