Working Paper
SeriesClimate Impacts of
Bitcoin Mining in the U.S.
Christian Stoll, Lena Klaaßen, Ulrich Gallersdörfer, andAlexander Neumüller

JUNE 2023
CEEPR WP 2023-11

Working Paper Series.
Since 1977, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR) has beena focal point for research on energy and environmental policy at MIT. CEEPR promotes
rigorous, objective research for improved decision making in government and the private
sector, and secures the relevance of its work through close cooperation with industry
partners from around the globe. Drawing on the unparalleled resources available at MIT,
affiliated faculty and research staff as well as international research associates contributeto the empirical study of a wide range of policy issues related to energy supply, energy
demand, and the environment.
An important dissemination channel for these research efforts is the MIT CEEPR Working
Paper series. CEEPR releases Working Papers written by researchers from MIT and otheracademic institutions in order to enable timely consideration and reaction to energy andenvironmental policy research, but does not conduct a selection process or peer review
prior to posting. CEEPR’s posting of a Working Paper, therefore, does not constitute an
endorsement of the accuracy or merit of the Working Paper. If you have questions about aparticular Working Paper, please contact the authors or their home institutions.

Climate Impacts of Bitcoin Mining in the U.S.
by Christian Stoll 1, 2, 3, *, Lena Klaaßen3,4, Ulrich Gallersdörfer3, 5, Alexander Neumüller 6

Abstract
Opinions regarding the climate impacts of Bitcoin mining deviate fundamentally between scholars andBitcoin proponents. We validate arguments from both sides and provide empirical evidence for theextent and energy sources of Bitcoin mining in the U.S. We provide empirical evidence that at least 38%
of all Bitcoin mining activity has migrated to the U.S. and Canada as of the end of 2022 and show thatthe carbon emissions caused by the 13 analyzed publicly listed miners in the U.S. alone add up to 7.2
MtCO2 per annum. At the same time, the financial incentives of the Bitcoin network may, for instance,
subsidize the sealing of orphaned wells and thereby reduce methane emissions at scale. The growing
transparency on locations and energy sources of large publicly listed Bitcoin miners highlights the valueof disclosure obligations and may help dismantle unsupported industry claims, improve assumptionbased academic models, and point regulators to areas where Bitcoin mining may bring climate benefits.

TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Germany.
MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA 02139, USA.
3
CCRI Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute, Dingolfing, Germany.
4
Climate Finance and Policy Group, Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, ETH Zurich,
Switzerland.
5
TUM Software Engineering for Business Information Systems, Department of Informatics, Technical Universityof Munich, Germany.
6
Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, United Kingdom* Correspondence: cstoll@mit.edu
12Introduction
Bitcoin mining is renowned for its energy intensity. As of March 25th, 2023, Bitcoin miners’ power
demand amounts to 15.4 gigawatts (GW).1 In the Bitcoin network, so-called miners compete in acomputational puzzle to add blocks to the chain and validate coin ownership and transactions includedin the blocks. To participate in the process, miners use specialized hardware devices which consume
electricity.
And while scholars and Bitcoin proponents agree that miners consume vast amounts of electricity,
opinions regarding the climate impacts of Bitcoin mining deviate fundamentally. Critics view Bitcoin’s
electricity consumption as a calamity, while proponents perceive it as a feature rather than a bug. A
growing body of academic studies compares Bitcoin’s carbon footprint to the emission levels of midsized countries.2,3 Concurrently, Bitcoin proponents highlight potential climate benefits from gridbalancing services, support of renewable energy expansion, methane emissions reductions via flare gas
utilization or sealing of orphaned wells, and use of waste heat from mining hardware for ancillary
activities.4,5
We validate arguments from both sides and provide empirical evidence for the extent and energy sourcesof Bitcoin mining in the U.S., based on data from 13 publicly listed mining companies that account for
one-fourth of the total network hashrate as of the end of 2022. Notably, during the winter storm Elliottin North America in December 2022, Bitcoin miners curtailed as much as 100 Exahashes per second(EH/s) – equivalent to 38% of the total Bitcoin network hashrate on that day.6 This number provides
empirical evidence that at least 38% of all Bitcoin mining activity was located in the U.S. and Canada
by December 2022.
We find that the carbon intensity of electricity consumed by publicly listed Bitcoin mining companies
in the U.S. of 397 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO2/kWh) is on par with the U.S. grid
average and that carbon emissions caused by the 13 analyzed publicly listed miners in the U.S. alone
surpass the carbon emissions of the State of Vermont.7 These findings, based on grid average emission
factors, stand in contrast to industry claims that the majority (58.9%) of Bitcoin mining is fueled bysustainable energy8 as the share of non-fossil electricity from renewables (21.5%) and nuclear (18.2%)
in the U.S. generation mix is significantly lower.9 At the same time, we find that the potential climate
benefits of Bitcoin mining also warrant closer attention.
To bridge the gap in this bifurcated debate, it is crucial to comprehend established carbon accounting
rules and ascertain the data required to substantiate renewable energy claims. The increasingtransparency of locations and energy sources for publicly listed Bitcoin miners emphasizes the value of
disclosure obligations that may help dismantle unsupported industry claims, improve assumption-based
academic models, and direct regulators to areas where Bitcoin mining may bring climate benefits. We
argue that further transparency is vital to educate Bitcoin users and inform the public, regulators, andpolicymakers about the climate impacts of Bitcoin mining.

