|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A national fishing industry group and conservative think tank have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up their lawsuits challenging the approval of the Vineyard Wind project, which has been under construction since 2023.
The lobbying group, Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA), sued the lead government regulator of offshore wind in early 2022, alleging the agency violated several acts, including those to protect existing ocean users and endangered species.
At the crux of RODA’s appeal to the Supreme Court is the language of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and particularly, how the federal government interpreted it.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), which represents fishermen and a fishing company in Rhode Island in another lawsuit, is similarly arguing the federal government did not correctly interpret statutes in its approval of the Vineyard Wind project.
RODA has long argued that offshore wind farms will interfere with fishermen’s ability to catch fish, reduce vessel safety at sea, and potentially harm the viability of commercial fisheries.
But RODA lost its case twice: first, in 2023 in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, where a judge sided with the project and regulators; and second, in 2024 in the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where the judge upheld the lower court’s decision.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation also had its case dismissed by the lower courts.
RODA says the Interior Department during the first Trump administration correctly interpreted statutory language, requiring that the Interior Secretary “shall ensure” approved activities, including offshore wind projects, are consistent with a requirement to prevent interference with “reasonable uses” on the outer continental shelf, including the use of a “seabed for a fishery.”
RODA says Biden’s Interior Department in 2021 reinterpreted the statute in order to green light Vineyard Wind, interpreting the “shall ensure” language to mean that the factors should only be “considered” or “balanced” against other ocean users and interests.
In its approval of projects, the government evaluates and balances sometimes competing interests from existing users, which include the fishing industry, the military, marine mammals, and tribes, to name a few.
Through its interpretation, the Biden administration subsequently authorized several other offshore wind projects along the East Coast, which overlap with commercial fisheries to varying degrees.
Lane Johnston, executive director at RODA, said they are asking the Supreme Court for guidance on how the OCSLA language should be interpreted.
“There’s no clear injunction request or anything like that,” Johnston said. “But understanding what the language means is what we’re asking for.”
TPPF in a statement Tuesday used stronger language, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the court decisions that permitted Vineyard Wind.
“It is part of an ambitious initiative of the former Biden Administration to diminish demand for fossil fuels throughout the nation,” the conservative think tank said. “The Vineyard Wind 1 project was rushed through and approved despite environmental, safety, and national security risks. Last July … warnings came true when an enormous windmill blade the size of a football field collapsed into the ocean, scattering fiberglass debris for miles and closing beaches on the East Coast.”
That’s in reference to the blade failure at Vineyard Wind, which has prompted the removal of faulty blades from at least 22 turbines (a third of the project total).
It’s unclear whether a ruling in favor of the Trump administration’s language could affect authorizations for Vineyard Wind, now issued years ago. The project is in the process of installing 62 turbines south of Martha’s Vineyard.
The project is now under review by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, along with all other offshore wind projects, per an order from President Trump that also froze all offshore wind permitting and leasing.
Burgum is explicitly tasked with conducting a “comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases.”
The Supreme Court receives 7,000 to 8,000 petitions per year, and only hears and issues opinions on fewer than 100. That’s less than 1.5%.
Per a federal guide, it takes six weeks on average once a petition has been filed for the justices to act on it. The other party to the suit also has 30 days to file a response to the petition.
The Supreme Court in January, just before Trump was sworn in, declined to take a case from ACK For Whales, a group suing several federal agencies for permitting the Vineyard Wind project. The group had filed a similar petition, called a writ of certiorari, that September with the highest court after it lost its case in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), filed a motion in opposition to ACK For Whales’ petition last fall, defending its position and legal standing to authorize the wind project.
But now, the agency is operating under President Trump, who has put a target on offshore wind development. Before Trump was elected to office (and after), legal experts warned existing legal challenges are another tool that could be used to work against the industry.
A Trump administration Department of Justice could less vigorously challenge lawsuits against wind projects and the government agencies permitting them, The Light previously reported. Or it could voluntarily agree to take another look at the issue being contested in court (which could mean undertaking another time-intensive environmental analysis).
All of this can add time to the process, which can create further uncertainty and increase project costs for the industry. One project already announced it could see up to a four-year delay on its project, also planned for south of Martha’s Vineyard, under Trump.
Before any of this can happen, though, the Supreme Court has to agree to take up the fishing industry’s petitions.
Email Anastasia E. Lennon at alennon@newbedfordlight.org.
Wind pays twice as much as fishing.
Ten times safer.
Your pay does not depend on the the luck of the catch or gear breakage.
When the weather gets ugly you go home into your home port.
You get paid the same out working, or along side due to weather.
Supporting our city, state, and country’s fisherman 100%.
Before making foolish unsubstantiated comments, I suggest you study the subject matter.
Do you have any idea how the fishing industry operates? Judging from your comments, I seriously doubt it!
I know how the fishing industry works.
With a high injury rate.
And drug consumption rate.
If you don’t catch fish you do not get paid.
If the boat breaks you do not get paid.
Wind pays twice as much as fishing.
No bad fish smells.
If the fishing industry wants to target someone for the collapse of fisheries worldwide their aim is off center. Big Wind and renewable energy are the only industries who are actually making positive changes in our energy sector. The warming of our planet also sadly enough warms our oceans, this warming is and will continue changing our traditional fisheries. Any marine species that is temperature sensitive is migrating towards the poles or cooler waters. It’s just this simple and the evidence is overwhelming and documented at this point.