Jay, ME
Androscoggin Mill Data Center
JGT2 Redevelopment · Status uncertain
Former paper mill site proposed for redevelopment into a data center by Sentinel Data Centers LLC, a $550M plan that prompted Maine Gov. Mills to veto a statewide data-center moratorium (LD 307) specifically to protect it -- the veto held after the House failed to override it 72-65. In June 2026, Sentinel notified site owner JGT2 Redevelopment that it did not intend to move forward; the site is reportedly being shopped to other operators, so its future is unresolved.
Estimated water use
EstimateNo published facility capacity (MW) is available yet. No estimate is shown without a published figure.
Lifecycle timeline
ObservedConfirmed events only, each with its source.
April 24, 2026
Gov. Mills vetoes statewide data-center moratorium, citing the Jay project
LD 307 would have banned data centers over 20MW until Nov 2027; Mills said she would have signed it if it exempted the Jay project.
SourceApril 29, 2026
Maine House fails to override the veto, 72-65
Override needed a two-thirds majority in both chambers; the House vote fell short, so the moratorium did not become law.
Source~June 2026
Sentinel Data Centers withdraws from the project
Town manager Shiloh LaFreniere said Sentinel notified the site owner it did not intend to move forward; the developer is reportedly pursuing other operators.
Source
Observed hydrologic data
ObservedFrom nearby USGS and NOAA monitoring stations, refreshed monthly. Dashed lines mark lifecycle milestones.
Groundwater level (ft below surface)
2 stations, overlaid
Precipitation (in)
NOAA Livermore Falls 3.7 SSW, ME (GHCND:US1MEAN0049) · monthly average
Regulatory records
ObservedWater permits and environmental compliance records from EPA ECHO.
JGT2 REDEVELOPMENT LLCJAY, ME
0 inspections on record · 0 formal enforcement actions · full ECHO report ↗
JGT2 REDEVELOPMENT LLC - JAYJAY, ME
0 inspections on record · 0 formal enforcement actions · full ECHO report ↗
Drawdown story
AssessmentIs the water table's behavior near this facility consistent with its estimated draw — and how strong is the evidence? A fixed rubric, recomputed monthly; every number below is stored with the inputs that produced it. Method: attribution-v1.
1 · Pathway
This facility withdraws surface water — its estimated draw acts on a river or pond, not this local water table.
2 · Detectability
Expected drawdown at the nearest monitored well could not be computed (no water-use estimate is available).
3 · Signal
No monitored well within 2 miles of this facility — there is no near-field record to compare against controls.
No local withdrawal pathway — estimated draw does not reach this water table directly.
Attribution evidence score: withheld · as of 2026-07-22 · attribution-v1