1

Climate benefits of Bitcoin mining
Historically, events such as the Chinese mining crackdown or a blackout in Kazakhstan provided
empirical insights into the size and global distribution of Bitcoin mining activities.2 A similar event
occurred on December 24th, 2022, when winter storm Elliott hit North America, and in consequence,
Bitcoin miners curtailed about 100 EH/s at peak – equal to 38% of the total Bitcoin network hashrate onthat day.6
ERCOT, the grid operator in Texas, established a curtailment program for large flexible load (LFL) in
2022. So far, nearly the entire operational LFL can be attributed to Bitcoin mining facilities that qualify
for the program; facilities with over 75 megawatts (MW) rated power. The LFL demand response during
winter storm Elliott of 1.4 gigawatts, as depicted in Figure 1, provides a lower bound of the Bitcoin
mining load in Texas as nearly all of the LFL operational in December 2022 can be attributed to Bitcoin
mining. This corresponds to 15% of the total Bitcoin network power demand on that day.1 This event
bolsters a common argument of Bitcoin proponents: that Bitcoin mining can contribute to grid stability
and resilience by providing grid operators with a resource that can rapidly adjust its power usage at ahighly granular level. The latest LFL update shows that the capacity has grown further to 1.7 GW as ofMarch 2023.10

Bitcoin miners' demand response in ERCOT during winter storm Elliott
1,800$5,0001,600$4,500$3,500

LFL [MW]

1,200$3,0001,000$2,500800$2,000$1,500600$1,000

400

$500

200
-

21/12
12:00

System Price [$/MWh]$4,0001,400$22/12
00:00

22/12
12:00

23/12
00:00

23/12
12:00

24/12
00:00

LFL Consumption

24/12
12:00

25/12
00:00

25/12
12:00

26/12
00:00

$(500)
26/12
12:00

System Price

Figure 1 | Large flexible load (LFL) curtailment during winter storm Elliott according to ERCOT data (seeSupplementary Data).

However, the climate benefits arising from demand response capacity and other grid-balancing services
that U.S. Bitcoin miners may provide are difficult to measure. Further research is needed to assess andcompare the carbon emissions and total power system costs in scenarios with and without Bitcoin
mining. For instance, emissions reductions stemming from reducing the reliance on fossil-fuel-powered2

