The timing couldn’t have been worse for Vineyard Wind, the New England offshore energy project that the Biden-Harris “Green New Deal” depends upon. Last week, a Boston appellate court heard arguments on the Seafreeze lawsuit, seeking to unwind the federal approval and remove the wind turbines already in place. The fishing families bringing suit had fair winds and favorable seas in the Boston court appearance.

This comes after a stormy season for the Vineyard Wind project. About two weeks ago, a massive GE turbine experienced a “blade failure” that sent fiberglass shards and debris into the waters off Martha’s Vineyard and forced the closure of six Nantucket beaches.

Quoted in the New Bedford Light, former fisherman Jerry Leeman said he and others have been warning about the dangers of these offshore wind farms for years.

“The Vineyard Wind windmills are taller than the Eiffel Tower. Their blades are longer than a football field,” said Leeman, CEO of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association. “When they fall, they endanger vessels and degrade the environment. We must stop the industrialization of our oceans to protect mariners and marine life.”

During Thursday’s argument, attorneys with the Texas Public Policy Foundation argued on behalf of the Seafreeze coalition, representing other fishing families in the region — and by extension, all of the hardworking Americans who make their living from our national waters.

The three-judge panel, appointed by President Joe Biden, seemed skeptical of the trial court’s determination that the fisherman coalition lacked an injury sufficient to sue. As Judge Seth Aframe pointed out, the dredge dumped on the seafloor during the multi-year construction process would kill the very fish depended upon by the Seafreeze parties to sustain their livelihood.

Why is a Texas think tank interested in an offshore wind farm in New England? Look at a map; Texas has 367 miles of coastline.

The attorney for the federal government urged the panel to rubber-stamp the federal government’s approval of the project. But the landscape for administrative law challenges to federal agency action has changed since the recent U.S. Supreme Court Loper Bright opinion, which eliminated Chevron deference.

The heart of our Outer Continental Lands Act (OCLA) argument was that federal law required that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ensure the safety and environmental protection from the Vineyard Wind project. But the trial court erred by deferring to BOEM’s belief that its review met this standard, without the trial court doing its own statutory examination as to what the law required.

As evidenced by the green shards of debris floating up on the Nantucket shore, BOEM clearly did not ensure that Vineyard Wind met these requirements. That’s because — in its rush to implement its “energy transformation” — the Biden-Harris administration ignored key environmental concerns and improperly allowed foreign-owned energy companies to move forward despite the harms to our domestic industries and environment.

As David Blackmon writes in Forbes, none of this inspires confidence in the federal government’s commitment to the safety of the environment — or of American workers.

“The net result so far of almost 3 years of activity is a single project — Vineyard Wind 1 — managing to place 10 turbines into operations for about 5 months before being shut down for safety concerns,” he noted.

The federal government is required to ensure safety and environmental protection by law when approving projects including offshore wind farms.

And officials knew this project came with risks — but they pushed ahead anyway, in pursuit of the Biden-Harris Green New Deal. Offshore wind is just another of the Biden-Harris administration’s sinking policies. Last Thursday’s arguments were the court’s opportunity to tack in a new direction by finding the approval of the Vineyard Wind project illegal from the outset, and ensuring that the tragedy of the last two weeks does not become as regular as the tides.