HB 1156 would limit the ability of counties, municipalities, and townships to regulate the use of digital assets and digital-asset-related infrastructure through local ordinances and zoning rules. The bill defines terms such as digital asset, hardware wallet, self-hosted wallet, node, blockchain, and digital asset mining, and then bars local governments from adopting or enforcing ordinances that would prohibit, restrict, or impair a person or business from using digital assets to buy legal goods and services, accepting digital assets as payment, storing assets in hardware or self-hosted wallets, taking custody through those wallets, or operating a blockchain node.
The bill also creates a new chapter governing digital asset mining. It treats property used for a digital asset mining business as a permitted industrial use in any zoning district that allows industrial uses, and it prevents local zoning ordinances from disallowing that use in such districts. Local governments could regulate or limit mining in industrial zones only if they do so in the same manner as they regulate similar non-mining properties, and they may not require special exceptions, special-use approvals, zoning variances, or permits solely because the property is used for digital asset mining. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025, and would amend Indiana local government law.
HB 1156 would add new restrictions to Indiana Code governing local government authority over digital assets and digital asset mining. It would preempt local ordinances that interfere with cryptocurrency use, self-custody, node operation, or payment acceptance, and it would establish a statewide zoning rule that digital asset mining is a permitted industrial use in industrial zones. The bill would therefore narrow local discretion in land-use regulation and create statutory protections for mining businesses and digital asset users.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall posture appears supportive of digital asset and blockchain activity, with the bill designed to protect industry operations from local restriction. The sponsors and introduced language suggest a pro-crypto, pro-mining policy approach. No contrary public sentiment is reflected in the available record, but the structure of the bill indicates an intent to limit local regulatory barriers.
The main point of contention is likely local control versus statewide preemption. Counties, municipalities, and townships would lose the ability to use zoning or ordinances to restrict digital asset mining or certain digital asset uses, which could concern local officials who want to address noise, energy use, land-use compatibility, or other neighborhood impacts. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of mining as a permitted industrial use and its prohibition on special permits or variances, which may be viewed by opponents as limiting traditional zoning tools. Supporters would likely argue the bill provides regulatory certainty and protects lawful technology and commerce.