After cryptocurrency mining was banned in China in 2021, the United States has become one of the largest mining hubs for Bitcoin miners. However, regulators have stepped up measures to increase oversight of the industry.
Last month, one of the US government agencies issued emergency approval for ‘EIA-862, Cryptocurrency Mining Facility Report’.
The investigation has raised alarm among miners as they seek to collect sensitive data from cryptocurrency mining companies operating in the country. These concerns led several involved parties to file a lawsuit last week.
EIA’s ‘insufficient’ response to lawsuit
On February 22, the Texas Blockchain Council (TBC), Bitcoin mining company Riot Platforms, and the Digital Chamber of Commerce launched a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and the Administration. and Budget (OMB).
This lawsuit follows OMB’s approval of an emergency investigation. EIA’s urgent request asks for energy consumption data to be collected from a sample of 82 Bitcoin miners in the United States.
In response to the lawsuit, EIA Administrator Joseph DeCarolis declared that the agency would take several steps. DeCarolis is the agent responsible for collecting, evaluating, and analyzing the data requested in the survey.
According to court documents, EIA was willing to offer to “exercise its discretion not to enforce the requirement to submit Survey Form EIA-862 by March 22, 2024.”
The agency also declared its commitment not to impose fines, penalties or “other adverse consequences” if responding parties fail to respond before March 25, 2024.
On February 23, Judge Alan Albright issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) forcing EIA to compel plaintiffs to respond to surveys and stopping the agency from collecting data.
The judge upheld EIA’s desire to temporarily halt the implementation of the survey. However, the court found the declaration insufficient and expressed concern that it lacked an enforcement mechanism in case the EIA administration did not comply with the terms of the declaration.
This declaration does not bind all defendants, does not remove a credible threat of enforcement by other defendants (or EIA after March 25), and does not address the costs to plaintiffs of complying with the investigation.
US Judge Temporarily Halts Bitcoin Mining Investigation
The granting of a TRO followed the court’s consideration that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to support its complaint that “if a TRO were not issued, immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would occur.”
The court considers credible three main causes that the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm: Reasons include threats of prosecution if the parties do not comply and enforcement to disclose sensitive information related to business strategies.
As can be seen from the documents, the court also disagreed with the defendant’s arguments presented at the court hearing. The EIA Administrator’s declaration “neutralizes any credible enforcement threat” that plaintiffs may face.
The court disagrees. The declaration does not bind other defendants. The court understands that the declaration itself demonstrates an intention on behalf of the EIA Administrator to carry out the survey on the expiry date of the appointment (March 25). Although delayed, a credible threat of enforcement still exists. And while this TRO expires before March 25, it seeks to preserve the status quo.
To address compliance costs, another cause of harm claimed by the plaintiffs, EIA argued that survey compliance was too small to be considered, given that the estimated time for completion of the survey was less than 30 minutes.
Nonetheless, the court found that the time periods presented by the agency were misleading and inaccurate, as indicated in the documents.
After examining the survey itself, the court found that the 30-minute estimated completion time was highly inaccurate, if not seriously misleading. ECF No. See 1-8 (EIA-862, Cryptocurrency Mining Facility Report). The court is satisfied with the plaintiff’s showing that the absence of a TRO would result in irreparable injury.
Finally, the court finds that the arguments and evidence presented during the hearing favor granting a TRO because it agrees that the “balance of damages” is sufficient for an injunction.
Bitcoin is trading at $51,692.5. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView.com
Featured image from Unsplash.com, chart from Tradingview.com