TIFFIN, Ohio — State Rep. Gary Click voted for legislation that would restrict Ohio communities from adopting regulations specifically targeting large cryptocurrency-mining operations, including facilities consuming more than one megawatt of electricity.

After the bill passed the Ohio House, Click went a step further: He added his name as a cosponsor.

Months later, the Vickery Republican began highlighting many of the same concerns associated with energy-intensive data centers in his own district, calling potential electric-rate increases, strain on the power grid and noise pollution “legitimate” issues deserving serious consideration.

But the legislation Click backed would make it harder for cities, townships and counties to impose rules specifically tailored to cryptocurrency-mining operations.

Click voted yes, then put his name on the bill

House Bill 116, dubbed the “Ohio Blockchain Basics Act,” passed the Ohio House on June 18, 2025.

The sequence surrounding Click’s support is notable.

When the bill was brought to the House floor for its final vote, Click was not listed among its cosponsors.

The official House Journal listed only Reps. Tex Fischer, Brian Lorenz, Ty Mathews, Riordan McClain, Josh Williams and Thaddeus Claggett as cosponsors when the legislation was called for a vote.

Click nevertheless voted yes.

HB 116 passed 70-26, according to the official House roll call.

Immediately after the bill passed, sponsor Steve Demetriou moved to amend its title to add another group of lawmakers as cosponsors.

The first name on the list was Gary Click.

“Add the names: ‘Click, Daniels, Deeter, Dovilla, Gross, Hall, T., King, Lear, Mathews, A., Miller, M., Plummer, Roemer, Swearingen, Willis, Workman,’” the House Journal records.

That means Click did not attach his name to an earlier or substantially different version of the legislation and later find himself voting on unexpected provisions.

He voted for the completed House version and then agreed to have his name formally added to it after its passage.

What Click voted for

HB 116 defines a “digital asset mining business” as multiple cryptocurrency-mining devices operating at a single site and consuming more than one megawatt of electricity on an average annual basis.

One megawatt represents 1,000 kilowatts of continuous electrical capacity. And the threshold is only the point at which HB 116 begins defining an operation as a commercial digital-asset mining business, not a cap on how much electricity such a facility may consume.

Under the House-passed legislation, a cryptocurrency-mining business could operate in any area zoned for industrial use as long as it satisfies the requirements applicable to industrial uses.

More significantly, the bill says a political subdivision “shall not adopt or enforce” an ordinance, resolution, regulation or order specific to digital-asset mining businesses unless that rule also applies to “other similarly situated businesses.”

The legislation does not define what qualifies as a “similarly situated” business.

It also gives a cryptocurrency-mining company the right to appeal to a county common pleas court if it believes a local government rezoned or redistricted property in a manner that discriminates against the business.

The bill would not wipe out local zoning codes or exempt crypto mines from generally applicable industrial regulations.

But it would expressly restrict the ability of local governments to single out cryptocurrency mines for regulations aimed specifically at that industry.

That could become important when communities confront issues unique to or especially pronounced at large mining operations, including around-the-clock computer equipment, cooling systems, fans and extraordinary electricity demand.

Even the crypto lobby acknowledged the noise

The potential effects of those operations were acknowledged by the very groups lobbying Ohio lawmakers to pass HB 116.

Eric Peterson, policy director for the Satoshi Action Fund, testified in favor of the bill before the House Technology and Innovation Committee in March 2025.

In his written testimony, Peterson repeatedly described cryptocurrency mines as “Bitcoin datacenters.”

He also acknowledged a problem that would later become central to Click’s own discussion of conventional data centers.

“There are often concerns about the noise from Bitcoin miners.”

Peterson nevertheless urged lawmakers to enact protections for the industry, arguing that HB 116 would create a more predictable environment for crypto-mining companies.

He specifically praised provisions allowing Bitcoin miners to operate in industrial zones and preventing local governments from targeting mining businesses through zoning actions.

The Satoshi Action Fund describes itself as an organization working with state lawmakers on Bitcoin policy and publishes model legislation intended to protect cryptocurrency ownership, transactions and mining.

Crypto industry told lawmakers rural Ohio was prime territory

The Ohio Blockchain Council also testified in support of HB 116.

Executive Director Andrew Burchwell told lawmakers that cryptocurrency mining companies were already developing large operations in Ohio and specifically identified Standard Power, Bitdeer and MARA.

His testimony described Bitcoin mines as data centers and argued that rural communities were particularly attractive places for the industry to expand.

Bitcoin data centers, Burchwell said, “are often built in rural communities where traditional data centers are not typically looking to build.”

He argued that the projects could create jobs and tax revenue and said Bitcoin miners can reduce their electricity use when the power grid is under stress.

But his testimony also made the purpose of HB 116’s regulatory provisions clear.

Burchwell said changes to Ohio’s zoning laws were necessary to signal that the state was open for business and that cryptocurrency developers faced “no risk of undue or unjust rulemaking against the developments this industry seeks to provide within the State of Ohio.”

The official committee record shows proponents at the March 25 hearing included the Satoshi Action Fund, Ohio Blockchain Council and Americans for Prosperity-Ohio.