backup generators and other peak load resources, as well as the value of demand response via potential
system cost savings could be used as reference points to quantify potential climate benefits.
A second climate benefit often emphasized by Bitcoin proponents is its potential to mitigate methane
emissions. Natural gas, if a by-product of oil extraction, is often uneconomical for oil producers to utilize
or transport due to costly and lacking infrastructure. Consequently, producers either vent or flare the gas
on site. Venting emits methane (CH4) directly into the atmosphere – a greenhouse gas with a Global
Warming Potential over a 100-year timeframe 28-36 times greater than CO2 – and is therefore
discouraged or even illegal in some jurisdictions.11 Flaring the gas emits predominantly carbon dioxide(CO2), and it is commonly assumed flares destroy CH4 with 98% efficiency.12
Bitcoin proponents assume much higher residual CH4 emissions from flaring and argue that emissions
could be reduced if the gas were combusted in electrical generators instead. Bitcoin industry estimatessuggest a potential of reducing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions by 25% compared to open
flares and up to 63% if accounting for the outages of flares, assuming a 99.9% generator CH4 combustion
efficiency.13 A recent flare efficiency study, using surveys to explore flare outages and airborne
sampling covering basins accountable for over 80% of U.S. flaring, finds that flare outages andinefficient combustion result in a flare efficiency of 91.1%, resulting in 4-10% of total U.S. oil and gas
CH4 emissions.12
Insufficient electricity demand and high investment costs often render flare gas utilization projects
unfeasible. Bitcoin mining, with its location-agnostic, modular, and portable properties, offers a solution
by incentivizing generator construction to convert the otherwise squandered energy into productive use
and further leads to mitigating methane emissions. Critics, however, argue that this practice does notaddress the underlying issue of ongoing fossil fuel consumption and its environmental repercussions
and may even inadvertently prolong fossil fuel dependency.14
Another potential climate benefit is closely related to flaring mitigation, namely, addressing the issue oforphaned and unplugged oil and gas wells. As of 2020, according to EPA research15, the U.S. had
3,700,000 abandoned wells, of which 59% were unplugged, emitting 6.9 million tonnes of CO2
equivalent (MtCO2e) annually. Bitcoin mining, due to its location-agnostic nature and minimal local
resource requirements, presents a potential solution to this problem. The financial incentives of the
Bitcoin network could subsidize the sealing of these wells, with Bitcoin industry advocates lobbying forthis approach.16 By operating near orphaned wells, miners can harness the otherwise wasted energy,
convert it into electricity, and generate revenue to fund well-sealing efforts while mitigating climate
impact.
A third argument emphasized by Bitcoin proponents is that Bitcoin mining may facilitate the expansionof renewable energy resources. Mining in remote locations could potentially address challenges
associated with integrating an increasing amount of intermittent renewable energy sources into power
grids, such as the need for transmission capacity, energy storage capacity, or a lack of nearby power3

demand.5 Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, are characterized by intermittency,
resulting in volatile and non-controllable electricity production. Optimal sites for generating renewableelectricity are often in remote regions with insufficient local demand and inadequate transmission
infrastructure to accommodate a significant increase in electricity supply.
Quantifying the climate benefits associated with Bitcoin mining in this context, however, remains
challenging, as there is no comprehensive record of Bitcoin miners who actually invested in installing
additional renewable energy resources. Two notable examples are the partnership of Tesla, Block, andBlockstream to set up a 3.5 MW off-grid, solar-powered Bitcoin mine in Texas17 and Aspen Creek’s 30
MW mining facility connected behind-the-meter with a new 87 MW solar PV power plant. Other
instances reveal Bitcoin miners co-locating with existing renewable energy infrastructure to secureaccess to low-cost electricity.18 It is worth recognizing that higher and more stable demand for renewableelectricity may support its expansion by driving down production costs via economies of scale.
Consequently, Bitcoin mining may serve as a catalyst for investment in renewable infrastructure.
However, some critics argue that if cryptocurrency mining increasingly relies on renewable energy
sources, it may compete with other uses, potentially jeopardizing national decarbonization targets.19
While this argument has merit, it overlooks the possibility that additional demand could increase supply
by making investments in new renewable energy infrastructure more economically viable.20
Another argument of Bitcoin proponents concerns the utilization of heat generated by Bitcoin mining
operations.21 Bitcoin miners may have a financial incentive to capture and reutilize the waste heat,
thereby reducing energy consumption elsewhere. Suggested co-locations encompass numerous
applications, including greenhouses, residential buildings, water systems, swimming pools, food andwood drying, and alcohol distilleries.22 It is important to note that the practical implementation of waste
heat utilization from Bitcoin mining facilities appears to be limited to pilot projects thus far.

Climate costs of Bitcoin mining
Since its inception in 2008, Bitcoin’s global mining footprint has increased and changed significantly.
Studies estimate that two-thirds of the network was located in Asia as of 20183, before miners relocatedto Kazakhstan and the U.S. after the Chinese mining ban in June 20212, with the trend of miners flocking
to the U.S. continuing. According to a report from the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, the U.S. hashrate share rose from 3.5% in 2020 to 38% in August 2022, accounting for 0.9% to1.7% of the total electricity usage in the U.S. – comparable to all residential lighting combined.23
To provide additional insights into the current U.S. mining footprint, we assess the company filings oflisted miners. In recent years, several Bitcoin mining companies went public, resulting in disclosure
obligations for companies in an industry historically reticent about sharing information. We identify 19
publicly listed mining companies (see Supplementary Data) and analyze data from the 13 mining

