August 2020 - Capitol Corner

With their August 31st deadline approaching, the Legislature is trying to rush through 600+ bills through limited and shortened policy committees, with the Senate now working weekends to meet its constitutional obligations. Although, the Legislature is focused on COVID-19, tenant relief and housing – several cannabis-related bills are scheduled for hearing. Below are MCCIA-tagged bills scheduled for hearing in the next few weeks:

Bureau of Cannabis Control – Advisory Committee Meeting

The next meeting of the Cannabis Advisory Committee will be held on August 20th and 21st, and we wanted to make sure you save the dates.

As the state’s three licensing authorities work toward consolidating into one agency, a big part of that effort will be combining all three sets of regulations into one.

At this meeting, there will be a comprehensive discussion of the regulations with an opportunity for public comment.

This meeting will be a virtual meeting - details to come.

Proposed Energy Requirements Could Cost Indoor Growers Millions

The California Energy Commission is considering new efficiency requirements for indoor cannabis cultivators that could end up costing the industry some $255 million.

In the report, the Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Program recommends that indoor cultivators transition to LED lighting by 2023.

Click here for the full report

California vs. Cities Over Home Delivery Rules

California faced off in court Thursday against some of its own cities that want to overturn a government rule allowing home marijuana deliveries statewide, even into communities that banned commercial pot sales.

In a potential setback for at least some of the cities, the judge tentatively sided with the state in questioning whether some of the communities have standing to bring legal action, because they do not have local ordinances in place that conflict with the state regulation.

Without that, “there is no dispute,” Fresno Superior Court Judge Rosemary McGuire wrote in a tentative ruling.

The dispute between the state and 25 of its local governments raises a foundational question in the legal marijuana economy: Who is in charge, the state bureaucracy that oversees the marketplace, or local governments where pot is grown and sold?

The local governments — Beverly Hills, Riverside, Santa Cruz County and 22 other cities — filed the lawsuit in April 2019, asking the court to invalidate the home-delivery rule that “permits commercial cannabis deliveries to any physical address in the state.”

The League of California Cities and police chiefs had complained that unrestricted home deliveries would create a chaotic market of largely hidden pot transactions, while undercutting local control guaranteed in the 2016 law that broadly legalized marijuana sales in the state.

Marijuana companies and consumers had pushed for home deliveries because vast stretches of the state have banned commercial pot activity or not set up rules to allow legal sales, creating what’s been called cannabis “deserts.” Residents in those areas are effectively cut off from legal marijuana purchases.

Nothing will be decided soon. The next hearing in the case was scheduled for mid-November.

Recent Posts