A US judge has temporarily halted the Energy Information Administration ‘s (EIA) attempt to release a mandatory survey of Bitcoin miners.
On Friday, Judge Alan Albrightruled that the EIA cannot force the Texas Blockchain Council or its members to participate in the survey. In addition, the order restricts for four weeks the agency’s data collection and sharing, even those already received.
Joseph DeCarolis, EIA administrator, said the agency is willing to voluntarily discontinue the survey after the injunction is issued.
In an additional statement, he said the agency has decided to voluntarily suspend the survey of Bitcoin miners until March 22. In addition, it includes a commitment not to penalize anyone who does not respond by March 25.
Despite the Administrator’s offer to delay enforcement, Judge Albright said a simple statement was not enough.
“The declaration does not bind all defendants, does not remove the credible threat of enforcement by other defendants (or the EIA after March 25), and does not address plaintiffs’ alleged costs of complying with the survey,” he said.
“The court is also concerned that the declaration lacks an enforcement mechanism in case the EIA Administrator decides not to comply with the terms of its declarations.”
Last week, the Texas Blockchain Council (TBC) and mining company Riot Platforms sued the EIA, leading to this development. They alleged that the agency’s new mandatory survey violates its right to collect data from the industry.
This came after the EIA announced that it would collect data on the amount of electricity consumed by certain U.S. cryptocurrency miners starting in early February.
Specifically, commercial miners are required to disclose their energy consumption. After receiving emergency approval for the data collection from the Office of Management and Budget on January 26, the decision was made to implement the requirement.
As mentioned earlier by the White House, TBC is concerned that disclosure of private data could increase scrutiny of the industry.
The council considered the emergency application and survey to be “legal deficiencies.” It also questioned the EIA’s “emergency” approval because it felt it did not include the necessary public safeguards.