4companies with operations in the U.S. that account for one-fourth of the total network hashrate as of theend of 2022 (see Supplementary Data).
Using the grid average emission factors, we find that the carbon intensity of electricity consumed by the
13 miners included in our analysis of 397 gCO2/kWh is nearly equivalent to the U.S. grid average of
387 gCO2/kWh.24 Furthermore, we find that the annual emissions of 7.2 MtCO2 caused by the 13
analyzed publicly listed miners in the U.S. alone surpass the carbon emissions of the State of Vermont.

Number ofHash rate
mining facilities Q4 2022 [EH/s]
State
17
28.6
Texas
6
11.9
Georgia5
5.7
New York
1
5.6
KentuckyNorth Dakota
3
4.2
North Carolina
1
3.9
Pennsylvania
3
2.3
South Carolina
1
1.2
1
1.1
Michigan
Washington
1
0.6
Nebraska
1
0.3
1
0.3
Ohio
1
0.0
Oklahoma
Total
42
65.5

Bitcoin minerCore Scientific
Riot
Marathon
Cipher Mining
CleanSpark
New Hut
Stronghold
Argo Blockchain
Greenidge
BitNileBit Digital
TeraWulf
Bitfarms
Total

Computing power
Q4 2022*
Expansion plans[EH/s][EH/s]
22.5
31.0
9.7
12.5
7.0
23.0
5.2
8.2
6.2
16.0
3.1
2.3
3.0
2.4
4.1
2.4
1.1
2.7
1.2
1.9
5.5
0.6
65.5
106.0

Power load
Carbon intensity/emissions
Q4 2022*
Expansion plans
Grid emission
Total emissions
factor [gCO2/kWh]
[MW]
[MW]
[ktCO2]
606
1,000
494
2,620
300
387
388
1,021
416
245
805
893
388
173
267
589
198
510
309
535
135
365
432
330
304
105
138
82
140
388
279
76
232
154
36
91
455
144
328
116
40
50
150
207
90
20
92
16
2,067
3,487
397
7,194

*Or latest available data

Figure 2 | Locations of mining facilities and carbon emissions of mining operations of publicly listed mining
companies in the U.S. (for data sources, see Supplementary Data).

At the same time, the Bitcoin mining industry claims that the average carbon intensity of the applied
electricity mix lies considerably below the grid average. For instance, the Bitcoin Mining Council statesthat 58.9% of the electricity comes from sustainable energy sources. Assuming the remainder relies on
fossil fuel sources in line with the current shares of gas, coal, and oil in the U.S., this would lead to acarbon intensity of 272 gCO2/kWh, almost one-third below the U.S. grid average. However, the claims
are solely survey-based and lack information to verify the credibility of renewable energy use claims.
For the Bitcoin mining industry to substantiate climate benefit claims, it is therefore essential tounderstand how established carbon accounting rules function. The GHG Protocol, the most widely usedcarbon accounting standard, offers two complementary approaches to account for emissions frompurchased electricity, warranting their concurrent use in what is known as ‘dual reporting’.25 First, the5

location-based approach requires companies to report emissions associated with the delivered
electricity. In most instances, this corresponds to the average emissions intensity of the local grid, as theapproach only considers direct deliveries of electricity generated from renewable sources. Second, themarket-based approach requires companies to report emissions associated with the purchased electricity,reflecting contractual instruments, such as power purchase agreements, supplier-specific contracts, orenergy attribute certificates.
The market-based approach allows Bitcoin miners to verify their renewable energy usage claims, butthey must obey report criteria to make credible claims. Global initiatives, such as RE100, provide
guidance based on the GHG Protocol to standardize the definition of renewable electricity sources andrequire that reporting companies possess attribute certificates of renewable electricity. The same applies
to self-generated electricity and direct-line connections to avoid somebody already accounts for theattribute certificates.26 As the Bitcoin mining industry matures, we expect to see better data quality on
credible renewable energy usage which would allow researchers and regulators to go beyond using grid
averages to assess the climate cost of Bitcoin mining.

