New Hampshire lawmakers to vote on deregulating cryptocurrency mining
A bill that has passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives and is set to be voted on by the state Senate Thursday would tie the hands of anyone trying to regulate cryptocurrency mining — a move heralded by libertarians and the crypto lobby but decried by environmentalists.
When introducing the bill, Rep. Keith Ammon, a New Boston Republican and the bill's sponsor, said it would 'give confidence to the industry that we're not going to discriminate against them because it's happened in other states.' Ammon pointed to North Tonawanda, New York, which The Buffalo News reported in 2024 banned crypto mining for energy and noise concerns.
If enacted, House Bill 639 would forbid state agencies and local officials from regulating cryptocurrency mining. It enshrines into law a protection for people to conduct in-home cryptocurrency mining. State agencies and local officials would be unable to ban cryptocurrency mining in their city, town, or elsewhere in the state under this bill. They would be unable to place sound limits on cryptocurrency mining, though miners would have to obey other sound ordinances. They also wouldn't be able to charge cryptocurrency miners additional money for any outsized impact they have on the electric grid. Finally, they'd be unable to prevent people from using cryptocurrency to buy or sell things.
Cryptocurrency mining is the process of generating cryptocurrencies — which are digital assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Dogecoin — using high-energy supercomputers. The computers essentially use trial and error until they've guessed the solution to a puzzle that unlocks the cryptocurrency from what is known as a blockchain. These virtual assets are often bought and sold for U.S. dollars or other currencies, making mining lucrative. Proponents of crypto hope it will one day be used as a regular currency, and some buyers and sellers have already adopted it as such.
'The benefit for projecting that we're friendly to mining is that it can help incentivize future generations,' Ammon said at a recent Senate hearing. 'We want to get out of this scarcity mindset that there's only a fixed pie of so much energy to go around.'
Ammon — who said he owns digital assets himself and is the chair of the nonprofit New Hampshire Blockchain Council — dismissed environmental concerns about cryptocurrency's effect on the planet and electric grids.
'There's some folks that believe Bitcoin mining is gonna raise the oceans, we're all gonna drown, or we're gonna boil the seas or something like that,' he said. 'All this section does is prevent municipalities from discriminating against the energy use.'
Ammon said this bill is based on the work of the Commission on Cryptocurrencies and Digital Assets, which was established by former Gov. Chris Sununu to study regulations for these digital assets, as well as model legislation circulating in other states. That model legislation was created by a Mississippi-based industry group called Satoshi Action Fund. The group seeks to promote cryptocurrency nationwide and boasts on its website that its policies have been implemented in four states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, and Oklahoma. The Satoshi Action Fund was also a consultant to the governor's cryptocurrency commission.
The bill also specifies that cryptocurrency mining and other operations are not considered securities or investment contracts. This has sparked concerns among regulators, including Katie Taylor, with the state Bureau of Securities Regulation, who said in a Senate hearing, 'It would prohibit the bureau's ability to protect New Hampshire investors.'
The bill has also drawn the attention of environmentalists in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
'What this bill says is shocking,' Cathy Corkery, chapter director of the New Hampshire Sierra Club, said. 'It devalues and demotes communities from being able to zone and govern the enterprises within its own borders.'
Corkery and her colleagues have several gripes with cryptocurrency mining. First, it's loud and usually runs 24/7, which in other communities has drawn intense ire from neighbors. It's highly energy intensive, so it causes carbon emissions and could become a strain on the electric grid. (Analysis from a Dutch doctoral student found that, as of May 2025, the electrical energy consumption of a single Bitcoin transaction is equivalent to that of an average U.S. household over 45.60 days.) And many operations use lots of water to cool down their equipment. (Another analysis from the same researcher found that an average Bitcoin transaction uses enough water to fill a small backyard swimming pool.) They're afraid this will raise utility bills and the hot water the facilities expel will hurt wildlife.
'The reality is that this isn't just some guy with a computer,' she said. 'These are supercomputers that suck up a lot of energy.'
Corkery is concerned how this will impact climate change, the state's electrical grid, and quiet communities unaccustomed to loud industrial noise. Most of all, she dislikes how it hinders local government oversight.
'It takes away a town's sovereignty,' she said. 'And it says you must allow this in your town.'
Corkery said she'd heard about this legislation in other states from her national partners and so 'had sort of an understanding of the experiences in other communities that had accepted this bill' before it came to New Hampshire. As such, the Granite State has garnered attention from people who have been fighting Satoshi Action Fund-endorsed legislation elsewhere.
Cyndie Roberson, a founding member of the National Coalition Against Cryptomining, called New Hampshire's HB 639 'a boilerplate piece of legislation written by one of crypto mining's biggest lobbying firms' and said Satoshi Action Fund 'shoot(s) this legislation out shotgun approach across states.' She pointed to Arkansas, where Satoshi Action Fund was successful in enacting the policies, as 'a cautionary tale.'
When Arkansas enacted the Arkansas Data Centers Act of 2023 and a slew of crypto mines came to the state, it was met by intense uproar, Little Rock Public Radio reported. In an interview with CBS News, Gladys Anderson, who lived near a cryptocurrency mine in Bono, Arkansas, described the 24/7 sound of roughly 17,000 computer fans running in the mine 'like a form of military-grade torture.' In 2024, responding to the blowback, a bipartisan group of Arkansas lawmakers approved legislation to reverse the unconditional protections miners had from local government regulation. However, a federal judge ordered the state to pause that legislation because a provision of the bill bans foreign ownership of crypto mines (legislators were also worried about mines' potential ties to China), which may violate the 14th Amendment.
'My cautionary tale to legislators in New Hampshire who feel pressured to do this, it's a very hard bell to unring,' Roberson said. 'Once they pass this and it's a done deal, it's very difficult to get parts of it changed or repealed once it's in place.'
Satoshi Action Fund did not respond to the Bulletin's request for comment and an interview.
Corkery, with the Sierra Club, called Ammon's worries about cryptocurrency miners being discriminated against 'a farce.'
'He has no examples of it being discriminated against in New Hampshire,' she said. 'He characterizes this bill as a welcome sign for the cryptocurrency industry. This is not a welcome sign. This is a come-plow-through-our-state flag.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why Trump continues to lie about the 2020 presidential election
The right results were given in 2020. Trump lost. But nearly five years later, whenever Trump speaks, the question isn't whether he'll find a way to switch the conversation to the 2020 election but when. Given his tendency to babble about inconsequential subjects, it's tempting to dismiss Trump's off-script ramblings. But don't overlook the method behind the madness here. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up From Trump's Advertisement That's what he's doing every time he repeats the Big Lie about 2020. He upholds it as an example of a dishonest election stolen from the people despite no evidence of widespread fraud in that presidential contest. Trump lost because American voters had enough of him. Advertisement The president's motives are clear. He needs Republicans to hold on to the House in 2026 because he knows that if Democrats regain control they'll start impeachment hearings against him as soon as possible. For all his big talk about big wins in his second term, Trump knows that voters, For years, Trump undermined election integrity. As the 2016 presidential contest entered its final weeks, he falsely claimed that the election was This was Trump's hedge against a possible defeat: He could only lose an election if it was rigged against him. Of course, all of his machinations after he lost in 2020 supercharged his baseless allegations, culminating in the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when he attempted to overthrow the outcome of the presidential election. But despite Trump's impeachment for incitement, he hasn't stopped promoting the antidemocratic lie that he was robbed and that election integrity must be restored, while he's doing everything to destroy it. That includes Trump's latest attempt to end mail-in voting by Advertisement Mail-in balloting garnered widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. According to a Trump remains unswayed. He Seven months into his Trump uses 2020 as a phony example of a crooked election. That's why he brings it up as often as possible and usually in places where he receives no pushback. But the voters he's targeting should also remember 2020 as the year when a historic number of people, despite a pandemic, cast their ballots and tossed this tyrant out of power. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
California Republicans file suit to halt redistricting plan
California Republican legislators on Tuesday announced a state Supreme Court petition, an effort to stop Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) plan to redistrict House seats in the Golden State. 'Today I joined my colleagues in filing a lawsuit challenging the rushed redistricting process. California's Constitution requires bills to be in print for 30 days, but that safeguard was ignored. By bypassing this provision, Sacramento has effectively shut voters out of engaging in their own legislative process,' Assemblyman Tri Ta said on X. The petition cites a section of the state constitution that requires a month-long review period for new legislation. Democrats are working quickly to set up a special election that would let voters weigh in on the redistricting plan. Four state Republican legislators have signed on to the petition, according to a copy for a writ of mandate, shared by the New York Times. They're asking for immediate relief, no later than Aug. 20, and arguing that action can't be taken on the legislative package before Sep. 18. 'Last night, we filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the California legislature from violating the rights of the people of California,' said Mike Columbo, a partner at Dhillon Law Group, in a Tuesday press conference alongside California Republicans. 'The California constitution clearly gives the people of California the right to see new legislation that the legislature is going to consider, and it gives them the right to review it for 30 days,' Columbo said. California Democrats swiftly introduced the redistricting legislative package when they reconvened after summer break on Monday, and are expected to vote as soon as Thursday. They have until Friday to complete the plan in time to set up a Nov. 4 special election. Columbo called that pace of action a 'flagrant violation' under the state constitution. Democrats are aiming to put a ballot measure before voters that would allow temporary redistricting, effectively bypassing the existing independent redistricting commission — which was approved by voters more than a decade ago and typically redistricts after each census — to redraw lines in direct response to GOP gerrymandering in other states. California Republicans have vowed to fight back. Democrats, on the other hand, are stressing that they're moving transparently to let voters have the final say on whether redistricting happens.
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries vows to call Kristi Noem to testify in long-overdue oversight push
When House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries promised that Kristi Noem would be one of the first called before Congress if Democrats take the majority in 2026, he wasn't just previewing political theater — he was signaling a long-overdue accountability moment. Because what we've seen under Noem's watch as Homeland Security secretary isn't just controversial policy, it's a collision between power and the Constitution. Listen, the government has every right to deport violent criminals. But what we're talking about here isn't that. These are families being ripped apart, U.S. citizen children deported to countries they've never known, and raids on churches, swap meets and sidewalks that read less like lawful arrests and more like kidnappings in broad daylight. Armed, masked agents storming neighborhoods — it looks less like 'law and order' and more like a scene from a dystopian movie. Except it's not fiction. It's happening here. And at the center of it is Secretary Noem, who, when asked to define 'habeas corpus' earlier this year — which, by the way, is a bedrock constitutional right — got it flat-out wrong. She described it as the president's power to deport people. That's not just a slip of the tongue; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the very principle that protects all of us from government overreach. Habeas corpus is the right of a person to challenge their detention. Without it, the government could lock up anyone indefinitely. Even Abraham Lincoln had to go to Congress before suspending it during the Civil War. Yet somehow, Kristi Noem thinks she can redefine it on the fly. Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up. The ACLU and others say these mass raids aren't about justice, they're about quotas. Three thousand arrests a day, demanded from the White House, no matter who gets caught in the dragnet. The result? Overcrowded, dungeon-like detention centers, families denied food, water and lawyers. That's not just cruel — it's unconstitutional. And it costs taxpayers millions to warehouse people who pose no threat to society. Jeffries is right: this calls for oversight. Not partisan point-scoring, but a public examination of what happens when immigration policy is driven by fear, politics and raw numbers instead of law, due process and human dignity. Because if the government can strip immigrants of rights today, what's to stop them from doing the same to citizens tomorrow? Kristi Noem may soon face Congress, but make no mistake — this is bigger than her. It's about whether America will continue to twist the meaning of justice until it serves whoever holds power, or whether we'll insist that justice, in this country, still means something. This isn't about Kristi Noem forgetting her civics lesson. It's about whether America still remembers its own.
