The resolution of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows the Tennessee Valley Authority promised $18 million in electricity incentives over five years to Bitdeer, a cryptocurrency miner operating in Knoxville as Carpenter Creek.

The total amount paid out by TVA was closer to $21 million, according to records from the Knoxville Utility Board, due to the crypto miner’s actual consumption. From 2020 to 2025, Carpenter Creek paid nearly $113 million to KUB in utility charges, with nearly 20% of that offset by TVA incentive credits. The crypto mine also received a $125,000 grant from TVA.

The lawsuit to obtain the information was filed in 2024 after TVA refused to disclose its agreements with the crypto company to mine Bitcoin. Carpenter Creek used 86 megawatts of energy in the last quarter of 2025, enough to power tens of thousands of homes.

While TVA initially withheld the contracts under various exemptions, the documents were released in November after the contract obligations were complete. As part of the settlement, TVA agreed to pay $9,440.88 in attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff, reporter Melanie Faizer, was represented by attorney Paul McAdoo of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

TVA says data center growth to double by 2030

Though TVA says it no longer seeks out data centers or crypto miners as customers, it did provide an unknown number of incentive contracts to those companies from about 2018 through 2023 that helped draw them to the region.

Now those data centers and cryptocurrency mines are putting pressure on the energy consumption landscape.

As of 2025, they accounted for 18% of TVA’s industrial power use, up from just 1% in 2019. TVA projects data center growth could double by 2030, and recently announced plans to add 150 megawatts of power to xAI’s Memphis data center.

Those incentives “were bad policy,” said Stephen Smith, executive director of the advocacy group Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Those types of operations typically don’t employ many people, which is one of the reasons TVA, under former CEO Jeff Lyash, discontinued the incentives. TVA has long kept its economic incentive contracts secret.

“There’s no independent entity that looks over TVA’s shoulder on this,” Smith said. “There’s nobody external to the agency that is reviewing their policy, whereas for somebody like Southern Company or Duke Energy … the regulators can have visibility on these incentive packages.”

Lawmakers push for transparency

Federal lawmakers are seeking more transparency from TVA. U.S. Reps. Steve Cohen and Tim Burchett recently reintroduced the TVA Increase Rate of Participation Act, which aims to end what they describe as “obscure and opaque” decision-making by the federal utility.

Cohen said the current planning process relies on “hand-picked” organizations rather than broad stakeholder input, a practice he said must change to meet the region’s growing energy needs.

Energy planning also affects the cost to residential consumers, according to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which argues TVA has “prioritized industrial customers over the public.” The nonpartisan group Think Tennessee found Tennessee ranked 45th nationally in savings from energy-efficiency programs, resulting in higher bills for residents. That same report showed a decline in energy reliability.

TVA said it’s investing $11 billion over the next three years to build power generation and expand the grid. In a February webcast, TVA also said it’s now considering a separate rate category for larger electricity consumers like the data centers.

“Our focus is to protect consumers from subsidizing energy for other customers,” TVA spokesperson Scott Fiedler said.

In a follow-up request to obtain TVA’s other incentive contracts to crypto mines, the utility said its records don’t specify companies as “cryptocurrency companies” and so it was “unable to identify or locate further records.” A second request to obtain some of those contracts is pending.

Risks to utilities

The crypto miners’ presence could pose a credit risk for utilities like KUB that have come to rely on the income from an unstable and risky industry. Carpenter Creek’s monthly payments to the KUB averaged $1.8 million per month in 2024 as KUB’s largest industrial customer.

Arsenal’s First Title Push in 22 Years Plays Out as Clubs Face Revenue Cliff and Potential Blank Shirts Next Season

In 2023, Premier League clubs entered a voluntary agreement to remove gambling front-of-shirt sponsors by 2026/27 – and the cliff edge is coming. Going beyond this change, the UK government announced on February 23 that it would launch a consultation this spring aimed at banning unlicensed gambling operators from sponsoring British sports organizations entirely, potentially closing a loophole that currently allows offshore betting firms to maintain shirt deals.

This proposal goes further than the voluntary ban and covers sleeves, training kits, stadium branding, and every other promotional avenue. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said it was “not right that unlicensed gambling operators can sponsor some of our biggest football clubs, raising their profile and potentially drawing fans towards sites that don’t meet our regulatory standards.”

Multiple Premier League clubs still carry unlicensed gambling firms as front-of-shirt sponsors heading into the tail end of the season. Under the voluntary ban, licensed gambling brands would still be permitted on shirt sleeves, training kits, stadium signage, and pitchside LED boards from next season. However, the government’s proposed crackdown on unlicensed operators would go further, potentially barring them from all sponsorship arrangements with British sports clubs, not just front-of-shirt placement.

Historically, gambling firms have paid up to double what alternative sectors offer for such a marketing opportunity. An audit published by The ESK found that gambling brands account for £95 million, or 23.3% of the total £408 million front-of-shirt market. For several of the affected teams, gambling sponsorships make up between 28% and 38% of total commercial revenue.

