INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
ORGANIZED JUNE 26, 1915
Affiliated with
NEW YORK STATE AFL-C.LO.
NEW YORK STATE BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL
Addie A. E. Jenne
Legislative Counsel
223 Riverside Avenue + Theresa, New York 13691 + (315) 955-4667 + AddieJenneLaw@ gmail.com
-UPDATED-
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
A.7389B/S.6486B
The construction locals noted below oppose the above-referenced bill, which would impose
an open-ended moratorium on granting a new permit and renewing existing permits for certain
electric generating facilities supplying cryptocurrency mining centers in New York that use the
common method of “proof of work” to validate financial transactions.
While we strongly support the goals of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection.
‘Act (“CLCPA"), this proposed law would prohibit a business based upon whether it obtains its
power from a generator behind the meter versus from the grid and targets the use of a specific
technology. The bill singles out a specific business model — actually it would stop the operation
and expansion of a specific facility — and would allow other very similar models in the same
industry to continue.
While relatively new, cryptocurrency is becoming increasingly mainstream as a payment
‘method and financial investment. These currencies are global and mining centers are a key element
of digital currency security. The technology that drives energy consumption at the centers is likely
to be adopted by traditional financial institutions and even national governments in the near future
due to its inherent security. The bill fails to take into account the valid benefits of the technology
behind the industry.
New York should be embracing emerging technology, financial security and the job
opportunities — for our members and new apprentices in construction and operations and the high-
tech jobs this industry brings to communities throughout the state.
There are sufficient and rigorous processes in place that require layers of approvals for
energy generators and these centers to obtain prior to construction, operation and expansion. They
should not be singled out and treated differently than other businesses or because of their end user.
This proposed bill would not address the goals of the CLCPA and only circumvents and
undermines the validity of the regulatory processes aimed at protecting our environment and
attaining the goals of the CLCPA. For these reasons we oppose the legislation,
+ Local 3 (New York City, Wesichester-aitfild) + Local 236 (Schenectady, Troy, Albany) + Local 910 (Watertown) + Local 43 (Syracuse)
+ Local 86 (Rochester) + Local 4 (Buifalo) + Local 237 (Niagara Falls) + Local 25 (Nassaw Suffolk)
+ Local 363 (Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, Sullivan, Ulster) + Local 139 (Elmira) + Local 325 (Binghamton) + Local 41 (Ithaca)
+ Local 1249 (East Syracuse) + Local 106 (Jamestawn) + Local 840 (Geneva)
=e