Senate bill would limit data centers' access to behind‑the‑meter hydropower at Millinocket site

A bill aimed at protecting local economic development at the former Great Northern paper mill in Millinocket dominated the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee's hearing on LD 912 on April 3. Sen. Chip Curry presented an amendment that would limit the amount of on‑site, behind‑the‑meter power that may be committed to data centers so that the resource can support a broader mix of industrial users and jobs.

Supporters said the site’s inexpensive hydropower is attractive to data centers, which can buy large blocks of energy and, proponents contend, could crowd out manufacturers and other employers that would create diversified local jobs. Shane Flynn of 1 North (the redevelopment entity for the mill site) told the committee the site has prospects for a salmon farm and a liquid biofuels plant that together could create more than 100 full‑time jobs and require tens of megawatts of power; Flynn said brokers are now “scouting activity from very large data center brokers,” and that communities must avoid “mono industrial dependence.”

The sponsor outlined the policy reason for the amendment: Maine law currently permits behind‑the‑meter commercial arrangements that let on‑site generation be sold to tenants and nearby properties without the seller becoming a transmission and distribution utility. He said the original filing was intended to be site‑specific (Millinocket) but that the reviser’s version widened the language; the amendment restores the site focus and places a limit (the amendment text proposes a 25 percent threshold) so a generator would not lose its legal classification while still constraining large single‑buyer offtake.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the hydroelectric asset size, interactions with existing Public Utilities Commission rules and past statutes, and whether other grid resources (for example, batteries) could create similar competitive conflicts. Bill Ferdinand, counsel for 1 North, told the committee the relevant statutory carve‑out in current law was created to allow the former mill’s on‑site generation to serve site users without making the generator a transmission and distribution utility, and that the Millinocket site is unique under that section of statute.

Representatives on the committee pressed for more detail on the local economic development goals the bill seeks to protect. Sen. Curry and proponents said they expect a diversified mix of employers attracted to timber, water and other regional assets; they asked the committee to limit data‑center offtake to preserve those opportunities. Several neutral and neither‑for‑nor‑against witnesses — including the Governor’s Energy Office, the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority and the Public Advocate — urged caution, noting national trends: data centers can expand demand rapidly, affect wholesale prices and capacity obligations, and may divert incremental clean electricity unless new clean generation is tied to them.

The bill drew testimony that the Millinocket hydropower nameplate is limited (Flynn said the plant is 26 MW nameplate, but effective dependable output is smaller under minimum‑flow constraints) and proponents warned large hyperscale data centers can seek hundreds of megawatts. No final committee action on LD 912 was recorded in the hearing portion of the transcript; members indicated they would continue the discussion at work session.

A final note: testimony and committee exchanges repeatedly distinguished between discussion (questions and planning) and formal action — LD 912 received an extensive hearing but no final vote or committee report in the transcript.

Ending: The committee closed public testimony on LD 912 after extensive back‑and‑forth; sponsors and proponents asked for a work session to refine language, address regulatory interactions, and consider whether parallel regulatory processes (tariff changes, PUC rulemaking) should be pursued to address rate and grid effects.