Earlier this week, a significant winter storm swept across the United States, compelling Bitcoin miners to curtail operations, resulting in a drastic decrease in the network’s computing power. Data reveals a striking 40% drop in Bitcoin’s hashrate between January 23 and January 25, as approximately 455 EH/s went offline. This reduction led to a notable slowdown in block production, temporarily stretching the average block time to around 12 minutes.
The primary contributor to this sharp decrease in hashrate was Foundry USA, the largest mining pool with a substantial foothold in the U.S. This highlights the impact that curtailments have had on the network. The swift drop-off in mining capacity raises questions regarding the flexibility of miners and how such decisions affect Bitcoin’s security, transaction flow, and the politics surrounding large industrial loads on an energy grid vulnerable to extreme weather.
To understand curtailment, it is essential to define the concept. At its core, curtailment involves miners reducing their electricity consumption when power is scarce or costly. In regions like Texas, this practice has evolved into a structured business model, supported by ERCOT (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas), which has mechanisms for large flexible customers, specifically identifying Bitcoin mining facilities as a significant example. The rationale is simple: by rapidly reducing demand during peak times, these miners serve as a pressure-release mechanism for grid operators.
In practice, the decision to curtail operations generally falls into three categories:
-
Economic Factors: Miners continuously assess the revenue generated per unit of hashrate compared to the overall cost of producing that hashrate. When real-time power prices soar, halting operations can be the most economical choice.
-
Contractual Agreements: Many miners have entered into demand-response contracts that allow them to sell back power to the grid during peak demand. In the past year, miners have benefited financially during such events by either curtailing operations or selling excess power back at market rates. For example, Riot Blockchain reported substantial earnings from both power curtailment and demand-response credits.
-
Regulatory Requirements: Texas has stipulated that substantial new energy loads must include curtailment capabilities as a condition of interconnecting to the grid. This condition integrates curtailment into the operational framework of large energy users.
The recent winter storm serves as an illustrative case of how these incentives operate. Cold weather tends to raise heating demands, straining available reserves and often leading to conservation alerts. The storm’s impact was significant, causing price spikes and operational challenges across various regions of the U.S. For miners with flexible load contracts, the most logical response was to curtail operations when the energy value per megawatt exceeded that of their mining efforts.
This curtailment was reflected almost instantaneously across mining pools, particularly Foundry, which exhibited a marked decline in hashrate, resulting in slower block production. Although Bitcoin operates as a global network, shifts in hashrate can still be pronounced in specific regions heavily reliant on certain operators.
Concerns regarding security arise whenever there is a sudden decline in hashrate since fewer hashes per second can lower the cost of a potential attack on the network. However, Bitcoin’s built-in difficulty adjustment mechanism mitigates these concerns in the short term. The network targets a block every ten minutes but adjusts difficulty every 2,016 blocks based on the time required to mine the preceding blocks. Consequently, when miners halt operations en masse, the network produces blocks more slowly until it recalibrates, which results in a temporary tax on performance rather than a state of failure.
This week’s storm was not the first to significantly impact Bitcoin mining operations. Historical events like Winter Storm Uri in February 2021 highlighted the vulnerability of the Texas energy grid. At that time, the relationship between miners and grid reliability was relatively nascent. Two years later, during Winter Storm Elliott in December 2022, miners demonstrated their capacity for rapid curtailment, even stabilizing the grid during extreme weather.
As the landscape evolves in 2026, Bitcoin mining is increasingly viewed as part of a broader category of flexible industrial loads competing for energy resources. Reports indicate that various energy demands, including those from AI data centers and cryptocurrency operations, are reshaping regulatory discussions around grid capacity and user prioritization.
The implications of this week’s hashrate drop underscore a crucial dynamic; as the role of Bitcoin miners in grid management becomes more pronounced, both miners and regulators will need to navigate a delicate balance between energy demand and supply management, particularly during extreme weather events. While Bitcoin’s design can accommodate these fluctuations without systemic failure, the regulatory climate surrounding energy distribution remains a significant factor in the evolving narrative of cryptocurrency mining in the U.S.
