EASTPORT — The City Council voted Wednesday to seek intervenor status with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, unanimously moving to secure a formal role in the review of an artificial intelligence subsea data center proposed for Eastport’s coastal waters.
Councilors also voted to file a letter of opposition with FERC, signed by all members, outlining their dissent toward the DeepGreen Western Passage SPV project. The proposal advanced in August when federal regulators accepted the company’s 48‑month preliminary permit application.
Intervenor status gives the city legal standing in the federal review, allowing it to submit evidence, file objections and challenge FERC decisions.
A letter shared online by the Eastport Coalition for Healthy Oceans, or ECHO, a local advocacy group opposing the data center, states that “intervenors have the right to challenge decisions in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, and only intervenors can request a rehearing on a final commission order.”
Two motions to intervene have already been filed.
Midcoast Solar filed the first motion, arguing the project could harm the company’s business operations.
Resident Carrie Cobb filed the second, telling FERC she regularly uses Eastport’s beaches and that her specific knowledge of the local energy industry gives her critical insight to participate in the review.
Both motions cite concerns about grid stability.
Louis Wolfson, managing member and developer at DeepGreen Holdings LLC and lead developer of the DeepGreen Western Passage SPV project, wrote in his final application draft that the data center would run entirely on tidal turbine power and would not connect to the grid.
A recent study published in ScienceDirect found that tidal turbine energy generation must have a grid tether or another supplemental power source to maintain continuous output.
The study also noted that other storage mechanisms have not been validated as reliable sole power sources for more than a few days during peak tides at a test site where tides were out of phase.
After applying for a preliminary permit, Wolfson told Monitor Local in an email that such a permit is “a license to study, not a license to construct.”
No agency, including FERC, has approved a construction permit for any subsea computing project in Eastport’s Western Passage.
The council’s motion for intervenor status followed a vote on two citizen-initiated ordinances at the same meeting.
One ordinance would prohibit large‑scale data centers in Eastport’s business district, including the proposed DeepGreen Western Passage project. The other would require voter approval for commercial and industrial structures based on size and location.
The council approved the data center ban as written and dismissed the voter approval ordinance on the advice of the Planning Board, which cited an opinion from law firm Rudman Winchell, the city’s legal counsel, calling the measure “unlawful and unenforceable” because it conflicts with the city charter.
Agnieszka “Aga” Dixon of Drummond Woodsum drafted the data center ban ordinance on behalf of ECHO. They received enough petition signatures to qualify for certification by the city clerk in June.
ECHO members said in Facebook posts and in meetings leading up to Wednesday’s vote that the voter‑approval ordinance’s thresholds — 25,000 square feet on land and 10,000 square feet in water — were intended to give residents a say on any development larger than what currently exists in Eastport.
The unique structure of the Eastport Port Authority, a quasi‑municipal entity with its own charter, means residents proposing any ordinance involving land or water must consider both the city charter and the port charter.
Port Authority Executive Director Chris Gardner has informally and vocally opposed the data center proposal, as has the City Council, which plans to submit a formal letter of opposition before FERC’s October deadline for comments and motions.
The council’s rejection of the voter approval ordinance has been a point of contention for ECHO members, who asked to present a letter to the council at Wednesday’s meeting. Members said they followed the charter’s process for requesting agenda items, but the request was denied.
In an email, City Clerk Tahirih Aaronsohn wrote, “The Council is not inclined to place the item on the agenda at this time,” and followed with instructions on how to submit a letter to councilors.
The denial prompted the group to release the letter online ahead of the vote, saying members had intended to present it at the meeting.
ECHO’s letter formally asked councilors to vote on a motion to apply for intervenor status on the DeepGreen project and to send a letter of opposition to FERC — both actions the council took Wednesday.
The letter was signed by petitioners Laurie Stone, Deborah Gillespie, Gunther Valentin, Birdy Velveteen, Joshua Nicholson and Suellen Hendrix, all Eastport residents.
The council followed ECHO’s recommendation and approved the large‑scale data center ban ordinance as written, even though Councilor Karen Raye had raised concerns about its language at an August Planning Board hearing.
Raye said the ordinance might not be strong enough if it covers only the B1 zone, also known as the downtown business district, adding, “I think we can make it stronger.”
After the vote, ECHO spokesperson Velveteen expressed confidence in Dixon, the lawyer who drafted the ordinance, telling Monitor Local that “there may be a reason she wrote the policy as she did,” and calling Dixon “a very experienced environmental lawyer.”
At the end of Wednesday’s meeting, councilors opened the floor for public comment.
ECHO member Gillespie thanked the council for acting on the data center issues.
Resident Jeanne Pegrum asked the council to move public comment ahead of new business and routine approvals so involved residents who “do their homework” could share their views before votes on major issues.
Pegrum said, “Once the vote happens, that ship has sailed.”
Council Chair William Boone replied: “Not necessarily. Motions can be undone, motions can be corrected, motions can be amended, motions can be withdrawn. A lot of actions can happen.”
Boone added that most agendas he has seen place public comment at the end.
FERC said it will consider intervenor applicants until Oct. 19.
Correction (Sept. 11): Agnieszka “Aga” Dixon drafted only one of the ordinances, not both.
