In North Carolina, cryptomining operations are facing mounting opposition from local residents and officials despite the growing political support for digital currencies. These operations, which mine digital currencies like Bitcoin by authenticating transactions and adding them to the blockchain, require immense amounts of electricity and create disruptive noise. With the shift of cryptomines from China to the U.S., many are targeting North Carolina’s sparsely populated areas. Local towns like Burke County are passing restrictive zoning laws to limit the impacts of these mines, with concerns over noise and environmental damage. However, state lawmakers are exploring bills to further legitimize cryptocurrency, creating a tension between local opposition and state-level support.
by Jane Winik Sartwell, Carolina Public Press May 8, 2025
Of all the companies that have come to North Carolina in recent years, from Toyota to Google to Amazon, cryptomining operations don’t exactly spring to mind.
But the state, because of its vast swaths of land, is increasingly being targeted by these outfits looking to operate here — much to the chagrin and consternation of local residents.
But as politicians and lawmakers cozy up to crypto, these mining operations are of ever-increasing importance.
When it comes to the “mining” of digital currency, don’t think of it like digging for coal. The mines authenticate crypto transactions and add these transactions to what’s known as a “blockchain.” Without mining, Bitcoin and other digital currencies would cease to function.
Which brings us to North Carolina. When digital currency mining was outlawed in China during 2021, many cryptomining operations migrated to the United States. Crypto companies are attracted to sparsely-populated areas where power — of which they need a staggering amount — is affordable and abundant.
As a bonus, there aren’t many people around to complain about the thunderous noise, which comes from the whirring of high-speed fans that run day and night to cool the mine’s computers.
Recently, a cryptomine operation appeared ready to open in Burke County until the Town Council passed a set of restrictive zoning laws — after a group called the National Coalition Against Cryptomining drew attention to the company’s plans.
Sounding the alarm
It’s hard to sleep when you live near a cryptomine.
People compare the sound of the fans to a roaring jet engine. Or a continually crashing waterfall. Or a motorcycle endlessly revving its engine.
Cyndie Roberson left Cherokee County to escape the din of the mines. She has seen others break down in tears at public meetings when describing the noise.
For Roberson, cryptocurrency mining is environmentally destructive and socially disruptive. The operation only benefits distant crypto investors, leaving the community itself in a noisy confusion. It is about as welcome as a high-speed racetrack in her backyard.
To the untrained eye, cryptomines look like unremarkable rows of storage containers. There are no employees. The computers loudly hum along on their own, verifying crypto transactions by attempting to solve an endless stream of complex mathematical puzzles.
When the computers solve a puzzle correctly, it verifies a group of cryptocurrency transactions and adds it to the public ledger known as the blockchain. As a reward for the intensive work of verification, the cryptomining company receives newly-minted cryptocurrency and transaction fees. To do this work, the computers use a tremendous amount of electricity and generate a lot of heat, which explains the need for the deafening fans.
One cryptomine uses hundreds of megawatts of power per hour. Consider that one megawatt can supply more than 400 homes.
For this reason, cryptominers like to set up their facilities near substations or other sources of power.
Nine of North Carolina’s mountain counties, including Cherokee, now have a ban or protective ordinance against cryptomining. But by the time Cherokee County outlawed cryptomining in 2023, three mines were already in operation and not subject to the ban.
Today, they continue their intense blare.
Too legit to quit
Digital currency is gaining legitimacy in North Carolina. House Bill 920 aims to transform cryptocurrency into valid, legal tender in the state. Another bill — approved by the House — allows NC Treasurer Brad Briner to place up to 5% of the state’s investments into crypto.
But even though Briner thinks crypto is a smart investment for North Carolina, he doesn’t necessarily want it to be mined in the state.
“I’m concerned about cryptomines,” Briner told Carolina Public Press. “If your business is not really employing people and just consuming a ton of cheap power, that’s not the best business for us to recruit.”
At the federal level, President Donald Trumppromised to make the United States the “crypto capital of the world,” establishing a Bitcoin reserve and loosening all kinds of restrictions on digital currency.
North Carolina doesn’t keep a registry of cryptomines, so it’s hard to know how many are operating across the state.
Cryptomining controversy
Despite the growing fondness of crypto in Raleigh and Washington, local governments are pushing back against allowing these operations to exist within their borders.
