In another move aimed at offshore wind, the fishing industry is attempting to take its fight against Vineyard Wind to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA), a national coalition of fishing industry associations and companies, and the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) filed separate petitions last week requesting the Supreme Court to review decisions by a lower court.
Both organizations unsuccessfully petitioned to shut down Vineyard Wind — the first large-scale offshore wind project approved in the U.S., located 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard — in the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston last year.
The petitioners say the project was rushed through by the Biden administration in an effort to establish an American offshore wind industry, without considering the consequences.
RODA, which also names offshore wind projects Revolution Wind and South Fork Wind in a different court filing, alleges that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the agency responsible for permitting offshore wind projects, failed to adequately analyze the impact of offshore wind projects, and didn’t engage fishermen enough.
In particular, RODA argues that approving the project was based on the Interior Secretary’s 2021 “reinterpretation” of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. RODA argues the secretary must ensure that the sea and seabed for a fishery be protected from any approved activities. The plaintiffs say the secretary ignored Vineyard Wind project’s “devastating impacts” on the fishing industry.
TPPF made similar allegations, questioning whether the court of appeals should have deferred to the bureau’s interpretation of the law, and whether its decision conflicts with a 1986 ruling in the case Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission, which states “an agency literally has no power to act, let alone pre-empt the validly enacted legislation of a sovereign state, unless and until Congress confers power upon it.”
The challenges are another wave of difficulties for Vineyard Wind. Developers are currently analyzing any potential damages from a lightning strike that hit one of its turbines late last month. This was the same turbine that fractured one of its blades in July, which was also at the center of an investigation by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement after debris fell into the water and washed up on some beaches.
And President Donald Trump has made clear his intentions to upend the offshore wind industry, beginning with a January executive order that halted the approval of new permits at new lease areas for offshore wind.
Whether the Supreme Court will actually take up the cases is another story. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge from Nantucket-based anti-offshore-wind group ACK for Whales in January, which alleged federal agencies failed to ensure Vineyard Wind would not jeopardize the survival of endangered and threatened species, especially the North Atlantic right whale.
According to the National Constitution Center, the Supreme Court receives around 10,000 petitions annually, of which it hears around 70 cases.
A BOEM spokesperson told The Times in a statement the agency’s policy is not to comment on litigation.
“BOEM reaffirms its unwavering commitment to manage development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf energy, mineral, and geological resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people,” the statement reads in part.
Craig Gilvarg, Vineyard Wind spokesperson, declined to comment.
Stunning!
Can the local fishers show underwater video of every single wind tower and prove the fish are not thriving there?
“South Fork Wind … ‘regularly see both commercial and recreational fishing vessels in the area.’”
Which infers the fishing is quite good.
https://newbedfordlight.org/can-fishermen-fish-inside-offshore-wind-farms/#:~:text=Some%20recreational%20fishermen%20report%20that,be%20beneficial%20to%20all%20species.
Mary,
First, why do you automatically believe that South Fork Wind is telling the truth. Did South Fork give you evidence.. videos, fish population surveys, government environmental and ecological impact reports that support their self interested propaganda? The federal and state governments have departments that should have compiled this documentation prior to approval of South Forks wind permit.
Second, fisherman work long hours, during rough weather, heat and cold temperatures. Do you think they have underwater cameras and the technology expertise to satisfy your request?
Please explain your reasoning?
Here is an excerpt from the Cambridge Energy Research Associates annual conference this week. Below is a link to read the full text by Chris Wright. “Wind and solar, the darlings of the last administration and so much of the world today, supply roughly 3% of global primary energy. You often hear larger numbers quoted but that is because of a thermal equivalent scale-up. I don’t believe that scale-up is justified, hence I stick with the actual energy produced.
Everywhere wind and solar penetration have increased significantly. Prices on the grid went up and stability of the grid went down. Is this pathway really going to put natural gas in the rearview mirror? Nitrogen fertilizers, synthesizing natural gas is responsible for fully half of global food production.”
https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-chris-wright-delivers-keynote-remarks-ceraweek-2025
It’s about time, this project has been nothing but destructive, time to shut it down and decommission, enough already.
Put the generation of the Island’s power where it belongs, on the Island.
Does over the horizon look better?
Is Sandwich too close?
I think 40 years of study and actual wind farm operations around the world is sufficient. I have yet to see the devastating effects on the fisheries in any study. Actual verifiable detrimental effects. On the other hand I have seen studies that show an increase in marine life around these things. So let me address a larger point. That is that if some large fishing vessels can’t fish in these areas, certain species of fish might actually have a chance to recover from overfishing and have their populations increase. They will eventually venture out of these areas and can be harvested. It could be a win win. But to the point, I doubt this effort will get very far. These fishing groups would do better to spend their money on things that are more likely to actually benefit fisherpersons than a long shot effort at the supreme court.
Do the turbines decrease the number of fish?
Fishing boats?
Comments are closed.