New Hampshire families pay electricity rates 67 percent above the national average, 17.47 cents per kilowatt-hour nationally versus 29.24 cents in New England. This isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a crisis driven by limited access to natural gas and by policies imposed by neighboring states through ISO-New England. We pay a premium for power we don’t control.
This energy crisis demands creative solutions. HB 639, the Blockchain Basic Laws, offers one, not by adding costs, but by creating the legal framework for an industry that can help stabilize our grid and incentivize new generation.
The Senate Commerce Committee split 3-3 on this bill before referring it to Interim Study. I’m asking my colleagues to take a fresh look at HB 639 when it reaches the Senate floor on Jan. 7, 2026.
We cannot afford to wait. In the fast-moving blockchain industry, a year of delay means watching other states capture opportunities we’ve worked to create. Last month, the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority approved the world’s first Bitcoin-backed municipal bond, a $100 million issuance positioning our state as a global leader in responsible crypto finance. Gov. Kelly Ayotte called it proof that “New Hampshire is once again first in the nation to embrace new technologies.”
But legal uncertainty undermines that leadership. Companies like CleanSpark, which powers operations with approximately 94 percent carbon-free energy from nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar, are expanding across the country and diversifying into AI data centers. These companies need legal clarity to invest. Wyoming provided it years ago. Texas has built a thriving ecosystem. Every month we study while others act, we lose ground.
The BFA bond shows what’s possible when New Hampshire leads. HB 639 provides the legal foundation to attract the companies that will bring investment, build infrastructure, and create jobs.
Critics paint HB 639 as a giveaway to cryptocurrency miners at the expense of communities and ratepayers. That characterization misses what the bill actually contains. Here’s what this bill actually does:
- Legal clarity through definitions. The bill establishes clear statutory definitions for blockchain technology, digital assets, smart contracts, and related terms. Businesses currently don’t know if running a validator node makes them a money transmitter or if staking services constitute securities. Staking allows cryptocurrency holders to lock up their assets to help secure a blockchain network and earn rewards, similar to earning interest. This ambiguity drives innovation elsewhere. HB 639 gives New Hampshire businesses the certainty they need to grow here.
- Consumer protections. The bill affirms that residents can use digital assets for legal purchases, hold their own assets in personal wallets, and won’t face special taxes for choosing digital payments, extending the same financial freedom we enjoy with cash and credit cards.
- Fair treatment for mining operations. Here’s where most criticism focuses. The bill allows home-based mining, subject to existing local noise ordinances, and permits mining businesses in industrial zones, the same zones where we allow other energy-intensive industries. This does not preempt local control. Municipalities retain full authority to enforce noise ordinances. The bill ensures blockchain businesses receive the same treatment as any other industrial user, with no special restrictions but no special privileges either.
- Regulatory clarity. The bill clarifies that operating a blockchain node doesn’t require a money transmitter license, that mining and staking with your own assets aren’t securities, and that exchanges offering staking services are exempt when customer assets remain properly controlled. The Bureau of Securities Regulation worked with me on an amendment, now in the Senate, preserving the Secretary of State’s enforcement authority against fraud.
- A specialized court docket. Finally, the bill creates a blockchain dispute docket within the Superior Court. Blockchain cases involve technical concepts like cryptographic validation, smart contract execution, and decentralized governance that general practice judges rarely encounter. Specialized knowledge leads to more consistent and informed rulings. This attracts businesses seeking predictable legal outcomes and costs less than $10,000 unless case volume eventually justifies additional resources. Court fees can make this docket self-funding.
Opponents raised legitimate concerns about energy consumption. Bitcoin mining uses specialized computers to validate transactions and secure the network, a process that consumes electricity but eliminates the need for banks or intermediaries to verify payments. The criticism, however, misses a crucial point: mining isn’t the grid burden critics assume it is. The evidence suggests it can be part of the solution.
Mining operations are uniquely flexible loads. Unlike factories that require constant power, miners can ramp up when electricity is abundant, then shut down within minutes when demand spikes. During the December 2022 Texas winter storm, Bitcoin miners returned up to 1,500 megawatts to the grid, enough to heat over 1.5 million homes during the crisis. Texas miners have repeatedly demonstrated this capability during heat waves and winter storms.
This flexibility solves a real problem plaguing renewable energy. Wind and solar produce power intermittently. When generation exceeds demand, that energy is wasted, curtailed because the grid can’t absorb it. Studies show that curtailment rates can reach 10 percent or more in regions with high renewable penetration. California curtailed nearly 180,000 megawatt-hours of wind and solar in September 2025 alone.
Mining operations can absorb this surplus, turning wasted electrons into economic value. A UAE study found that integrating Bitcoin mining reduced a solar project’s payback period from 8.1 years to 3.5 years. In West Texas, mining operations absorbed 1.3 terawatt-hours of curtailed wind energy in a single year, generating $60 million in revenue for wind farms.
Japan recognized this opportunity and launched a state-linked mining project in late 2025 specifically to address renewable curtailment. When Hurricane Helene damaged a Georgia substation, CleanSpark powered down its mining rigs and redirected energy to the grid; the hospital lights came back on within an hour.
This brings me to a broader vision. New Hampshire passed HB 672 this year, creating a framework for off-grid electricity providers exempt from utility regulation. HB 690 directs the Department of Energy to study whether we should withdraw entirely from ISO-New England. These bills reflect a growing consensus that New Hampshire needs more control over its energy future.
HB 639 fits directly into this strategy. With clear legal frameworks, mining operations could develop alongside new generation capacity, consuming power that might otherwise lack a buyer, improving project economics, and providing flexible load that strengthens grid stability. The mining wouldn’t strain existing infrastructure; it would help finance new infrastructure.
Energy and compute (data centers) are both vital to New Hampshire’s prosperity. The convergence of Bitcoin mining, AI infrastructure, and clean energy represents one of the most significant economic opportunities of our time. These industries create high-paying jobs that attract young professionals and entrepreneurs, exactly the talent New Hampshire needs to retain and recruit.
Data centers also generate substantial tax revenue. Loudoun County, Virginia, the “Data Center Capital of the World”, receives close to half a billion dollars annually from data centers. Over fifteen years, that surplus funded $1 billion in road improvements and 36 new schools. Loudoun now maintains property tax rates that are 25 percent lower than those of neighboring jurisdictions.
New Hampshire doesn’t need massive tax abatements to attract this industry; we need legal clarity. The property taxes these facilities pay would flow directly to municipalities, funding schools and public services without raising rates on existing residents.
There is a choice for us in the legislature. Governor Sununu’s Commission on Cryptocurrencies and Digital Assets, on which I served, released its final report in January 2023, recommending a legal framework, which HB 639 provides. The Bureau of Securities Regulation collaborated on amendments. This isn’t partisan, it’s about whether New Hampshire leads or follows.
We’ve proven we can lead. The BFA’s Bitcoin-backed bond made headlines worldwide. But that achievement will mean little without the legal infrastructure to attract the investment that should follow. Companies are watching. Capital is mobile. And every state that passes clear blockchain legislation makes New Hampshire’s delay more costly.
The question isn’t whether this industry will grow; it’s whether it will grow here. Wyoming answered that question years ago. Texas answered it. Even Japan just launched a state-backed mining project to stabilize its grid. New Hampshire can join them, or we can watch from the sidelines as other states capture the jobs, the tax revenue, and the innovation that should be ours.
Live Free or Die isn’t just a slogan. It’s a promise that New Hampshire will always choose liberty and opportunity over timidity. HB 639 honors that promise. On Jan. 7, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote Ought to Pass.
