A conceptual rendering included in a recent state report shows what Maine’s offshore wind port on Sears Island could look like. Image courtesy of Moffatt & Nichol

Federal officials have rejected Maine’s application for $456 million to build an offshore wind port at Sears Island, dealing a blow to the state’s efforts to enter the offshore wind industry.

“We knew the grant program would be extremely competitive and that our application was ambitious,” Maine Transportation Commissioner Bruce Van Note said in a statement emailed Tuesday. “We believe the result is a reflection of the fiercely competitive nature of this program and that it does not reflect, or undermine, the widely recognized need for this port, the strong merit of Maine’s plan or the vast economic and environmental benefits associated with port development.”

Paige Sterling, a media adviser at the U.S. Department of Transportation, said in an email that the agency does not comment on requests for funding, “but noting that, as with last year’s awards, these programs were significantly oversubscribed.”

The department received about 200 applications requesting more than $27 billion, “far exceeding the amount of funding available,” Sterling said.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Monday announced more than $4.2 billion for 44 projects the agency says will improve safety, mobility and economic competitiveness by building major bridges, expanding port capacity, redesigning highway interchanges and more.

Maine officials did not say what the next step may be for the state as it looks to build floating offshore wind turbines and site them in the Gulf of Maine. Van Note said state officials are waiting for a decision about federal funding to help with design and permitting work.

“Our work will continue as we examine other opportunities to secure funding to advance this critical port infrastructure,” he said.

The Mills administration applied in May for the funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation to build the port on Sears Island, in Searsport. Opponents favor nearby Mack Point, which already is industrialized and offers port facilities. The Sears Island site is undeveloped and is popular with hikers and other visitors.

A group of environmental advocacy groups, including the Maine Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Council of Maine and the Maine Labor Climate Council, said the federal decision “has not changed the fact that we need a port to create good union jobs, power our economy with affordable, clean, homegrown energy, and protect our coasts and communities from the worst impacts of climate change.”

Rolf Olsen, vice president of the board of Friends of Sears Island, which manages a portion of the island set aside for conservation, and an opponent of the Sears Island proposed site, said the federal decision “would appear to be a significant financial blow” to develop the manufacturing facility.

“We’re somewhat encouraged that the state’s port development grant application was turned down, especially since it only considered developing Sears Island and not Mack Point,” he said.

Gov. Janet Mills announced in February that Sears Island on Penobscot Bay is the preferred site to assemble and dispatch wind turbines to the Gulf of Maine. State officials say it will cost nearly $100 million less to build there than at the next-best location at Mack Point. The state owns a 100-acre parcel on Sears Island where a wind port could be built, avoiding lease payments at Mack Point. The Sears Island site also will not require dredging, the state says.

Paul Merrill, a spokesman for the Maine Department of Transportation, said that despite the federal decision, Sears Island remains the “best option” to build a port for economic, environmental and logistical reasons. He cited a recent state report that explains why it considers Sears Island the best of 23 possible locations for the wind port. It details the state’s offshore wind port goals, defines the minimum design criteria and other considerations to build a wind port, and says Sears Island and nearby Mack Point are the two best options.

“It would be wrong to interpret this decision as a comment on the location of a port,” Merrill said.