Watch editorial · August 19, 2026
● Documented
Keith Frey’s letter puts the major data-center questions in one place
Keith Frey’s recent letter in North Country Now pulls together nearly every major concern surrounding the proposed NYDIG data-center expansion in Massena: the confusing public process, our industrial history, water and cooling questions, the enormous demand for electricity, the possibility of higher costs being pushed onto regular people, and the connection between data-center growth and billions of dollars in new power generation.
Start with the public process.
The Planning Board meeting was rescheduled and then canceled. At the time Keith wrote his letter, residents had no replacement date. The Aug. 20 agenda now includes an NYDIG presentation on “major changes” to the proposed project, but the public still has not been given a clear explanation of what those changes are.
That’s the problem.
People should not have to keep chasing PDFs, meeting changes, and website updates to find out what is happening with one of the largest industrial proposals Massena has ever considered. If the changes are major, the explanation should be public, complete, and easy to find. Residents should have time to read it, understand it, and ask questions before any decision is made.
Keith is also right to push back when concerned residents are dismissed as “outside groups.”
Massena residents are involved. Former industrial workers and their families are involved. Akwesasne is downstream. Nearby communities also have a legitimate interest in what happens to the river and the regional electrical system.
Massena should make its own land-use decisions, but that does not mean we stop listening at the town line. When a project could affect the river, the electrical grid, and surrounding communities, those people have every right to speak.
Then there is our industrial history.
Massena knows what industrial pollution looks like. This is not a theoretical concern pulled from some other community. EPA records document PCBs and other contaminants in the soil, groundwater, and river sediments around the former Reynolds property. Thousands of pounds of PCBs were removed from the St. Lawrence River. Other contaminated areas were capped and still require monitoring.
That history does not prove this project will cause another environmental disaster. It does mean the burden of proof belongs with the applicant.
Keith is right about that.
Before Massena approves another enormous industrial use at this location, NYDIG should have to show exactly how construction and operation will affect the land, groundwater, stormwater, and nearby river cleanup. “We don’t expect a problem” is not enough.
The cooling system is a good example.
The company says it will use a closed-loop system. Okay. Show us the whole loop.
Where does the original water come from? How much replacement water will it need? What chemicals will be used to treat that water? Will the system produce blowdown or other wastewater? Where will that wastewater go? What happens during maintenance, leaks, or equipment failure? How will stormwater be kept away from contaminated soil and capped areas?
Keith also raises PFAS, discarded electronics, and the waste created over the life of these facilities. Those questions belong in the review too. We should know what comes onto the property, what leaves it, and where it ends up.
Then there is the sheer size of this.
The NYDIG/NCCS project under review is approximately 635 megawatts. That is not a normal commercial development. It is an enormous industrial power load.
And Keith is looking beyond this one application. The larger queue of proposed data centers shows that Massena could be dealing with the beginning of a much bigger rush.
Maybe every proposal will not be built. That is not the point. The number and size of the proposals tell us Massena needs a town-wide plan before it starts approving them one at a time.
The electric-rate question may be the most immediate concern for many families.
Massena has something valuable: inexpensive public power. That power should benefit the people who live and operate businesses here. It should not become an indirect subsidy for private computing companies.
If a 635-megawatt project requires new substations, transmission lines, generation, or other grid upgrades, who pays?
Keith is right to ask whether those costs will eventually reach ordinary customers. Other communities have already seen large data-center loads put pressure on electrical systems and rates. Massena should require a binding answer before approving anything: NYDIG and its investors pay the full cost created by their project. Residents do not.
The nuclear connection Keith describes is real too.
Assemblyman Scott Gray has said that large, steady customers such as data centers can help make new nuclear projects “bankable.” That tells us data-center demand is now part of the argument for building billions of dollars in new power generation.
If these projects need each other financially, the public deserves to understand the arrangement.
Who buys the power? Who guarantees the debt? Who absorbs a cost overrun? What happens if the data center closes, scales back, or becomes obsolete while the public is still paying for the infrastructure built around it?
Those are fair questions. They should be answered before any public money or public guarantee is placed at risk.
Keith’s conclusion is that Massena needs a moratorium. We agree that Massena needs to hit pause.
Where we phrase our position a little differently is on the final decision. Keith calls for denial. We are saying Massena should not approve the expansion until there is a full Environmental Impact Statement and a complete public record.
If that review proves the project cannot be built safely or without shifting costs onto the public, then the answer should be no.
If it moves forward, there should be no tax breaks, no public subsidy, and no handshake promises. Jobs, water use, cooling, wastewater, noise, backup generators, grid costs, and public reporting should all be covered by enforceable conditions.
That is not an unreasonable standard for a 635-megawatt industrial project beside a sensitive river cleanup. It is the minimum standard Massena should accept.
Keith did residents a service by putting these issues together in one letter. He is not raising fringe concerns. He is asking the questions responsible local government should already be asking.
We have been going through the meeting records, environmental history, and company statements ourselves. We keep ending up in the same place he did.
Slow this down. Put the complete record in public. Make the company prove its claims. Protect residents from the financial risk. Then let Massena make a decision it can live with.
Keith hit the major points. We agree.
Sources and local record: Keith Frey’s letter → · Aug. 20 Planning Board agenda → · EPA Reynolds cleanup record → · Water and cooling record → · Studies and rate precedents →