This article was republished with permission from 海角精品黑料’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
The Maryland Department of the Environment is defending the permit it issued to a wind farm proposed off the coast of Ocean City, after a聽聽from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Thursday聽聽from Maryland Secretary of the Environment Serena McIlwain also said the state would not be reissuing the permit, as the EPA requested, because the state had not made a mistake that needed correcting.
The EPA had contended that when Maryland issued the permit to Baltimore-based company US Wind, it identified the wrong process for citizens to file appeals.
Amy Van Blarcom-Lackey, EPA administrator for Region 3, which includes Maryland and other mid-Atlantic states, contended in a July 7聽聽that any appeals challenging the air pollution permit issued to US Wind should be filed to the clerk of the EPA鈥檚 Environmental Appeals Board.
But Maryland argues that its permit would need to be appealed through the state courts, which would involve filing a challenge at the appropriate circuit court 鈥� in this case in Worcester County.
Notably, the due date for a state court challenge has already passed. It was set for July 14 鈥� about a month after MDE issued the permit, according to聽.
鈥淟ong-settled procedure dictates that state-issued permits are appealed under State law, not Federal law,鈥� McIlwain鈥檚 letter says.
That letter also cites written decisions issued by the EPA鈥檚 appeals board, including one that stated that the board 鈥渓acked jurisdiction鈥� to evaluate this type of permit.
鈥淢DE will not re-issue the permit and will continue to follow the proper state procedures to consider appeals,鈥� McIlwain concluded, near the end of the roughly two-page letter.
In an emailed response, the EPA stuck to its guns. An EPA spokesperson said the agency had notified MDE that the final permit decision 鈥渃ontains an error, with clear guidance on next steps. But they don鈥檛 seem to care about complying with legal requirements.鈥�
The MDE website for the US Wind project originally referenced both the state appeals procedure and the EPA process, but McIlwain said that information had been 鈥渋ncluded at EPA鈥檚 request. It has been removed, and language has been added clarifying that the Federal appeals process does not apply.鈥�
Authority to issue Clean Air Act permits like the one for US Wind is delegated to the state from the EPA 鈥� the basis of the federal agency鈥檚 claim for jurisdiction for appeals. That authority, specifically for permits on the outer continental shelf, was re-certified in early 2024 under the Biden administration.
The US Wind project, which is planned about 10 miles from Ocean City鈥檚 shoreline, is the wind project that is closest to construction in this region. The company, which leased the area in 2014, received a key permit from President Joe Biden鈥檚 (D) Department of the Interior at the end of 2024.
Final buildout of the project is still years away, but it calls for construction of 121 wind turbines, up to four offshore substations and one meteorological tower, according to the state鈥檚 website. When complete, the project could generate 2,200 megawatts of energy, enough to power up to 718,000 homes, according to the federal聽
Practically since its inception, the project has faced fierce opposition from local officials in the resort town, who cite concerns that beachgoers would lose a pristine ocean view if the turbines were visible from shore.
Since President Donald Trump (R) took office for his second term, offshore wind projects have landed in his crosshairs. Earlier this week, Trump announced that wind and solar projects would undergo聽聽under his administration.聽 Trump鈥檚 鈥淏ig, Beautiful Bill鈥� also rescinds tax credits for renewable energy projects that do not begin construction by next July.
In April, Trump appointed Blarcom-Lackey to lead the EPA鈥檚 Mid-Atlantic office. She succeeded Marylander Adam Ortiz, who moved to a deputy secretary role at MDE.
Two other companies have offshore leases in the vicinity of Ocean City and the Delaware beaches 鈥� 脴rsted and Equinor. While 脴rsted received its first lease area around the same time as US Wind, Equinor won its auction last year. Neither project have received its federal permits from the Interior Department鈥檚 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
鈥� This story was updated at 9 p.m. on Friday, July 18, to include EPA鈥檚 response.