When Digihost, a Canadian cryptomining company, bought a piece of land inside the limits of Hildebran, a small Burke County town northwest of Charlotte, the transaction initially went unnoticed by many.
The town had no idea Digihost was planning to build a mine on the land the company bought a couple years back.
Once alerted to the company’s plan, however, Hildebran acted swiftly, passing restrictive zoning ordinances against cryptomining at a Town Council meeting in late April. The laws restrict the decibel level to an almost unattainable quiet for cryptomines — 55 decibels, which compares to the sound of a household refrigerator. Normal cryptomines can reach 95 decibels, which at sustained exposure, can cause permanent hearing loss.
But the mines aren’t expressly banned, and Hildebran is leaving the door open.
“At this time, the town has no official knowledge of when or if any such operation will begin,” according to a statement from Hildebran’s Town Council. “Our goal with the proposed ordinances is to keep cryptomining operations sound-neutral … and not to impact the power usage of citizens and industries in town.”
The zoning also limits the hours of operation, which bars the mine from running overnight.
Roberson says this is “game over” for cryptomines.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
The article demonstrates a Center-Left bias as it emphasizes the negative impacts of cryptomining on local communities and the environment while highlighting the growing acceptance of cryptocurrency among political leaders, such as North Carolina lawmakers and President Trump. The narrative focuses on local resistance to mining operations due to noise pollution, environmental damage, and economic concerns, painting a somewhat critical view of the industry. The article also suggests that local governments are pushing back against these operations, which hints at a preference for local control and environmental protection, aligning with more progressive, community-centered values. However, the reporting remains largely neutral in its presentation of facts, with the emphasis on local struggles rather than an overtly partisan stance.
SUMMARY: Deborah Patterson from Raleigh lost nearly $3,000 to an impostor scam after a scammer pretending to be from Microsoft convinced her to give access to her computer and buy gift cards. She shared her story to warn others, despite knowing some might doubt her. Weeks later, Miracle Ministries, Inc., a local nonprofit, surprised her with a $1,000 check as a gesture of support and gratitude for raising awareness. Deborah used the money to pay off the credit card she used for the gift cards. She was deeply grateful for the unexpected kindness and community support.
The woman lost thousands after falling for an imposter scam on her computer.
Western North Carolina’s U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards and state Sen. Tim Moffitt clash over Senate Bill 266, aimed at easing rebuilding rules after Tropical Storm Helene. Moffitt’s bill proposes waiving the “50 percent rule” requiring flood-damaged buildings to meet modern codes, arguing it hinders recovery and economic revival. Edwards warns the bill would violate federal flood policies, risking North Carolina’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and blocking disaster aid. Moffitt counters that the bill seeks federal reevaluation of flood policies unsuitable for catastrophic floods. The bill passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the House and requires federal approval.
Western North Carolina’s congressional representative and a state senator pushing a bold Helene-related recovery plan are at loggerheads over the bill’s potential effects, with both issuing barbed statements about the other’s take on the proposal.
U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards says a state bill sponsored by Republican state Sen. Tim Moffitt that would eliminate a provision requiring owners of flooded properties to rebuild to modern standards if the damage exceeds 50 percent, would circumvent federal flood policy and place North Carolina property owners out of compliance with the program.
“I think we’ll find that Senate Bill 266 might not be completely thought out,” Edwards, R-N.C., said in an emailed statement to Asheville Watchdog. “Since Helene hit, I’ve been engaged on the matter of reviewing the National Flood Insurance Program for the sole purpose of western North Carolina’s recovery. What I’ve discovered is circumventing federal flood policy that exists to protect the most vulnerably located structures in the 100-year floodplain from further damage is not the right approach.”
“What I’ve discovered is circumventing federal flood policy that exists to protect the most vulnerably located structures in the 100-year floodplain from further damage is not the right approach,” U.S. Congressman Chuck Edwards says.
As The Watchdogreported May 7, Moffitt is shepherding the bill through the North Carolina state legislature, with the measure unanimously passing the state Senate that day and now headed to the state House. The House on May 8 passed the bill on first reading and referred it to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations.
The bill includes a plan that would waive for two years the state building code’s “50 percent rule,” which requires any building with flood damage costing more than half its value to be rebuilt to newer, stricter building codes. Moffitt says the measure would clear up uncertainty surrounding flooded properties and spur rebuilding in the region, which was hard hit by Tropical Storm Helene.
