Sustainability committee recommends not permitting large-scale AI/data centers for now

The Sustainability Committee advised the town not to permit large standalone AI or cloud data centers for now, urging the Town Council to wait for clearer state guidance before allowing them as an allowed use.

The committee, led by the Chair, reviewed materials from the Greater Portland Council of Governments and discussed a timeline for council consideration: a council workshop on Sept. 16, first reading Oct. 7, a public hearing Oct. 21 and a second reading Nov. 4 to meet a Nov. 30 moratorium deadline. Staff emphasized the packet’s pros-and-cons framework but told members that local ordinance specificity—definitions, review parameters and utility coordination—would be necessary if council considered permitting the use.

Why it matters: members said data centers can impose large, concentrated electricity and water demands, create potential wastewater and thermal-discharge issues, raise noise and neighborhood-compatibility concerns and pose questions about long-term reuse or abandonment of large buildings. Those risks, the committee concluded, outweigh uncertain short-term construction or modest local economic benefits at this time.

During the discussion, one committee member argued against an outright ban, saying the town should instead require mitigation: "If you can come up with a data center that is soundless, uses no electricity from the grid, uses no water ... then go after it," the member said. Staff replied that such "perfect" facilities are unlikely and that adding specificity to local rules would be more practical than leaving standards vague.

Public commenter Denise Hamilton, a Scarborough resident, told the committee: "All data centers need a backup way of producing electricity and water," and warned that even facilities that aim to be off-grid will rely on backup connections to utility systems. Her comments reinforced staff concerns about the need for confirmed utility coordination, backup-power descriptions and planned wastewater approaches.

Members flagged other technical and regulatory gaps: the initial application did not document coordination with the electrical utility, the potential for PFAS or other contaminants in cooling water (state rules change slowly), uncertainty about whether a town could require annual energy-use reporting or revoke permits for noncompliance, and the long-term risk of obsolete buildings that would require decommissioning funds.

The group settled on a noncommittal, precautionary recommendation for the Town Council: do not permit large-scale AI/cloud data centers as an allowed use at this time; provide a memo listing the GP COG pros-and-cons and suggested parameters for review if council chooses to entertain the use in the future; and revisit the question after state guidance or in 24–36 months. Staff said they would prepare the committee’s memo for council consideration.

Next steps: staff will draft language and a memo for the Sept. 16 council workshop and circulate a recommendation to council and the public; committee members said they could revisit the issue as state regulations and technology evolve.