EASTPORT — Public hearings on two citizen-initiated ordinances targeting a proposed underwater artificial intelligence data center in the Bay of Fundy’s Western Passage will be held next month.
There will be separate hearings for each ordinance, starting at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 5, at at the Port Authority building.
One ordinance would prohibit large-scale data centers in Eastport city limits, including the proposed DeepGreen Western Passage project, and the other would require voter approval for commercial and industrial development of structures based on size.
The ordinances were developed by the Eastport Coalition for Healthy Oceans, or ECHO, and presented to the City Council last month with more than enough signatures to get the proposals on the November ballot.
In February, DeepGreen applied for a 48‑month preliminary permit with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct engineering and environmental studies — the first step toward developing the tidal‑powered underwater AI data-center, according to the filing.
Almost immediately, Eastport residents started pushing the City Council to oppose the project, which councilors did in May by sending a letter to developer Louis Wolfson. The Washington County Commission sent a letter to Wolfson in April saying the project is too risky for the region, which commissioners wrote has a “long, involved history, dependency and respect for maritime industry.”
At a council meeting earlier this month, a resident asked councilors why they haven’t formally asked DeepGreen to amend its preliminary permit application for clarity around a Community Benefits Agreement between DeepGreen and Eastport, citing a demand letter sent to developer Louis Wolfson in July by the Passamaquoddy Tribe. That letter rejected any relationship with DeepGreen and demanded the company update its FERC application to correct anything that might imply otherwise.
Tribal Chief Amkuwiposohehs “Pos” Bassett said in the letter sent by the Tribe’s attorney, that “Despite DeepGreen’s public characterizations about collaborating with the Tribe on your proposed project, the Tribe is not interested in partnering with DeepGreen on the Western Passage Project through the Memorandum of Understanding, Community Benefits Agreement, or otherwise.”
Bassett was referring to language in the FERC application that defines prospective agreements between Eastport and DeepGreen, and the Passamaquoddy Tribe and DeepGreen, respectively.
In the letter, he also said “Tribal leadership is in fact very concerned about the Project’s potential impacts on fisheries and other cultural resources. Based on our current understanding of the Project, we don’t see these impacts as being the kind that can be mitigated or redressed through an agreement.”
Similar sentiments have been expressed at recent meetings by residents of Eastport, warning the council to take action swiftly and early in the process to mitigate unknown economic and environmental distress.
The prospect of a looming CBA between DeepGreen and Eastport has been a question of transparency for the people of Eastport as early as March when resident Birdy Velveteen attempted to gain access to communications between the city and DeepGreen Western Passage through a Freedom of Access Act request sent to City Manager Brian Schuth.
An email exchange between them shows Velveteen was told the only communications, at the time, between DeepGreen and the City of Eastport included a 15-minute phone call in February, at the time of application, the contents of which were called very general.
In an email Schuth wrote, “Mr. Wolfson expressed interest in working with the community,” but no negotiations were conducted.
Wolfson told Monitor Local when asked for clarification on his communications with the Tribe and the City of Eastport, that “I have not sent a draft MOU or CBA to the Tribe.”
Regarding Eastport, Wolfson confirmed, “no formal CBA has been discussed or presented to the Eastport City government at this stage.” He echoed the same reasoning as Schuth, stating that it’s too soon for this kind of agreement, adding the company is focusing on environmental testing and gaining grant funding.
However, Wolfson shared communication with Monitor Local showing he’s been in contact with the city and Washington County as recently as May, when he emailed Washington County Manager Renée Gray and Schuth with a memorandum and asked that it be delivered to Washington County commissioners and the Eastport City Council by the end of that same business day.
In his email, Wolfson explained his commitment to the working waterfront as “a property manager and developer who has operated within coastal dynamics for 40 years,” and said that he thinks public opposition comes from wide misunderstanding of the purpose of a FERC preliminary permit, which he called “a right to study, not a license to construct.”
Earlier this month, Schuth responded to public outcry over the application with a deficiency letter to FERC, rather than a demand letter to Wolfson.
FERC requested an update to a DeepGreen application for a preliminary permit to build a data center in Cook Inlet, Alaska, stating Exhibit 1 of that application “does not provide the dimensions and physical composition of the subsea platform, turbine array, universal docking cradle, subsea-compute hives, and silt protection systems,” which is necessary to the application.
Schuth wrote to FERC that, “it appears to me that docket P-15424 also suffers from this same deficiency,” referring to the proposed Eastport project.
