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