Are there really bitcoin miners operating in New York? Because from what I gathered the electricity cost in NY is very expensive and is already about 4 times higher than the average electricity price that most miners use to make their efforts profitable.

what you will see is that it creates a monopoly.

small hobby miners wanting to set up residentially using random power from random power generation plants(residential circuit of national grid) wont be able to. and most hobby miners wont want to move to locations of 100% renewable.
also the electric cost in NY is not the best unless you are on "industrial" rate contracts.
so this is pretty much ruling out any small farms mining in NY

however larger industrial mining farms if positioned right and using the right lobbying could get a licence.
..
this is said because NY done this before.. outlawed bitcoin exchanging and then offered a licence to allow exchanging a short time later.(research: bit licence)

in many countries if something is free to do with no laws, you cant just throw a licence requirement at it. you first have to prohibit it, to then bring it into your jurisdiction to then put terms of use on it where you will permit use of it.

Exactly. With NY state being "the largest producer of hydroelectric power east of the Rocky Mountains" one would expect the NY miners use cleaner electricity than many others. So I really don't know what basis that (ugly) political decision has...
Oh well, the miners will easily find other, more friendly places, although it'll cost them the relocation and the time they won't be hashing...

Ah that is good point. Though in rhetorical sense I believe it’s perfectly asked since bitcoin miners would do it way happily. We have already seen examples of how big mining corporations had their set up in country like Greenland with hydropower as main source of energy. Both Geo location and greener energy is being used and the companies are really really mega. The income definitely profitable for company and hydropower unit after they get the bills paid.

In other words this only sounds like dirty politics where NY do not want miners in the vicinity at all.

It's a good point the Association makes that the ban will motivate miners to move to another state with better regulations (although the notes in the thread about expensive NY electricity and hydroelectric power deserve attention as well). Also, if they care about the ecology, why the moratorium is not on any new carbon-based businesses in general? How is it fair that carbon emmissions are free to grow and businesses are free to profit, as long as it's not crypto mining? This is the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing about such restrictive legislation, and yet it doesn't seem that this argument is used much. Why not?

many asic manufacturers are no longer building asics and putting them into cardboard boxes and then into shipping containers, to deliver out where the workers at the mining farm warehouse have to take delivery, open the container, pull out all the boxes, unbox them, unwrap the bubblewrap and polystyrene and then plug them in one by one.. trying to not trip over the cabling

instead.. asic manufacturers build the asics and power units and have them racked up and cabled into the shipping container(alreadt fitted and cabled ready). where all the workers at the delivery destination have to do is connect a master circuit electric cable to the shipping container power circuit unit , and hey presto. its mining. right from within the shipping container.

this advantage saves a days worth of labour and also makes it easy to re-locate at a moments notice if needs be.

just unplug the shipping container and lift it back onto a low bed truck and off it goes.

its becoming easier to set up and relocate these days. so location is not a problem
(unlike businesses like amazon warehouses where it would take weeks to take boxes off shelves and put all the stock into trucks in one go.)

It seems to me like you want me to say that it's better for some most states to ban it, but the answer is not that simple. I would prefer that no country dominates the mining business and that the biggest players are scattered all over the world. But I would rather have the US dominate Bitcoin mining than most of the states banning it. I want to highlight the "most" part. If it becomes just NY and a few others, so be it. But if it's most of the US, it's a different situation.

Whether someone likes it or not, the USA is a big player in almost everything you can think of. If they decide to do something that extreme, many of the world's US ass-kissing nations will want to prove themselves and remain on the same page as the USA.   

people worry that america will do a full ban in all states..
my opinion is this

NY will temp ban mining so they can then offer a monopoly on licences..
TX will be open to mining.
FL & CA will be open to utility of btc

i say this because NY is the monopoly capital of capitalism. they don't like little people competing with the financial elite.

TX is the liberal state that likes to support open business competition. they love their farming and their mining so they will happily invite another (virtual) farming/mining industry

FL & CA are open minded but more about the service/tourist industry. so they would be more about offering services both real world retail store business utility and also technology services like software services

each state of the US. and each country have different plans for transitioning to renewables.

by assessing the strategy of transitioning to renewable. you can probably gauge if a state is going to be new industry friendly or not..

imagine that 4 regions are initially fossil based powered with say 100GW capacity and 70GW local demand each right now. (random numbers i plucked out of my head for easy demo)

1st region may assess that the renewable production requires a new plant capacity of 200GW for future proofing population growth,
where by as soon as the facility is built. they can just switch off the fossil fuel plant the same day. and be 100% renewable. with 130GW spare to offer as excess for new industry to buy up on day one, instead of 30GW excess

2nd region may build the same as 1. but instead of switching off the fossil fuel plants, they start offering renewable excess on the grid market to neighbouring regions along side fossil fuel excess. and slowly reduce the fossil fuel amount over years when they start offering certain utility companies in the area x% where by less demand is there for the fossil contracts.
(some states enjoy keeping coal miners employed so wont want to see a mass exodus of the coal/oil mining industry instantly)
whereby they can have 230GW excess to sell on the markets initially by keeping fossil plants running. meaning alot of potential profit aswell as keeping coal miners employed

3rd region, may want to keep initial build costs low. and so only build a 100GW renewable plant. whereby it keeps the capacity to 100GW by switching off fossil fuel to 0GW on first day of operation, (1:1 swap, no future plan) meaning 70GW demand with only 30GW spare, which they dont want to offer out as excess. but are now 0% carbon

4th region, same as 3 (100GW) whereby at the moment of operating it, they can reduce the fossil fuel to say 35GW fossil fuel(50% carbon/carbon free), meaning if needed.. upto 65GW fossil fuel excess plus 65GW renewable excess.
(changes capacity from 100GW to 200GW meaning excess of upto 130GW if needed
which they can offer out as excess contracts. and slowly bring the fossil fuel number down further if not needed. 
to only be 100GW (if they dont expand more plants over the generations)

each plan has different merits..
EG difference between 3 and 4 is that. 3 transitions to 0% carbon on first day, but it is not planning for the future nor is it netting any extra income to then re-invest for the future. where as 4 is not instantly 0% carbon but is on a budget and gaining extra income while then able to slowly build-out extra capacity over the generations to become both 0% carbon and also future capable, on a budget
.
i say this because with these different plans. requires then allowing or not allowing new industry to take on the excess.

its not as simple as one source is X and another source is Y depending on how its created. its also how much spare capacity they have to offer out to new industry.

EG
if one region only has 30GW excess spare and has a regulatory cap-limit of say 12cent as the max they can sell at. they sure as hell are going to sell it at 12cent as they can only earn a max of $3.6m an hour if sold at top amount

where as if they had 230GW excess they can sell for 3cents and still get $6.9m (more then first example)while offering cheap electric
(or any number between, depending on greed of the company(upto $27.6m if at top cap limit price))