Moffitt said previously that once the bill passes the state house, he will have to work with the federal government, as its provisions will require approval through the National Flood Insurance Program. Moffitt, who represents Henderson, Polk and Rutherford counties in the state Senate, says Edwards is mistaken in his take on the bill.
“With all due respect to Congressman Edwards, it appears there has been a misunderstanding regarding Senate Bill 266,” Moffitt said via email. “These are complex issues, and it’s an easy mistake to make.”
Moffitt said one of the most significant obstacles to rebuilding in flood-damaged areas is the requirement to meet the new base flood elevation standards.
“This requirement is triggered when damage to a structure exceeds 50 percent of its pre-storm market value,” Moffitt said. “In many communities, entire neighborhoods were lost. In others, most properties surpassed that 50 percent damage threshold. As a result, this mandate now affects not just hundreds or thousands of structures and families, but potentially many more in terms of lost jobs and stalled economic recovery.”
Moffitt said policymakers have to be cautious “not to overcorrect in response to rare, catastrophic events.”
“With all due respect to Congressman Edwards, it appears there has been a misunderstanding regarding Senate Bill 266,” state Sen. Tim Moffitt said via email. “These are complex issues, and it’s an easy mistake to make.” // Photo credit: North Carolina State Assembly
“Reactionary policies can inadvertently hinder recovery efforts,” Moffitt said. “It is equally our duty to identify and address obstacles standing in the way of that recovery.”
Edwards, who served in the state Senate from 2016 to 2023, said the bill would place the entire state “out of compliance with NFIP’s minimum floodplain management standards and jeopardizes its NFIP eligibility.
“From the mountains to the coast, all 595 participating North Carolina communities would be at risk of losing access to flood insurance coverage across more than 132,000 policies totaling $4.3 billion in coverage,” Edwards said. “Even worse, the bill would make it harder for North Carolina to recover from future flood disasters by making homeowners in the 100-year floodplain ineligible for disaster recovery aid, including FEMA Individual Assistance, which has been so heavily relied on by the folks of NC-11.”
The 11th Congressional District covers 17 mountain counties, including Buncombe.
A chilling effect on real estate?
Edwards said that perhaps the “most chilling” effect of Moffitt’s bill would be on real estate.
“Real estate transactions, such as closings and refinancings, with mandatory purchase requirements would be halted, and federal mortgage insurance or loan guarantees, including VA loans, would no longer be available to properties in the 100-year floodplain,” Edwards said. “Furthermore, the already-strained housing market would be frozen in the floodplain.”
Moffitt maintains that SB 266, which proposes a “Historic Flood Exemption,” would “challenge overreach” from the Stafford Act, which provides the framework for federal disaster relief. Also, the bill will “highlight the limitations of the National Flood Insurance Program.”
“The bill calls for a Congressional re-evaluation of these federal frameworks,” Moffitt said. “It acknowledges that no building codes — past or present — could have anticipated or prevented the devastation caused by a 1,000-year flood event. Some structures, despite being built to modern code within the 100-year floodplain, were still completely destroyed. Yet we continue to impose those same standards on others. Why?”
Moffitt acknowledges the state bill can’t take full effect without federal action, but he also said “its passage at the state level signals the need for change and sets the stage for federal involvement.”
In his statement, Edwards said the mountains are full of “resilient, strong people” and that he understands and supports “the urgency that folks feel to get back to normal.” But Edwards continued, “it cannot be at the expense of the long-term access to federal benefits and resilience of our entire state.
“I also understand that building to new code standards can be expensive, but that is exactly what the $110 billion disaster aid package I drafted and passed in December is meant to address,” Edwards said.
He also noted that North Carolina and the City of Asheville are slated to receive a total of $1.625 billion in Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery funding to help the region recover, “including for this exact reason — to help homeowners fund resilience and retrofit projects that conform with new codes.”
The roof of Asheville’s Antique Tobacco Barn was barely visible after floodwaters surged from Tropical Storm Helene. // Watchdog photo by Starr Sariego
Moffitt said frequent use of terms like mitigation and resiliency may be well-intentioned, but they raise concerns.