State of the regulatory debate
Regulation has the potential to shape a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental
consequences associated with Bitcoin mining. Although mandatory disclosure obligations for publicly
listed Bitcoin miners provide valuable information regarding operational scale and geographicaldistribution, crucial details, such as the energy mix, often remain inadequately disclosed. Introducing
additional environmental disclosure requirements and extending specific transparency measures tolarge-scale private miners could further enhance transparency concerning climate costs. However, it isessential to pay closer attention to potential climate benefits as well. The current debate frequently
attributes a negative connotation to energy consumption per se, while there might be instances where
this is not warranted. Nonetheless, it remains crucial to exercise caution and rigorously examine theefficacy of potential climate benefits to avoid greenwashing.
Given its growth and direct impacts on local communities, Bitcoin mining is already subject toregulatory considerations in the U.S. at both the federal and state levels. In September 2022, a WhiteHouse report highlighted the need for increased transparency23, and the Crypto-Asset Environmental
Transparency Act of 2022 provided further direction on how to assess the impact of crypto mining in
the U.S. The latter bill suggests that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should require crypto
miners with over five megawatts of rated power to report their greenhouse gas emissions.27 The call for
the Crypto-Asset Environmental Transparency Act was renewed in March 2023 by Senator Edward
Markey and Representative Jared Huffman.28 Additionally, the EPA itself is considering imposing
reporting rules on crypto-mining facilities to assess their environmental impact.29 Most recently, thefiscal year 2024 budget proposal of President Biden targets to introduce a 30% tax on electricity costs
associated with their operations.30 On a state level, Bitcoin mining regulations vary greatly. Some states,
6

such as Rhode Island, Kentucky, Iowa, Montana, and Wyoming, and Pennsylvania, encourage mining
activities, for instance, through tax breaks.31 In Montana, blockchain-based coins are exempt fromsecurity laws. In Wyoming, digital currency developers, sellers, and exchanges benefit from exemption
from certain securities and money transmission laws, and Pennsylvania offers tax benefits worth $4 per
tonne to waste-coal generators32, with the generated electricity, among others, being used to mine
cryptocurrencies.33
In contrast, New York State was the first state to ban crypto mining with a two-year moratorium on new
fossil fuel-powered projects.34 In Texas, large-scale power users need clearance from the grid operator,and ERCOT announced the creation of a task force to evaluate the impact of large consumers in greater
detail.35 Further Bitcoin mining hotspots such as Oregon and Washington are also considering mining
regulation in the future.36
The Bitcoin mining industry will also be impacted by rules currently being developed by financial
regulators such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Reserve System(FED). The SEC is set to release carbon accounting and climate risk disclosure rules in April, which
will likely entail carbon disclosure rules for publicly listed miners, and the FED is working on rules toensure that banks participating in crypto-related endeavors have risk controls in place, including climaterelated risk controls.

Conclusions
Our Perspective provides empirical evidence that at least 38% of all Bitcoin mining activity has migrated
to the U.S. and Canada as of the end of 2022. Furthermore, based on data from publicly listed mining
companies, we show that the carbon intensity of electricity consumed by publicly listed Bitcoin mining
companies of 397 gCO2/kWh is on par with the U.S. grid average. The total carbon emissions causedby the 13 analyzed publicly listed miners in the U.S. alone add up to 7.2 MtCO2 per annum and surpass
the annual carbon emissions of the State of Vermont.
The growing transparency on locations and energy sources of large publicly listed Bitcoin miners, which
account for one-fourth of the total hashrate, highlights the value of disclosure obligations and may help
dismantle unsupported industry claims, improve assumption-based academic models, and point
regulators to areas where Bitcoin mining may bring climate co-benefits. Financial incentives of the
Bitcoin network may, for instance, subsidize the sealing of orphaned and unplugged wells, and thereby,
reduce methane emissions at scale.
The data disclosed by publicly listed miners – and potential future industry-wide disclosure – may help
to improve existing mining maps.37 Our results for the U.S. suggest that, for instance, the previously
estimated share of total Bitcoin mining activities in Texas of slightly more than 4% (December 2021)
has increased to over 15% (December 2022). Furthermore, U.S. and Canadian share has likely increased
significantly beyond the 44% previously assumed.
7

