Clean Cloud Act of 2025
Summary
The Clean Cloud Act of 2025 (HR6179/S1475) would impose direct emissions fees on data centers and cryptomining facilities over 100 kW. Pure-play crypto miners ($MARA, $RIOT, $CLSK, $HUT) are most exposed — the bill directly taxes their primary input cost (electricity). Data center REITs ($EQIX, $DLR) face cost pressure but may partially pass through to tenants. The bill is early-stage (referred to committee) but the companion Senate bill increases passage probability. Market data shows crypto miners have already declined 3-11% in the past week despite a sustained crypto rally, indicating the market is pricing in legislative risk.
See which stocks are affected
Key takeaways, market implications, full AI analysis, and connected signals are available to HillSignal members.
Already have an account? Log in
Key Takeaways
- 1.Pure-play crypto miners ($MARA, $RIOT, $CLSK, $HUT) are structurally most exposed — the bill taxes their primary input cost (electricity) with no pass-through ability.
- 2.Crypto miners have already declined 3-11% in the past week despite a 30-day rally of 33-58%, suggesting the market is pricing in legislative risk from this bill.
- 3.Data center REITs ($EQIX, $DLR) face indirect cost pressure but have more flexibility through PPAs and tenant pass-throughs, making their exposure moderate relative to crypto miners.
- 4.The bill is early-stage (referred to committee) but has a Senate companion, elevating its passage probability above typical early-stage bills.
Market Implications
The market has begun pricing in legislative risk for crypto miners. $RIOT is the hardest hit (-11.28% in 7 days), followed by $CLSK (-5.72%), $HUT (-3.59%), and $MARA (-0.77%). Despite a 30-day crypto rally that lifted all four stocks by 33-58%, the 7-day divergence suggests institutional investors are discriminating between companies based on regulatory exposure. Investors should monitor committee assignments and hearing schedules. A markup or hearing announcement in the House Energy and Commerce Committee would trigger a second leg of selling in crypto miners and potential further weakness in data center REITs. The server vendor (-8.67% 7-day) is correlated but the causal link is weaker and should be treated as secondary.
Full Analysis
Intelligence Surface
Cross-referenced against federal contracts, SEC insider filings & congressional trade disclosures
No confirming evidence found yet from contracts, insider trades, or congressional activity
What the bill does
Direct emissions fee on cryptomining facilities over 100 kW, based on annual greenhouse gas emission intensity of consumed electricity.
Who must act
Covered cryptomining facilities (over 100 kW) operated by MARA Holdings.
What happens
MARA's energy costs increase by the fee amount per ton of CO2 equivalent attributed to its grid and behind-the-meter power consumption.
Stock impact
MARA's primary business is Bitcoin mining at scale; all of its facilities exceed the 100 kW threshold. The fee directly increases operating expenses with no offsetting revenue. At current Bitcoin prices, margins compress further.
What the bill does
Direct emissions fee on cryptomining facilities over 100 kW, based on annual greenhouse gas emission intensity of consumed electricity.
Who must act
Covered cryptomining facilities (over 100 kW) operated by Riot Platforms.
What happens
RIOT's energy costs increase by the fee amount per ton of CO2 equivalent attributed to its grid and behind-the-meter power consumption.
Stock impact
Riot operates large-scale Bitcoin mining facilities in Texas (Rockdale, Corsicana) that far exceed 100 kW. The fee applies to its primary operating cost (electricity), directly reducing profitability.
Market Impact Score
Connected Signals
Matched on shared policy language across AI analyses, with ticker & timing weight
Clean Cloud Act of 2025
Mined in America Act of 2026
Combatting Money Laundering in Cyber Crime Act of 2025
Data Center Transparency Act
Keep Your Coins Act of 2025
Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act
GRID Act
Critical Infrastructure Security Act
Related Presidential Actions
Executive orders & memoranda affecting the same sectors or companies
Imposing Sanctions on Those Responsible for Repression in Cuba and for Threats to United States National Security and Foreign Policy
This Executive Order expands the existing national emergency against the Government of Cuba by imposing broad secondary sanctions and asset freezes on foreign persons operating in key sectors of the Cuban economy (energy, defense, metals/mining, financial services, security). It authorizes the Treasury and State Departments to block property and deny entry to individuals and entities involved in repression, corruption, or support for the Cuban government, and empowers Treasury to sanction foreign financial institutions that facilitate transactions for designated persons. The order effectively tightens the U.S. embargo by targeting third-country companies and banks that do business with Cuba.
Presidential Permit: Authorizing Bridger Pipeline Expansion LLC to Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain Pipeline Facilities at the International Boundary at Phillips County, Montana, Between the United States and Canada
This Presidential Memorandum grants a permit to Bridger Pipeline Expansion LLC to construct and operate a new 36-inch diameter crude oil and petroleum products pipeline crossing the U.S.-Canada border in Montana. The permit authorizes bidirectional flow and variable throughput capacity without requiring further presidential approval, while maintaining existing regulatory oversight from agencies like PHMSA and reserving the government's right to seize the facilities for national security with compensation.
Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, and Performance in Federal Contracting
This executive order mandates that federal agencies default to using fixed-price contracts for procurement, shifting away from cost-reimbursement models. It requires written justification and senior-level approval for any non-fixed-price contract over certain dollar thresholds (e.g., $10M for most agencies, $100M for the Department of War), and directs agencies to review and renegotiate their 10 largest non-fixed-price contracts within 90 days. The order also tasks OMB with implementation guidance and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council with proposing regulatory amendments within 120 days.