The Cape Cod Commission has petitioned the state’s highest court to overturn the approval by the state Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) of the Cape Wind project.

At stake for the commission, though, is more than just the question Cape Wind’s future; it is the broader principle of its power in regulating development, and by extension, the power of its sister body, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.

Filed Friday, the petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court challenges the EFSB decision, made final late last month, to grant the Cape Wind project a super permit giving it all the remaining state and local approvals needed.

Among the approvals Cape Wind circumvented by going to the EFSB was that of the Cape Cod Commission.

On October 19, 2007, the commission denied Cape Wind’s application for approval as a development of regional impact, on procedural grounds, after a standoff between the commission and the developers over the provision of information relating to the project.

The commission, which has the power to regulate the land transmission portion of the project, requested information from Cape Wind, but Cape Wind refused to provide it. Cape Wind then allowed the clock to run out on its application, which was denied by the commission on procedural grounds because it was complete.

Instead Cape Wind went to the EFSB, which gave it approval. And now the commission has asked the state supreme court to decide whether proper procedure was followed on the land transmission portion of the offshore wind farm planned for Horseshoe Shoal.

In short, attorneys for the commission contend the EFSB does not have the legal right to trump them in this way.

The petition argues that the act governing the activities of the commission provides that its decisions may be appealed to the superior court or the land court, but not to the EFSB.

Created by an act of the state legislature in 1989, the Cape Cod Commission was modeled after the Vineyard commission, which was created in 1974.

“Where the legislature wanted the Cape Cod Commission to be subject to a centralized state override it said so explicitly . . .” the petition says, and cites as an example the regime relating to chapter 40B property developments, which may be reviewed by the state Housing Appeals Committee.

Furthermore, the appeal notes, Cape Wind’s petition to the EFSB did not comply with a requirement that it had made a good faith effort to obtain the necessary approvals and permits.

Evidence of this lack of good faith was in its late filing of certain information and refusal to provide other information — which resulted in the commission’s denial of approval.

The commission argues the EFSB did not meet its obligation to make findings with respect to public safety, had excluded evidence and refused to make findings with respect to adverse impacts on air traffic control radars and safety, marine radars and safety, the cultural, religious and historic practices of the Wampanoag tribes of Gay Head and Mashpee, and the impact on historic sites.

“Specifically, the EFSB refused to accept into the record, or reopen the hearing, to receive relevant information . . .” it says.

The commission also argues that the EFSB did not properly address the issue of whether the project was needed for the energy needs of the market area, and the cost of the power.

“Indeed the EFSB excluded evidence from the draft environmental impact statement and other sources to show that the cost of electricity from the project would be at least twice the cost of currently available electricity,” it says, continuing:

“The in-state impacts of the project will interfere with aerial and marine navigation, fisheries, historic and tribal interests and will provide energy at twice the current price.”

The commission contends that little weight should be given to the advantages Cape Wind would bring through cleaner air and lower consumption of fossil fuels, noting: “Absent those benefits, there is no public interest served by this project . . .”

It also claims the EFSB heard “incompetent hearsay evidence” relating the submarine cables, and denied the commission a chance to properly cross-examine this evidence.

The decision by the EFSB is widely seen by opponents of Cape Wind as being political as much as legal. Gov. Deval Patrick and his administration favor the development.

In a statement released yesterday afternoon, the commission said the appeal to the Supreme Court was intended “not to address the merits or demerits of this particular project, but to address the jurisdictional conflicts between the commission and the EFSB.” It continued:

“The commission’s jurisdiction is as wide as the EFSB’s is deep. Appealing to the highest court in the Commonwealth provides the quickest way to resolve the dispute and it is our hope that this will be settled in a matter of months,” said the statement, attributed to executive director Paul Niedzwiecki.

“The fastest way to permit and construct off-shore wind is to participate fully in the local process. The EFSB was created in 1973 to approve projects unduly burdened by local permitting processes. It was designed to prevail over unreasonable burdens masquerading as local interests, not to side step local interests entirely.”