If the Bitcoin mining industry wants to substantiate climate benefit claims, it must understand how
established carbon accounting rules function and report in line with common standards. In the past,
Bitcoin advocacy groups failed to provide evidence to substantiate renewable energy claims, making it
difficult to go beyond applying grid averages when assessing the climate costs of Bitcoin mining.
However, as the industry matures, we expect to see increased reporting quality entailing credible
renewable energy claims which would allow for even more detailed analyses.
Given the expected growth of the Bitcoin mining industry in the U.S., more transparency is crucial toquantify climate benefits and costs. Crypto miners have applied to connect to Texas's power grid up to
33 GW, equal to almost a quarter of the current total ERCOT operational capacity.38,39 EU regulators
have demonstrated proactivity and are ahead in demanding increased transparency through additional
ESG disclosure rules in the forthcoming Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) framework. Furthermore,carbon disclosure obligations under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in the EU,or the upcoming SEC rules will also apply at least to publicly listed miners. We argue that transparency
is the vital first step to educate Bitcoin users, and inform the public, regulators and policymakers about
the climate-related benefits and costs associated with Bitcoin mining.

Declaration of interests
U.G., L.K., and C.S. are co-founders of CCRI GmbH which provides sustainability metrics for digitalassets.

8References
1. CCAF. Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. Available at https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index(2023).
2. Vries, A. de, Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L. & Stoll, C. Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint. Joule6, 498–502 (2022).
3. Stoll, C., Klaaßen, L. & Gallersdörfer, U. The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin. Joule 3, 1647–1661(2019).
4. Velický, M. Renewable Energy Transition Facilitated by Bitcoin. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 11,
3160–3169 (2023).
5. Atlantic Council. Yes, you can mine Bitcoin and contribute to the climate effort. Available athttps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/yes-you-can-mine-bitcoin-and-contribute-tothe-climate-effort/ (2022).
6. Decrypt. Bitcoin Hash Rate Suffers Near 40% Drop Amid U.S. Deadly Winter Storm. Available athttps://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-hash-rate-suffers-near-095455596.html?guccounter=1(2022).
7. EIA. Energy-Related CO2 Emission Data Tables. Available athttps://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/ (2022).
8. Bitcoin Mining Council. GLOBAL BITCOIN MINING DATA REVIEW Q4 2022. Available athttps://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/BMC-Q4-2022-Presentation.pdf(2023).
9. EIA. What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? Available athttps://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 (2023).
10. ERCOT. LLI Queue Status Update. Available athttps://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/03/20/LLI%20Queue%20Status%20Update%20%202023-03-20.pdf (2023).
11. IEA. Methane and climate change. Available at https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker2021/methane-and-climate-change (2021).
12. Plant, G. et al. Inefficient and unlit natural gas flares both emit large quantities of methane.
Science (New York, N.Y.) 377, 1566–1571 (2022).
13. World Bank Group. Financing Solutions to Reduce Natural Gas Flaring and Methane Emissions.
Available athttps://d1bf23g64f8xve.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/Financing%20Solutio
ns%20to%20Reduce%20Natural%20Gas%20Flaring%20and%20Methane%20Emissions_World%20Bank%20Group_0.pdf (2022).
9

14. The Guardian. A ‘false solution’? How crypto mining became the oil industry’s new hope.
Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/16/crypto-mining-oil-industrywaste-climate-crisis (2021).
15. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Available athttps://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghg-inventory-2022-main-text.pdf(2022).
16. Axios Crypto. Crypto mining advocate sees green business in abandoned gas wells. Available athttps://www.axios.com/2023/01/27/crypto-mining-advocate-green-abandoned-gas-wells (2023).
17. The Verge. Block and Blockstream are partnering with Tesla on an off-grid, solar-powered Bitcoinmine in Texas. Available at https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/8/23016553/block-blockstreamtesla-solar-bitcoin-mine-texas (2022).
18. PVTech. 87MW solar-powered bitcoin mining centre becomes operational in Texas. Available athttps://www.pv-tech.org/87mw-solar-powered-bitcoin-mining-centre-becomes-operational-intexas/ (2022).
19. European Central Bank. Mining the environment – is climate risk priced into crypto-assets?
Available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/financial-stability/macroprudentialbulletin/html/ecb.mpbu202207_3~d9614ea8e6.en.html (2022).
20. Seel, J., Millstein, D., Mills, A., Bolinger, M. & Wiser, R. Plentiful electricity turns wholesale
prices negative. Advances in Applied Energy 4, 100073 (2021).
21. K33. Bitcoin miners are unique energy consumers. Available athttps://k33.com/research/archive/articles/bitcoin-miners-are-unique-energy-consumers (2022).
22. TheBitcoinManual. Ways To Repurpose Bitcoin Miner Heat. Available athttps://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/repurpose-bitcoin-miner-heat/ (2022).
23. The White House. CLIMATE AND ENERGY IMPLICATIONS OF CRYPTO-ASSETS IN THE
UNITED STATES. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/092022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf (2022).
24. EIA. How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatthour of U.S. electricity generation?
Available at https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 (2022).
25. Greenhouse Gas Protocol. GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance. An amendment to the GHG Protocol
Corporate Standard. Available athttps://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/standards/Scope%202%20Guidance_Final_0.pdf(2015).