“These efforts, if not carefully balanced, risk stripping rights from those already victimized by the storm, and may further harm them through inflexible regulation,” Moffitt said. “History has shown us, notably with Hurricane Katrina, that sweeping, one-size-fits-all policy changes don’t always yield the desired results and can create unintended consequences.”
Moffitt also noted that over the past few months he’s worked with members of the U.S. House and Senate, as well as the White House, on Helene response.
“I remain optimistic that we can build the momentum necessary to bring about the federal reforms that will make SB266 a reality,” Moffitt said. “After all, the barriers we face are not immutable laws of nature — they are man-made policies. And what lawmakers have created, lawmakers can also change.”
Western Carolina University political scientist Chris Cooper said that despite the bill’s easy passage in the Senate, that doesn’t mean it will sail through the House.
”Heavy lift’ is an apt phrase’
“There’s an old adage that says, ‘The other party is your opposition; the other chamber is your enemy,’” Cooper said. “And we see a lot of bills that get through one chamber and don’t ever see the light of day in the other.”
If it does get through both chambers, the measure will need that key federal approval, and Cooper doubts that will be easy to come by.
“As we can see from Edwards’ (response), the prospects are not particularly likely,” Cooper said, noting that Moffitt acknowledged the entire process would be a heavy lift. “‘Heavy lift’ is an apt phrase. It is unlikely to be successful.”
Cooper also noted that the bill has already created odd political bedfellows, as all Senate members voted in favor, including Democrats such as Julie Mayfield, D-Buncombe, and Sen. Phil Berger Sr., president pro tempore of the Senate and a longtime state Republican power broker.
“For Chuck Edwards to be on a different side than Phil Berger Sr. is unheard of,” Cooper said. “‘Strange bedfellows’ doesn’t begin to describe what’s happening here.”
Asheville Watchdog welcomes thoughtful reader comments on this story, which has been republished on our Facebook page. Please submit your comments there.
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. John Boyle has been covering Asheville and surrounding communities since the 20th century. You can reach him at (828) 337-0941, or via email at jboyle@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s local reporting during this crisis is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The article presents a debate between two political figures, U.S. Rep. Chuck Edwards and state Sen. Tim Moffitt, over a proposed state bill regarding rebuilding standards for flood-damaged properties. The coverage includes both perspectives, with Edwards criticizing the bill’s potential impact on federal flood insurance compliance, while Moffitt defends it as a necessary step to address economic recovery. The language used in Edwards’ statements suggests caution toward federal flood policy, reflecting a more conservative viewpoint. Moffitt’s defense of the bill includes emphasizing local control and questioning federal overreach, signaling a more right-leaning stance. The article doesn’t exhibit strong partisan bias but aligns with Center-Right in tone due to the focus on federal policy skepticism and state autonomy.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-08 16:14:00
(The Center Square) – Senators in North Carolina have advanced a proposal keeping 501(c) donors’ personal information protected.
Sen. Warren Daniel, R-Burke
Michael Lewis via NCLeg.gov
The Personal Privacy Protection Act, known also as Senate Bill 416, is in the House of Representatives awaiting direction from the Rules Committee. Authored by Burke County Republican Warren Daniel, the proposal has drawn comparisons to a 2021 bill that didn’t get past a gubernatorial veto.
Campaign finance disclosure laws are not changed by the bill.
Proponents of the legislation say it is in line with freedom to give without being exposed. When he vetoed, then-Gov. Roy Cooper said “dark money” was protected.
The bill sets disclosure violations punishments of up to 90 days in jail or up to a $1,000 fine.
No Republicans were in opposition. Democratic Sens. Dan Blue of Wake County, Paul Lowe of Forsyth County and Gladys Robinson of Guilford County were in favor.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The content primarily reports on the legislative process surrounding a specific bill proposed by a Republican senator in North Carolina. It provides factual information about the bill, its provisions, and the positions of various lawmakers without using emotionally charged or partisan language. However, the article frames the bill in a positive light by emphasizing themes like “freedom to give without being exposed,” which aligns more closely with conservative values advocating for donor privacy. The mention of a governor vetoing a similar bill and labeling it “dark money” also subtly contrasts perspectives, leaning slightly in favor of the bill’s supporters who are predominantly Republican. Despite this, the article remains largely neutral in tone and avoids explicit ideological endorsement, but the choice of emphasis and framing suggests a Center-Right bias.