Then Click started talking about data-center noise and electricity costs

By February 2026, Click was using a substantially different tone when discussing the rapid growth of data centers in his own district.

Click introduced House Bill 646 with Rep. Kellie Deeter to create a state commission studying data-center development.

In sponsor testimony on Feb. 17, Click said the proposal stemmed from concerns in the 88th House District, particularly Sandusky County.

Click said he attended a meeting of concerned residents and found “many of their concerns were compelling.”

He specifically listed:

  • the loss of agricultural land;

  • impacts on local water supplies;

  • wastewater disposal;

  • strain on the energy grid, including potential increases in electricity costs for ratepayers;

  • noise pollution;

  • light pollution;

  • tax abatements; and

  • unfulfilled promises of economic development.

“Many of these concerns are legitimate and deserve serious consideration,” Click told lawmakers.

The contrast is difficult to miss.

When the Ohio House was considering protections for cryptocurrency mines, Click voted for legislation restricting local governments from enacting rules specifically aimed at those facilities.

When data-center development became controversial in his own district, Click himself identified noise, electricity demand and potential increases in residents’ electric bills as legitimate concerns.

Cryptocurrency mines and AI or cloud-computing data centers are not identical facilities. But HB 116’s own proponents repeatedly described Bitcoin mining operations as “data centers,” and both types of facilities can involve large concentrations of computing equipment and substantial electricity demand.

Arkansas already tried it

There is also evidence from another Republican-led state showing why specialized cryptocurrency-mining regulations can matter.

Arkansas enacted the Data Centers Act in 2023, limiting local governments’ ability to treat cryptocurrency mines differently from other data centers.

The law quickly generated backlash as communities complained about noise and said local governments had been left without sufficient power to address mining operations.

By 2024, Arkansas lawmakers reversed course on key parts of the policy.

The Republican-controlled legislature approved new cryptocurrency-mining restrictions requiring noise-reduction measures and state permits while repealing a portion of the earlier law that prevented local governments from imposing different noise requirements on mining businesses.

The new law allows measures including liquid or submerged cooling, fully enclosing equipment that directly produces noise, or locating operations farther from nearby homes and businesses.

Arkansas lawmakers were explicit about why they believed additional regulation was necessary.

In Act 174, the General Assembly found that cryptocurrency-mining businesses presented “significant challenges” that included “significant noise emissions” and “massive consumption of power,” as well as large water use and potential cybersecurity concerns.

The Associated Press reported at the time that the changes followed backlash from residents and local officials over the 2023 law and the noise produced by mining operations.

Arkansas effectively had to restore specialized safeguards after first restricting communities’ ability to impose them.

An Ohio township is confronting the same question right now

The issue is no longer theoretical in Ohio.

In August, trustees in Shalersville Township authorized a $9,000 independent acoustical study as Bitdeer Technologies Group, a Bitcoin-mining company, pursues a proposed data-center campus there.

According to The Portager, the township commissioned the study to establish existing noise levels near the proposed development and help officials determine what local noise regulations may be appropriate.

Bitdeer has said sound from its proposed project should remain below 50 decibels at its property line.

The situation illustrates exactly why the details of HB 116 matter.

A township confronted with a cryptocurrency-mining development may conclude that it needs regulations specifically designed around the noise or operational characteristics of that industry.

The legislation Click backed would require mining-specific rules to also apply to other “similarly situated businesses,” a term the bill leaves undefined.

The bill offers more than zoning protections

HB 116 contains several other provisions favorable to the digital-asset industry.

It would establish a state income-tax deduction for capital gains arising when cryptocurrency is used to purchase goods or services in transactions of $200 or less, with that threshold subsequently adjusted for inflation.

The provision does not exempt the underlying purchase from ordinary sales tax. It instead eliminates Ohio income tax on qualifying capital gains generated when appreciated cryptocurrency is spent in those smaller transactions.

The Legislative Service Commission’s fiscal analysis says the provision would reduce state personal-income-tax revenue by an amount that could not be determined.

The bill would also prohibit counties, municipalities and certain townships from imposing taxes or charges specifically based on using digital assets as a form of payment when those charges would not apply to a transaction conducted with U.S. currency.

And it says a person would not need an Ohio money-transmitter license solely to engage in digital-asset mining, staking, exchanging one digital asset for another, developing certain exchange software or operating blockchain nodes.

Click’s record speaks for itself

Click’s later data-center legislation does not prohibit data centers, nor has he positioned himself as an opponent of the industry.

But he has made the concerns surrounding their growth part of his public message.

After the Ohio House passed his study-commission bill in March, Click said it had originated “in the heart of the 88th district” because his constituents had unanswered questions about data centers.

“They have questions that deserve answers,” Click said.

Those questions include noise, power-grid strain and whether massive computing operations could contribute to higher electricity costs.

Click had already voted on legislation involving those issues.

His vote was to give large cryptocurrency-mining operations additional protection against local rules written specifically for them.

Then he added his name to the bill.

HB 116 remains pending before the Ohio Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee.