TO AUTHORIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONAPPROPRIATION BILL TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS AND AMEND THE AUTHORITY OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO A DIGITAL ASSET MINING BUSINESS.
HR 1013 is a resolution authorizing introduction of a bill to amend Arkansas’s Data Centers Act of 2023, which the proposal would rename the “Arkansas Data Centers Act of 2023 Digital Asset Mining Act.” The underlying bill would revise the rules governing digital asset mining businesses and businesses using blockchain networks, including operational requirements, noise-reduction standards, zoning-related provisions, and the relationship between miners and local governments.
The proposal would require digital asset mining businesses to comply with applicable ordinances, utility rules and rates, and state and federal law, while also paying taxes and fees in acceptable currency. It adds specific operational standards for miners, including noise mitigation measures such as liquid cooling, submerged cooling, or full enclosure, and allows certain siting options in industrial areas or at least 2,000 feet from nearby residential or commercial structures with local approval. It also addresses home digital asset mining, stating that individuals may mine at home subject to utility rules and limited local permitting requirements, and that miners are not to be treated as money transmitters under the Uniform Money Services Act.
The bill would significantly limit local government authority over digital asset mining. It would prohibit local governments from banning home mining, requiring local approval before home mining begins, or imposing special restrictions on mining sound levels or other requirements that differ from those applied to data centers. It also restricts zoning actions affecting mining businesses and directs the Arkansas Public Service Commission not to establish unreasonably discriminatory rates for blockchain-network customers, while requiring the commission to adopt implementing rules.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of digital asset mining and blockchain-related businesses, emphasizing economic development, job creation, tax revenue, and regulatory certainty. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history showing debate, but the structure of the proposal suggests a pro-industry approach that favors statewide uniformity over local regulation.
The main point of contention is likely the reduction of local control. Cities and counties would lose authority to prohibit or tightly regulate home mining and would face limits on zoning, noise, and permitting rules that specifically target digital asset mining. Nearby property owners are given a private right of action to enforce noise-reduction requirements, indicating that noise, land use, and neighborhood impacts are the primary counterweights to the bill’s broader protections for miners.
If enacted, the bill would amend Arkansas Code provisions governing data centers and digital asset mining, including title changes, repeal of legislative findings, and revisions to operational and regulatory sections. It would narrow local government authority over digital asset mining and home mining, constrain discriminatory treatment by local governments and the Arkansas Public Service Commission, and clarify that digital asset miners are not money transmitters under state law. It would also create enforceable noise-reduction obligations and a private enforcement mechanism for affected landowners within 2,000 feet of a mining facility.
The bill appears generally favorable to the digital asset mining industry and blockchain businesses, framing them as legitimate economic actors that create jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to local communities. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, and the measure ultimately died in House Committee at sine die adjournment, so there is no recorded floor-level sentiment. Based on the text alone, the proposal reflects a pro-industry, deregulatory posture rather than a neutral or restrictive one.
The most notable contention is the balance between statewide industry promotion and local control. Supporters of the bill would likely favor uniform rules, protection from local bans, and clearer operating standards for miners, while opponents would likely object to limits on municipal zoning, noise regulation, and permitting authority. Another likely point of dispute is the impact on residents and neighboring property owners, especially because the bill permits home mining and industrial siting while relying on noise standards and private lawsuits rather than local preapproval to address community concerns.