Across much of rural upstate New York and similar areas nationwide, idle power plants and cheap hydroelectric grids have become attractive venues for large-scale Bitcoin “mines.” These facilities are essentially massive data centres that house thousands of specialised computers solving cryptographic puzzles around the clock, consuming vast amounts of electricity and releasing immense heat.
For example, one former gas “peaker” plant in North Tonawanda (just north of Buffalo) runs almost continuously to power a crypto mine. In the first quarter of 2025, this plant operated 84 out of 90 days, in contrast to just eight days in all of 2021, and it emitted as much CO2 in three months as it had in the previous two years combined.
In effect, mining operations have transformed low-use industrial sites into constant polluters. US officials estimate that nationwide commercial crypto mining already consumes roughly between 0.6% and 2.3% of the country’s electricity, which is a share that could rise rapidly as more facilities begin operation.
Supporters in upstate areas argue that repurposing abandoned plants and tapping into cheap power can help stimulate the struggling upstate New York economy through jobs and increased tax revenue.
However, local regulators and environmental analysts caution that the climate and local impacts may outweigh those benefits. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has ranked US Bitcoin’s electricity consumption as being comparable to that of an entire medium-sized state. The associated carbon footprint is substantial unless the power comes entirely from zero-carbon sources.
Impact on energy use
Bitcoin mining’s enormous power demands make it a highly energy-intensive industry. Many US operations are powered by fossil fuel plants, which are often ageing coal or natural-gas generators that have been refurbished for crypto use. In New York, miners have acquired decommissioned “peaker” plants and run them at full capacity, resulting in sharply increased greenhouse-gas emissions. At North Tonawanda’s Fortistar plant, which was previously idle, carbon output surged after it was converted into a crypto mining site.
Climate watchdogs warn that adding gigawatts of mining demand typically revives polluting power plants that would otherwise be closed. For example, Texas grid operators have reported that planned large-scale crypto facilities could create up to 43,600 megawatts of new demand by 2027, much of which is expected to be met by newly built gas-fired plants. Indeed, Texas has recently authorised $10 billion in public loans to build or expand plants to satisfy crypto-driven electricity needs.
Across the country, utilities and independent agencies have begun tracking these effects. The EIA and Department of Energy have conducted surveys to measure energy use by mining operations. In 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s office urged the DOE and EPA to mandate energy consumption and emissions reporting for Bitcoin mining, noting that the United States’ share of global Bitcoin mining rose from 4% to 38% between 2019 and 2022.
Environmental groups estimate that even moderate levels of mining usage currently account for about 2% of national electricity consumption. This implies that the carbon and water impacts are equivalent to those of a mid-sized nation.
A United Nations study found that globally, Bitcoin mining consumed 173.4 terawatt-hours in 2020 and 2021, which exceeded Pakistan’s total electrical output. It also required enough water to fill 660,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. In areas like upstate New York, where climate laws require net-zero emissions by 2040, the use of fossil fuel-based power for mining is viewed as fundamentally incompatible with state goals.
Researchers from Harvard University concluded that Bitcoin mining added more demand to the US electrical grid than the entire city of Los Angeles. The researchers identified corresponding air pollution and environmental concerns in their findings, which were published in March in Nature Communications.
To quantify the energy use of Bitcoin mining, the Harvard researchers analysed data from the 34 largest mining operations in the US, which together account for 80% of the country’s Bitcoin mining capacity. Their database included both the locations of the mines and their energy consumption levels.
Between August 2022 and July 2023, these 34 facilities consumed 32.3 terawatt-hours of electricity. This is 33% more electricity than the city of Los Angeles uses in the same time frame. Approximately 84% of that energy came from fossil fuel sources. In effect, Bitcoin mining has added a city’s worth of electricity consumption to the grid, together with all the associated pollution.
Noise, water, and local livability
Beyond energy use, crypto mines also create significant local environmental burdens. The thousands of high-powered servers and generators in these facilities produce a vast amount of heat, requiring massive industrial fans that operate constantly.
Farmers and rural residents living near crypto mining sites consistently describe a relentless mechanical noise. In Granbury, Texas, a resident compared the sound to having a jet engine permanently stationed nearby. A farmer in Pennsylvania made the same comparison and said her hens were visibly disturbed by the constant hum.
Journalists have documented numerous complaints about piercing noise from Bitcoin farms. One resident compared the experience to standing at the edge of Niagara Falls when the fans are running.
This nuisance is not minor. Medical experts note that prolonged exposure to noise above 80 decibels can increase the risk of cardiovascular issues and other health problems. In both Texas and Arkansas, local officials have recorded reports of headaches, hearing loss, vertigo, and chronic stress attributed to the incessant hum from crypto fans.
A national study observed that noise issues caused by miners are now so common that they have become a persistent source of frustration in rural, mostly Republican communities. Even if the noise complies with local sound ordinances, the constant low-frequency vibrations can make homes unlivable. In North Tonawanda, New York, residents living more than half a mile away from the plant have reported being able to hear its fans from their porches.
Water use and water pollution are additional concerns. Crypto mines often require fresh water for cooling purposes or for maintaining on-site generators. Experts caution that the water demand of Bitcoin mining is insufficiently studied but potentially significant.
