A group of Nantucket, Massachusetts residents are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the industrialization of parts of the Atlantic Ocean, arguing that offshore wind farms – developed with the federal government’s blessing – threaten an endangered whale species.

The group Nantucket Residents Against Turbines argues in its petition to the Supreme Court that “the federal government has lost sight of its statutory obligations to protect endangered species that will be directly impacted by the construction of thousands of wind turbines in the Atlantic Ocean. ”

They allege that federal agencies that allowed the leasing of water areas to wind turbine companies excluded certain data in their analysis in favor of offshore wind development.

“Despite the agency’s clear statutory obligation to consider all ‘best available information’ about the impacts its actions may have on endangered species and these habitats, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), have failed to the cumulative impact of other planned projects in issuing construction permits for the Vineyard Wind 1 project.”

Maine Lobsters Won BIG VICTORY IN COURT AGAINST BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S ‘PUNITIVE’ REGULATIONS

This September 20, 2013 file photo shows the first offshore wind turbine prototype created by the University of Maine near Castine, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, file)

The petition to the Supreme Court is the latest in a wave of opposition to offshore wind development that has been accelerated at the behest of the Biden-Harris administration, which has encouraged a goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030.

Consistent with this goal, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that President Biden signed into law in 2022 provided multimillion-dollar tax breaks for green energy production contracts.

Vineyard Wind, a joint venture between foreign entities Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, is the nation’s largest offshore wind project off the coast of New England, 25 miles from Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. The project was one of the first IRA beneficiaries.

Vineyard Wind boasted of a “first-of-its-kind tax equity package” worth $1.2 billion for commercial-scale offshore wind with three U.S.-based banks, calling it “the largest single asset tax equity financing and the first commercial-scale offshore wind project.”

“The Vineyard Wind 1 project is the first of the government’s ‘coordinated steps’ to build approximately 30 wind turbine projects along the Atlantic Coast that, when built, will have thousands of turbines covering millions of acres of flooded federal land,” the petition reads. states.

“Vineyard Wind LLC has constructed or partially constructed 47 of the 62 approved wind turbines, with each turbine located one nautical mile apart. When fully constructed, each turbine rises 253 meters above water level and is almost three times the size of the Statue of Liberty.”

The petition notes that the 47 turbines so far “have already begun to have adverse impacts on the Nantucket community, ocean environment, and marine species habitat.”

“Although this has not been included in any environmental impact study, problems with the turbines have also already started. In July 2024, a large portion of a 350-foot fiberglass and PVC blade broke off one of Vineyard Wind’s turbines into the water, and fragments of the turbine blade washed ashore and littered Nantucket’s beaches,” it notes.

‘DAMAGED BY NEGLIGENCE’: DAVE PORTNOY TAGS NANTUCKET WIND FARM AFTER BROKEN BLADE KILLS BEACHES

A North Atlantic right whale has breached the waters off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. (Photo: Stan Grossfeld/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

The petition argues that around the time of the Vineyard Wind 1 Biological Opinion, BOEM issued more than 25 offshore wind leases (under which at least one project will be built). However, in the Biological Opinion, NMFS openly stated that it had not taken into account the cumulative effects of these projects.

The North Atlantic right whale, which has been on the verge of extinction for more than 100 years, “will bear the brunt of the federal government’s shortening of the environmental review process,” the petition claims.

“Despite the obvious impacts that construction of wind turbines will have throughout the North Atlantic right whale’s migration route and now in its year-round habitat, the agencies have only assessed impacts caused by the project itself and ignored the obvious impacts of all other projects planned in the Atlantic Ocean.” – he states.

The petition argues that the Supreme Court should hear the case to decide whether to apportion the district between the Ninth and First Circuit’s rulings in the case, which conflict with each other.

“Petitioners ask the Court to reconsider the important issue presented in this petition to resolve the division between the circuits and to provide guidance to lower courts that will soon be faced with the same problem of how to protect endangered species while pursuing conservation goals. renewable energy – he states.

Recent months have seen a rise in criticism from the fishing industry’s claims that offshore wind production is unjustifiably prohibiting its operations, to unprecedented whale deaths and the Nantucket blade disaster.

Yet despite declining public favor, government officials continue to push for industrialization of record swathes of the Atlantic Ocean.

Earlier this month, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healy announced the largest single purchase of offshore wind energy in the state’s history, completing purchase agreements with SouthCoast Wind, New England Wind and Vineyard Wind II.

Rebecca Tepper, secretary of the state Office of Energy and Environment, said the state has concluded, “offshore wind is our future and it is critical that we build that future today.”

LOCAL FISHERMEN HITS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S NEWLY REVEALED PLANS TO INDUSTRIALIZE THE Gulf of Maine

A sign prohibiting wind turbines in front of a home near Cisco Beach in Nantucket, Massachusetts, Monday, Aug. 5, 2024. (Photographer: Scott Eisen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“By implementing large projects, we will lead the country in the global race for developers, ships, materials and expertise,” she said.

Annie Hawkins, executive director of the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, says offshore wind farms and government agencies are working together on why wind energy production isn’t hampered by warnings and environmental concerns.

“We have had the tail wagging the dog for a long time in the case of wind farm developers, energy companies and utilities, as well as investment banks and everyone else promoting offshore wind energy from a private sector perspective and from an economically significant investment perspective, which has far outpaced the approach to protection issues environment and thinking about offshore wind energy,” Hawkins said.

“This is not a surprise to me because the whole thing was arranged from relationships to staff in offshore wind companies. A veritable revolving door opens when dealing with federal and state agencies and companies in the offshore wind industry. The whole thing has been set up for a very, very quick takeover of the oceans, so they’re going to keep going no matter what happens,” Hawkins said.

A recent report by the Cato Institute found that while the offshore wind industry provides some of the largest tax breaks, its “high costs, which require significant – and growing – subsidies from ratepayers and ratepayers, will drive up electricity rates and reduce electricity consumption.” .

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The report also warned against economic deficits resulting from offshore wind energy.

“It is not possible for a system of green energy tax credits and other subsidies to increase economic growth,” the report concluded. “

“Forcing consumers and taxpayers to subsidize offshore wind farms at a cost of several million dollars per job each year – much more than workers receive – cannot increase overall economic growth and employment,” he said.

Fox News Digital reached out to BOEM and NOAA but did not receive a response by publication deadline.