massenadatacenterwatch.org
What they say

What the company says — and what the record shows

These are the company's own statements to the Planning Board, quoted verbatim from the town's May 21, 2026 minutes. We concede what's true, we say what's unproven, and we name what belongs on the record before any vote. That's how we argue: honestly.

How to read this page: a company telling a board something is not the same as it being proven. Every quote below is real and preserved — the verbatim record lives on Resources. For each one we say what we accept, what's still an open question, and what we're asking the review to pin down.

1. “No new generation required”

"No new generation required; reallocating existing approved capacity (435 MW approved, 200 MW pending)."

The company says — May 21, 2026 minutes

The true part: the 435 / 200 split is the company's own accounting, faithfully quoted.

The open question: St. Lawrence County's own Planning Director has publicly noted that of the 635 MW the project needs, only about 200 MW is actually accounted for — one reason the project is far from settled.

We ask that the full power math — where every megawatt comes from, and what's actually secured — be put on the record before any determination.

2. “No discounted power rates. Paying full market rates.”

"No discounted power rates. Paying full market rates."

The company says — May 21, 2026 minutes

The true part: our own research points the same way — the operation appears to buy power off the wholesale grid, not cheap public dam power. We say so plainly.

The open question: "we pay market rates" is not the same as "your bill is safe." When a crypto operation scaled up in Plattsburgh, NY, residents' bills spiked — and Plattsburgh became the first U.S. city to pause crypto mining.

We ask for written answers: who pays for any grid upgrades, and what a 635-MW load does to local rates.

3. “Employee count to increase to 200”

"Employee count to increase to 200; 2,000 construction jobs projected over 18-24 months. Tax contributions expected to increase 5x."

The company says — May 21, 2026 minutes

The true part: there are real jobs on that site today — about 60, by the company's own count — and jobs matter in Massena. We don't wave that away.

The open question: "projected" and "expected" are promises, not commitments. Nothing in the record makes 200 jobs or a 5× tax contribution enforceable if the numbers come in short.

We ask that the jobs and tax figures be entered as enforceable conditions of any approval — with consequences if they aren't met — not as assurances.

4. “Closed-loop cooling system”

"Transitioned from open-loop to closed-loop cooling system… no water withdrawal/discharge from/to St. Lawrence River. Cooling system uses <4,000 gallons in a closed loop with glycol mix… They will be bringing water in from an approved outside party to fill up cooling tanks."

The company says — May 21, 2026 minutes

The true part: if it's real, a closed loop with no river withdrawal or discharge is the right direction. Credit where due.

The open question: it's a claim, not a verified design. A number under 4,000 gallons for a 635-MW campus is exactly the kind of figure a full study exists to check.

We ask that the closed loop be proven with a full water mass-balance in the environmental review — and written into any permit as a condition, not assumed.

5. “Reduced from 316 to 115”

"Backup generators used for emergency situations, were reduced from 316 to 115; run only for maintenance (1 hr/month each) or emergencies (max 4 days/year)."

The company says — May 21, 2026 minutes

The true part: a reduction from 316 is a real change, and the runtime limits described are reasonable-sounding on paper.

The open question: even after the reduction, the plan is 115 backup generators — the company's own number — and the runtime limits are, so far, words in a presentation.

We ask for the air permits and enforceable runtime limits on the record in the environmental review.

6. “40 dB at nearest residences”

"Comprehensive studies show 40 dB at nearest residences (comparable to a refrigerator hum). Additional sound barriers and natural attenuation planned."

The company says — May 21, 2026 minutes

The true part: the company has committed to acoustic modeling, and sound barriers are a real mitigation tool.

The open question: 40 dB is already the threshold where the WHO says nighttime noise begins to harm health — so even the company's own best number sits at the line. And at a comparable crypto site in North Tonawanda, NY, a police study found the plant exceeded that city's 50 dB nighttime limit every night, drawing citations and a two-year moratorium. That's the comparison, not a Massena measurement — we're careful about that.

We ask for worst-case, nighttime acoustic modeling at the property line — and an enforceable property-line noise limit written into any approval.

7. “Subject to extensive state and federal review”

"Subject to extensive state and federal review (SEQR, DOT, DEC, Army Corps, SHPO, tribal agencies)." … "Public hearing to be scheduled; notifications via town website, local paper, and Facebook."

The company says — May 21, 2026 minutes

The true part: yes — and that's a commitment we intend to hold them to.

The open question: "extensive review" only means something if the deepest tool in the box gets used. Under SEQR that's a Positive Declaration and a full Environmental Impact Statement — and no determination has been made yet. Meanwhile, the town's own notice record shows how easy these meetings are to miss: see the June 25 notice trail.

We ask for the full Environmental Impact Statement — and public hearings noticed loudly enough that the room is actually full.

Agree these questions deserve answers? Put them on the record — it takes ~3 minutes →