ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Many Alaskans have opposed proposed data center development in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and on the North Slope. Some residents don’t believe they belong in Cook Inlet, either.

Earlier this year, the East Coast company DeepGreen Cook Inlet released plans for a 100-megawatt subsea data center with as many as 350 underwater turbines and 66 “hives” housing artificial intelligence servers, both powered and cooled by water in Cook Inlet.

Louis Wolfson, a managing member for company DeepGreen and luxury real estate developer based in Needham, Massachusetts, said the proposal seeks to work around some of the constraints facing traditional, land-based data centers: a need for both large plots of developable land and significant amounts of energy from the local grid.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accepted DeepGreen’s preliminary Cook Inlet permit application on Sept. 1, triggering a two-month public comment period.

While this permit does not authorize construction, it does serve as a small step forward. A preliminary permit, if issued, would give DeepGreen priority to apply for a license while the company studies the site.

A decision on whether or not to issue the permit will be made once the comment period closes and all feedback and other filings are reviewed, said commission spokesperson Ashley Ingebrigtsen.

If successful, the project would be among the first of its kind in the United States. DeepGreen is now searching for manufacturers with hardware that can withstand Cook Inlet’s extreme tides, heavy silt and ice, Wolfson said in an email Wednesday.

So far, motions to intervene have been filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

All of the motions express concern over the lack of consultation with neighboring communities and the possible harm a data center may cause to Cook Inlet’s salmon fisheries and endangered beluga whale population.

“The scope and the scale and sort of insanity of this project just doesn’t belong in the inlet,” said Cooper Freeman, the Center for Biological Diversity’s Alaska director.

Wolfson said the company welcomes motions to intervene, and studies of fisheries and marine life are a “mandatory part of the process.”

“If a design puts the fishery or marine mammals at risk, it will never get licensed to operate,” he said.

The underwater data center would also be a first for DeepGreen, which does not yet have a website nor a project page with information about the company or the technology it plans to use. Its initial project application also contained a number of errors that temporarily prevented its application from moving forward.

Maine residents have strongly opposed a similar proposal by DeepGreen in the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, also known for its powerful tidal patterns.

Many Alaskans have been reluctant to encourage data center development in the state. Earlier this year, critics submitted a flood of comments to public land managers in opposition to a proposed North Slope data center project. Residents and lawmakers are opposing a massive proposed state land transfer that could be used to build data centers near Houston.

So far, the Cook Inlet proposal has not been well-received, either. Those who submitted motions to intervene, like Freeman, described having been surprised by the project.

The Center for Biological Diversity closely tracks projects in Cook Inlet, Freeman said, and harvesting its tidal energy is not a novel idea.

For the last 20 years, the nonprofit has engaged in advocacy and lawsuits meant to ensure energy projects in Cook Inlet protect the beluga population and other species from water and noise pollution and disturbance from vessels, offshore drilling and spills, the nonprofit’s Sept. 1 motion to intervene reads.

With hundreds of turbines proposed, Freeman said he had never seen a project of this scale. It immediately raised red flags.

Noise generated from installing and running turbines that would power the data center could disrupt beluga feeding and communication and displace the whales from “important habitat,” the motion states.

Recent reports show the water passing through the data centers could release “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, copper and other pollutants, he said.

“I’m just deeply concerned that we continue to look at Cook Inlet as an industrial sacrifice zone,” Freeman said.

According to a motion to intervene submitted by the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, DeepGreen’s proposal did not assess how a possible data center could impact the more than 1,300 active commercial fishing permits in the Upper Cook Inlet.

The commercial salmon fishery historically brings nearly $10 million in revenue to the region, the motion states.

“(The project) represents a direct, substantial, and immediate threat to commercial fishing gear, vessel navigation, salmon migration corridors, and the marine environment upon which ACFCA’s membership depends,” the motion reads.

Alliance President Russell Clark, a longtime commercial fisherman based on the Kenai Peninsula, said he first heard about the project through Facebook. He filed a protest under an emergency rule allowing the president to bypass the board in the case a matter “requires immediate attention.”

The 3-mile project footprint falls in the East Foreland Corridor of Cook Inlet, its narrowest point. The proposal lacks information on how the heat produced by the data center when the tides are slack could influence salmon runs, Clark said.

The alliance also submitted a motion to intervene against the Maine data center proposal, led by company DeepGreen Western Passage. Wolfson also represents that project.

In a Sept. 21 response filed to the commission, DeepGreen said the modeling and studies requested would occur during a three-year study period.

“A preliminary permit doesn’t give us permission to build anything,” Wolfson said in an email. “It just lets us spend our own capital studying whether the idea makes sense.”

While further environmental evaluations are pending, both Clark and Freeman questioned whether the company had the expertise to carry out a project like this. The proposal struck Freeman as one where an out-of-state company is “prospecting” the obvious places that have powerful tides: Cook Inlet in Alaska and Maine’s Bay of Fundy.

DeepGreen has also proposed that its project could serve as a renewable energy source, funneling spare electricity to the local grid.

However, there is concern the DeepGreen project will give “thoughtful, well-planned tidal energy” a bad name, Freeman said, citing a lack of engagement with local tribes, governments and fishermen.

The Kenai Peninsula Borough also submitted a motion to intervene to ensure the public “receives sufficient notice and is afforded the opportunity to comment,” according to the Sept. 14 motion.

Borough Mayor Peter Micciche said his expectation is that the project is not viable, given the harsh environment and “screaming eight-knot” currents of Cook Inlet. With decades of experience in the commercial fishing industry and energy sector, he’s seen many proposed inlet projects never built.

Still, the community would like to remain informed, he said.

“We demand contact and discussion,” Micciche said Thursday.

Since filing, he said borough leadership has heard from DeepGreen and scheduled plans to meet.

Wolfson said DeepGreen plans to hold public meetings in Alaska once the company brings equipment partners on board and outlines study plans.

Residents can file comments, motions to intervene and competing applications online at ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx through Nov. 2.

______

©2026 Anchorage Daily News. Visit at adn.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.