Texas Blockchain Council v. Department of Energy — Entry #25: ORDER GRANTING [16] Motion CHAMBER OF DIGITIAL COMMERCES MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF

Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 25 Filed 03/01/24 Page 1 of 4


                       IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                  WACO DIVISION

TEXAS BLOCKCHAIN COUNCIL, a                     )
nonprofit association;                          )
RIOT PLATFORMS, INC.,                           )
                                                )
Plaintiffs,                                     )
                                                )
v.                                              )
                                                )           Case No. 6:24-cv-99
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; JENNIFER                  )
M. GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as        )
Secretary of Energy; ENERGY                     )
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION;                     )
JOSEPH DECAROLIS, in his official               )
capacity as Administrator of Energy             )
Information Administration; OFFICE OF           )
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET;                          )
SHALANDA YOUNG, in her official                 )
capacity as Director of Office of Management    )
and Budget,                                     )
                                                )
Defendants.                                     )


                                           ORDER

        Before the Court is the Agreement of Plaintiff Texas Blockchain Council; Plaintiff Riot

Platforms, Inc. (collectively with Texas Blockchain Council, “Plaintiffs”); Defendant

Department of Energy (“DOE”); Defendant Jennifer M. Granholm, in her official capacity as

Secretary of Energy; Defendant U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”); Defendant

Joseph DeCarolis, in his official capacity as Administrator of EIA; Defendant Office of

Management and Budget (“OMB”); Defendant Shalanda Young, in her official capacity as

Director of OMB (collectively with the other Defendants, “Defendants”); and Proposed


                                                1


         Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 25 Filed 03/01/24 Page 2 of 4


Intervenor Chamber of Digital Commerce (“Proposed Intervenor,” and collectively with the

Plaintiffs and Defendants, the “Parties”).

       The Agreement sets forth that EIA has discontinued (that is, formally withdrawn and

ceased) the emergency collection of Form EIA-862 that Plaintiffs challenge in this litigation, and

that OMB has approved the discontinuance. See Agreement, Recitals, ¶¶ J-K. As a result of the

discontinuance, no person or entity is subject to any obligation to respond to Form EIA-862. Id.

¶ L. The Agreement further sets forth that in the letter from EIA Administrator DeCarolis

formally requesting approval of the discontinuance, EIA explained that it “has decided that it

will not proceed through the emergency collection procedures set forth in 44 U.S.C. § 3507(j)

and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13 with respect to an information collection covering data of the type

described in Form EIA-862.” Id. ¶ J (quoting Agreement, Attachment 1, Suppl. DeCarolis Decl.,

Ex. A). EIA explained that it “will proceed through the PRA’s notice-and-comment procedures .

. . to determine whether to request that OMB approve any collection of information covering

such data.” Id.

       In the Agreement, Defendants agree that EIA will destroy any information that it has

received or will received in response to the emergency collection of Form EIA-862, and will

sequester and keep confidential any such information until it is destroyed. Id. § 1.

       Defendants further agree that EIA will publish in the Federal Register a new notice of a

proposed collection of information that will supersede a notice that EIA previously issued. Id.

§ 2; Energy Information Administration, Agency Information Collection Proposed Extension, 89

Fed. Reg. 9,140 (Feb. 9, 2024) (“February 9 Notice”). Defendants further agree that EIA will

provide a 60-day public comment period for the new Federal Register notice and will also

consider any comments that have been submitted in response to the February 9 Notice as if they


                                                 2


          Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 25 Filed 03/01/24 Page 3 of 4


had been submitted in response to the new notice. See Agreement §§ 2-3. Further, if, after

evaluating the received comments, EIA decides to conduct a cryptocurrency mining survey, the

Defendants agree to conduct that clearance process in accordance with the procedures set forth in

44 U.S.C. § 3507 and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.10.

        Plaintiffs and Proposed Intervenor have withdrawn their request that the Court enter a

preliminary injunction. Id. § 5. Plaintiffs and Proposed Intervenor have further agreed not to

request any further relief, including injunctive relief or a declaratory judgment, with respect to

the emergency collection of EIA-862, which has now been discontinued—that is, withdrawn and

ceased. See Id. § 6. This agreement is without prejudice to Plaintiffs and Proposed Intervenor

seeking relief with respect to any collection of information that might be authorized in the future.

Id.

        In the Agreement, Defendant has consented to the Proposed Intervenor’s Motion to

Intervene as Plaintiff. Id. § 7.

        The Parties have also jointly requested that the Court stay and administratively close the

case. Id. § 8.

        The Agreement states that it is the result of compromise and nothing in the Agreement or

any representations made by any Party in the course of negotiating the Agreement shall

constitute or be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any Party. Id. § 9.

        The Court ORDERS the following:

        Proposed Intervenor Chamber of Digital Commerce’s Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff is

GRANTED. The Chamber of Digital Commerce is hereby ALLOWED to permissively

intervene in the above captioned matter as a Plaintiff.


                                                  3


             Case 6:24-cv-00099-ADA Document 25 Filed 03/01/24 Page 4 of 4


        In light of Plaintiffs’ and Proposed Intervenor’s withdrawal of their request for

Preliminary Injunction, that request for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT.

        The Court STAYS this case and directs the clerk to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE

this case.

        IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2024.


                                              ________________________________
                                              ALAN D ALBRIGHT
                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


                                                 4