1026. RE100. RE100 TECHNICAL CRITERIA. Available athttps://www.there100.org/sites/re100/files/2022-12/Dec%2012%20%20RE100%20technical%20criteria%20%2B%20appendices.pdf (2022).
27. Ed Markey. SENATOR MARKEY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO COMBAT ENERGYINTENSIVE CRYPTOMINING AS IT STRAINS GRID, UNDERMINES U.S. CLIMATEGOALS. Available at https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markeyintroduces-legislation-to-combat-energy-intensive-cryptomining-as-it-strains-grid-undermines-usclimate-goals (2022).
28. Cointelegraph. US legislators renew call for EPA investigation of crypto mining emissions data.
Available at https://cointelegraph.com/news/senators-renew-call-for-epa-investigation-of-cryptomining-emissions-data (2023).
29. Bloomberg Law. EPA Acknowledges Plans to Look at Crypto Energy Usage, Emissions.
Available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-acknowledges-plans-tolook-at-crypto-energy-usage-emissions (2022).
30. Bloomberg. Biden Budget to Target Tax Breaks for Private Equity, Crypto, Fossil Fuels. Available
at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-08/tax-breaks-for-pe-crypto-fossil-fuelstargeted-in-biden-budget#xj4y7vzkg?leadSource=uverify%20wall (2023).
31. River Financial. Bitcoin Mining Taxes and Regulation. Available athttps://river.com/learn/bitcoin-mining-taxes-regulation/ (2021).
32. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Coal Refuse Energy and Reclamation Tax Credit. Available athttps://dced.pa.gov/programs/coal-refuse-energy-reclamation-tax-credit/ (2023).
33. Bloomberg. Who’s Subsidizing This Bitcoin Miner IPO? You Are. Available athttps://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-27/taxpayers-subsidize-bitcoin-minerstronghold-digital-s-ipo#xj4y7vzkg (2021).
34. Politico. New York partially banned cryptocurrency mining. Now environmentalists want more.
Available at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/07/new-york-cryptocurrency-mining-ban00072564#:~:text=Gov.,a%20model%20for%20other%20states. (2023).
35. Bloomberg. Crypto Miners in Texas Need ‘Approval to Energize’ in New Grid Hurdle. Available
at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-30/texas-crypto-miners-need-approval-toenergize-in-grid-hurdle#xj4y7vzkg (2022).
36. Crosscut. Washington and Oregon may regulate the wild West of crypto mining. Available athttps://crosscut.com/politics/2023/01/washington-and-oregon-may-regulate-wild-west-cryptomining (2023).
37. CCAF. Bitcoin Mining Map. Available at https://ccaf.io/cbeci/mining_map (2022).

11

38. Bloomberg. Texas Crypto-Mining Rush May Need as Much Power as Entire State of New York.
Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-26/texas-crypto-rush-may-needas-much-power-as-entire-state-of-n-y#xj4y7vzkg (2022).
39. S&P Global. Texas grid adds 9.1 GW of power capacity in 2022, reflected in summer 2023
forwards. Available at https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latestnews/natural-gas/010923-texas-grid-adds-91-gw-of-power-capacity-in-2022-reflected-in-summer2023forwards#:~:text=ERCOT%20approved%20almost%20654%20MW,from%20the%20end%20of%
202021. (2023).

12

Contact.
MIT CEEPR Working Paper Series
is published by the MIT Center for Energy
and Environmental Policy Research from
submissions by affiliated researchers.
For inquiries and/or for permission to
reproduce material in this working paper,please contact:
General inquiries: ceepr@mit.edu
Media inquiries: ceepr-media@mit.edu
Copyright © 2023
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MIT Center for Energy andEnvironmental Policy Research
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue, E19-411
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
USA
ceepr.mit.edu

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY