Maine lawmakers are considering two new bills aimed at stopping the state’s ongoing efforts to build a port facility on Sears Island for offshore wind power development, including one that would expand a conservation easement that currently only applies to part of the island, and another that would restore protections for a sand dune on the island.
Both of the bills are part of a larger push by local activists, tribal members and mostly Republican lawmakers to protect the island after Maine has spent more than a year trying to develop the wind port there.
If either bill passes, it would represent another blow for a project that has already encountered some recent challenges, including the federal government last fall turning down Maine’s request for $456 million to fund it, and the return of President Donald Trump, who has stopped federal leases for ocean wind power.
One of the new bills, L.D. 226, would expand an existing conservation easement approved 16 years ago that protects two-thirds of the island from development. It would place the remaining third of the island, which the state is now able to develop for transportation purposes, into the easement.
The other piece of new legislation, L.D. 735, would — among other things — reverse a law passed last year that allowed the state to remove a sand dune for the project despite sand dunes being protected from removal in Maine.
During a hearing before the Legislature’s environment and natural resources committee on Wednesday, supporters of the new legislation argued for the environmental benefits of leaving the island mostly undeveloped. They also pointed to the cultural importance of the land to the Penobscot Nation. Some of them noted that nearby Mack Point is already industrialized and could serve as an alternate location for the wind port.
The lead sponsor of both bills, Rep. Reagan Paul, R-Winterport, argued that developing the island would do harm to local ecosystems and fisheries. She asserted that the Maine Department of Transportation has wasted time and resources on this and other attempted developments of Sears Island, such as previous proposals for a cargo port and a liquid natural gas terminal.
“For decades, the Maine DOT has pushed an industrial port on Sears Island, wasting millions in taxpayer money and tearing our community apart,” representative Paul said in her testimony.
But the changes were opposed by members of the Mills administration, who argued that the state should stick with the original consensus agreement leaving one third of the island for development. They maintained that Sears Island would be a better location than Mack Point for the wind port.
Matthew Burns, who manages port and freight projects for Maine DOT, testified against both bills. He said that developing the port on Sears Island would bring jobs to the region as well as other environmental and economic benefits.
“These benefits are not necessarily exclusive to the offshore wind port project, but are consistent with most port infrastructure projects developed throughout the world,” Burns said. “To put it simply, if this is repealed as proposed, then the state would have very limited ability to even consider a viable port facility of any kind on the transportation parcel, an extremely valuable asset to the state.”