According to the same UN study, a large-scale crypto mining site could use as much water as a small city each year, straining already limited water resources in drought-prone regions. Furthermore, diesel or natural gas generators used at some mining locations can emit local air pollutants. For instance, Pennsylvania mining sites that burn waste coal have released sulphur dioxide and fine particulate matter.
The local costs, including impacts on air quality, water resources, wildlife, and human well-being, are considerable.
Opponents in rural communities have voiced concerns about disappearing wildlife, livestock disturbed by noise, and family members tormented by nonstop humming, even behind closed windows. These consequences have led to public meetings, citizen noise-monitoring campaigns, and legal challenges in multiple states.
Economic trade-offs
Proponents of crypto mining often claim that it brings jobs and economic revitalisation to struggling rural towns. A 2022 Politico report highlighted that advocates promote these facilities as a way to stimulate economic growth in upstate New York by repurposing inactive power plants.
Sometimes, local governments offer tax breaks or discounted electricity rates to attract crypto companies. Yet the actual number of jobs created tends to be small, possibly only a few dozen per large facility, while public costs can be substantial.
In Texas, analysts argue that increased electricity demand from crypto mining ultimately drives up prices for everyone. As one report noted, “ordinary Texans may end up footing the bill on their monthly utility statements” as the grid adjusts to crypto-related demand.
In Arkansas, utility providers have stated that industrial crypto operations often pay reduced electricity rates, effectively passing infrastructure costs onto other customers.
Communities have begun reevaluating the costs and benefits. In some rural counties, initial enthusiasm for economic investment has turned into frustration over higher bills and noise disturbances. Activists have highlighted that utilities and state governments have offered generous incentives to crypto firms. For example, the Texas-based company Riot Platforms received about 136 million dollars in power-related credits between 2022 and 2024, which at times exceeded its own mining revenue.
In response, community organising has intensified. In Georgia, residents living near proposed mining sites successfully lobbied their county government to reject rezoning requests, and neighbouring jurisdictions went further by enacting complete bans. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, neighbours have launched coalitions to oppose crypto mining, arguing that a small number of jobs are not worth the disruption to local life and the environment.
Even in relatively affluent areas, local governments have imposed moratoria. In 2024, the city council of North Tonawanda voted unanimously to prohibit new crypto mining projects for two years, although existing operations were allowed to continue.
These battles often defy conventional political divisions. Residents who strongly supported pro-crypto politicians have sometimes led opposition efforts. Hood County, Texas, which gave Donald Trump more than 80% of the vote in 2024, witnessed lawsuits and protests by conservatives against a Marathon Digital mine in Granbury.
In local online groups, residents expressed simultaneous support for Trump and deep frustration with the Bitcoin mine that they felt had “destroyed their peace.” In North Tonawanda, activist Deborah Goldeck argued at a public meeting that had the city acted sooner, “we could have avoided the misery of constant high noise levels” that now affect her neighbourhood.
In rural Arkansas, Gladys Anderson’s description of constant “shrieking and humming” from a nearby mine drew media attention and spurred legislative reforms. These grassroots efforts share a common thread. People feel that an industry backed by powerful crypto interests has altered their quality of life without consent.
Political dynamics
Cryptocurrency mining has become a contentious political issue at the state and national levels. The Republican Party has officially taken a supportive stance toward the industry. In its 2024 platform, the GOP pledged to defend the right of individuals to mine Bitcoin and to ensure that Americans can maintain self-custody of their digital assets.
President Trump has repeatedly endorsed crypto mining as a strategy for achieving US energy leadership. He even claimed that producing all Bitcoin domestically would help make the country “energy dominant.”
Crypto companies have poured funding into political campaigns. One watchdog group estimated that the industry spent more than 119 million dollars on federal races during the 2023–2024 election cycle, accounting for nearly half of all corporate spending in some contests.
Several Republican legislators at the state level have introduced “right-to-mine” bills aimed at limiting the authority of local governments to regulate the industry. Politicians from both parties have tried to win over the industry by promising deregulation.
For instance, in New Hampshire in 2025, Republican lawmakers advanced a proposal to prohibit towns and regulatory agencies from imposing restrictions on crypto mining, with the explicit goal of signalling support to the industry. In Texas, political leaders have introduced incentives such as tax breaks and discounted electricity for mining companies, while some municipalities have approved subsidised power deals.
However, this top-down enthusiasm increasingly conflicts with the sentiments of Republican voters in rural communities. Commentators have described a growing national backlash, with many traditionally conservative voters expressing opposition to crypto mining when it affects their neighbourhoods.
The Week summed up the situation by noting that in some areas, Trump’s crypto-friendly policies have met resistance from the very voters who helped return him to the White House. This tension between party loyalty and local quality-of-life concerns is now playing out across the country.
Conservative state and local leaders have come under pressure from constituents demanding tighter controls. In red states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, citizen protests have led to legislative debates and political gridlock.
In Virginia and Kansas, lawmakers only took up crypto mining regulations after strong grassroots organising prompted public hearings. In Arkansas in 2024, the state’s new Republican governor signed legislation imposing stricter permitting requirements in response to growing public concern.
Even industry insiders have acknowledged the backlash. Marathon Digital CEO Fred Thiel noted that one of the company’s Texas mining sites had been approved by voters in a pro-Trump region, yet it still faced demands for tighter noise regulations from local residents.
As a result, partisan messaging on cryptocurrency is increasingly split between national and local levels. Republican candidates on the national stage often appeal to crypto investors and tech donors. In contrast, local Republican officials, including mayors, county supervisors, and state lawmakers, in some cases have aligned with environmental activists or citizen groups calling for stronger oversight or moratoriums.
For example, a previous Republican governor of New York (before Kathy Hochul) had questioned the wisdom of expanding crypto mining in the face of community pushback. In Congress, Democrats have sometimes used this internal GOP divide to their advantage. Some House Democrats have proposed new taxes on crypto mining and regulations requiring pollution controls. At the same time, crypto-friendly bills like the proposed federal “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act” have met resistance from suburban and rural voters alike.
The net result is a complicated political landscape for the crypto mining industry. On one hand, it enjoys vocal support from high-ranking officials. On the other hand, it increasingly encounters organised local resistance, often within the same communities that elected those officials.
Regulatory experiments
This clash between local resistance and national support has triggered a wave of policy experiments at the state and federal levels. Some jurisdictions have moved to rein in crypto mining in order to protect residents’ health and meet environmental targets.
In November 2022, New York became the first state to impose a temporary ban on new proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining at fossil-fuel power plants. This law prohibited all new permits and the renewal of existing permits, unless the projects could demonstrate that they operated entirely on renewable energy. Governor Hochul’s administration described the law as a limited but necessary pause aimed at balancing economic development with the objectives of the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.
New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation has also taken enforcement actions against noncompliant facilities. In some cases, the agency has denied permits or sued companies for violating clean air or climate mandates. One example is Greenidge Generation’s use of waste coal at a plant in Dresden, which came under legal scrutiny due to its environmental impact.
Other states have followed New York’s lead. In Georgia, conservative local governments have passed restrictions or outright bans after public hearings. State legislators have considered measures to regulate noise and limit grid strain from mining operations. In Pennsylvania and Montana, environmental organisations have taken legal action against facilities that keep old coal plants running for mining purposes.
Even in states that are generally favourable toward cryptocurrency, lawmakers have introduced new regulations. In Texas, in 2023, legislators proposed several bills (some of which passed) to require large mining operations to register with grid authorities and to place limits on their use of “demand-response” programmes.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has since implemented rules requiring any mining operation drawing more than 75 megawatts to sign flexible load agreements. These agreements give the grid operator greater control to shut off power during times of high demand, to help stabilise the system.
At the federal level, regulation is still in early stages. In 2024, a bipartisan group of US senators led by Elizabeth Warren called on the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to require mandatory reporting of crypto mining’s energy use. They characterised the industry’s rapid growth without oversight as “alarming.”
So far, neither the Biden administration nor the EPA has issued dedicated rules for crypto mining. However, federal agencies have begun monitoring the sector more closely. Mining now appears in national energy and climate assessments, and the Energy Information Administration is considering including it in future data collection surveys.
Meanwhile, other jurisdictions have moved in the opposite direction. Industry lobbyists have drafted and promoted “right-to-mine” bills in several states that aim to preempt local zoning laws and noise ordinances. According to Earthjustice, some of these proposals would block towns from regulating crypto operations altogether.
In 2025, New Hampshire legislators debated a bill that would have made it illegal for any local agency to restrict crypto mining. Libertarian groups and blockchain advocacy organisations praised the proposal, viewing it as a victory for deregulation.
In Missouri, lawmakers introduced bills to classify Bitcoin mining as critical infrastructure. Other proposals aimed to exempt mining facilities from environmental permits, treating them as if they were simply data centres rather than power-consuming industrial sites.
These deregulatory efforts have met strong resistance from environmental advocates and local governments that support home-rule rights. The debate illustrates a growing confrontation between the cryptocurrency industry’s desire for minimal regulation and the communities most affected by its operations.
In practice, the most effective policy responses have come from state and local governments. Measures such as temporary bans, conditional permits, or tailored noise regulations have given municipalities some control over how and where mining occurs. For example, North Tonawanda’s decision to ban new mining projects and conduct noise studies reflects one way that communities can act within their legal authority.
Other examples include the actions of rural counties in Georgia and new state laws in Arkansas, which were enacted after constituents like Gladys Anderson publicly described how crypto noise had affected their lives. These efforts demonstrate how traditional zoning and environmental rules can be applied to this emerging industry.
At the national level, more ambitious proposals are under discussion. One idea is to impose a substantial tax on electricity used for crypto mining. For instance, President Biden had proposed a 30% tax, although it was ultimately dropped. Another option would be to require carbon offsets for mining operations powered by fossil fuels.
Academic researchers and policy analysts have proposed more balanced solutions. These might include requiring crypto companies to pause operations during power emergencies or mandating that they operate only from designated clean energy sources. The broader policy debate is ongoing and has become a staple topic in energy and climate forums.