ESK’s analysis recorded 27,440 gambling-related messages during the opening weekend of the current season alone across TV, radio, and social media – fewer than 10% of which came from shirt sponsors. FX, crypto, fintech, and payroll brands are emerging as the primary competitors for the vacant front-of-shirt inventory.

The ban’s final weeks coincide with one of the most dramatic title races in recent Premier League history. Arsenal, who do not carry a gambling shirt sponsor, lead Manchester City nine points at the time of writing, with the Pep Guardiola-led side having a game in hand and a defining fixture between the two set to take place at the Etihad on April 19. Statistical models give the Gunners a 97% chance of winning their first league title since 2004.

None of the traditional “Sky Six” clubs are directly affected by the sponsorship ban: Arsenal wear Emirates, Manchester City wear Etihad, Manchester United wear Qualcomm, Liverpool wear Standard Chartered, and Tottenham wear AIA. Chelsea started the season without a front-of-shirt sponsor after failing to close a reported £65 million replacement deal. The 11 clubs carrying gambling brands on their shirts this season are concentrated in the league’s middle and lower tiers, where the financial impact will be sharpest, especially among the key relegation candidates.

Reports have emerged that some clubs are struggling to secure replacement sponsors in time for next season. According to BritBrief, the prospect of teams starting the 2026/27 campaign with blank shirt fronts is being described within the industry as “not a great look” for the world’s most-watched football competition. West Ham – one of the teams flirting with relegation this season – are among the clubs understood to have approached premium automotive brands, but agreements remain elusive.

Previous record shirt sponsorship deals in the Premier League include Manchester United’s £235 million agreement with Qualcomm signed in 2024 and Chelsea’s reported £40 million-per-year deal with Infinite Athlete. Manchester City settled a legal dispute with the Premier League over sponsorship rules in September, clearing the path for a new Etihad Airways deal reportedly worth up to £1 billion over 10 years – potentially the largest commercial partnership in British sporting history.

FAQ 🔎

• When does the Premier League gambling shirt ban start? The voluntary ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship takes effect from the start of the 2026/27 season, making 2025/26 the final campaign with betting logos on matchday shirts.
• How many Premier League clubs have gambling shirt sponsors? Eleven of the 20 Premier League clubs carry gambling brands on their front-of-shirt this season, including Aston Villa, Everton, West Ham, Nottingham Forest, and Wolves.
• Can gambling brands still sponsor Premier League clubs after the ban? Licensed gambling operators can still appear on shirt sleeves, training kits, stadium signage, and LED boards, but a separate UK government consultation could ban unlicensed operators from all sponsorship arrangements entirely.
• How much revenue will Premier League clubs lose from the gambling ban? The collective value of front-of-shirt gambling deals exceeds £140 million per season, with some affected clubs deriving between 28% and 38% of their total commercial revenue from betting sponsors.

According to a report by Bloomberg News Wednesday (April 1), the incident on the Solana blockchain was flagged by cybersecurity and data analytics firms and acknowledged by Drift itself in a post on X.

“Drift Protocol is experiencing an active attack,” the post said. “Deposits and withdrawals have been suspended. We are coordinating with multiple security firms, bridges, and exchanges to contain the incident. This is not an April Fools joke.” 

The amount of cryptocurrencies involved, as determined by blockchain data analysts, could make this one of the biggest hacks in crypto’s history, the Bloomberg report added, noting that some of the stolen crypto was converted into Circle’s USDC stablecoin.

The hacker likely exploited a new market on Drift that lets users borrow other cryptocurrencies against an illiquid token called CVT, the report said, citing Xuxian Jiang, a researcher at blockchain security company PeckShield.

The incident follows a year in which cryptocurrency thefts rose to $3.4 billion for the first nine months of the year, according to blockchain data platform Chainalysis. Almost half of that figure came from one incident, the record $1.5 billion compromise of the Bybit crypto exchange.

In related news, PYMNTS wrote earlier this week about Chainalysis’ launch of blockchain intelligence agents created for fraud prevention. 

This offering “shows that the industry’s response to AI-driven crypto fraud and bot attacks is one that, inevitably, must be symmetrical,” that report said.

“Agentic blockchain defenses are not innovation for efficiency’s sake. They are defensive escalation,” PYMNTS wrote. 

“If bad actors can use artificial intelligence to accelerate activity, enforcement and compliance must use AI to compress detection and response times, meaning tasks that once took days should now take minutes, and investigations that required specialists must be executable by broader teams.”

Among the defining challenges of crypto, the report added, is that it is “transparent but not easily interpretable.” Transactions are public, though it takes specialized tools and expertise to understand them.

“If realized, the agentic approach being launched by Chainalysis could mark a significant redistribution of analytical power,” the report continued.

“Compliance officers, executives, and even non-technical stakeholders could access insights previously reserved for trained investigators. Reports that once took hours could be generated on demand. Alerts could be enriched, triaged and in some cases resolved automatically.”