Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the S323 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances S.323 draft, emphasizes grower protections as stakeholders press for clarifications
Summary
A legislative committee reviewed a fresh 48‑page draft of S.323 on March 12, focusing on regulatory structure for hemp, the role of the cannabis control board in fee‑setting, and assurances to protect prime agricultural soils; stakeholders asked for edits on solar siting and engineering standards.
The committee opened a working session March 12 to continue refining S.323, a 48‑page draft that aims to set a statewide regulatory framework for hemp so producers can contract with out‑of‑state buyers with confidence. The chair said members hope to vote on the bill as soon as the next day and urged participants to raise substantive concerns now.
"We're not doing anything nefarious with anyone," the committee chair said, describing the bill as a framework that the cannabis control board and future legislatures can refine. The chair repeatedly told attendees that fee levels and some regulatory details could be revisited in 2027 once rulemaking and market information are available.
Stakeholders raised specific technical and land‑use concerns. Peter Sterling, sector director for renewable energy, told the committee he appreciated removal of a provision that would have prohibited solar on large 1‑to‑5‑acre parcels and asked the committee to limit any new requirements that could complicate the Certificate of Public Good (CPG) process. "The only thing that we're asking is to do everything you can do to stay out of our farm fields," Sterling said, urging protection of prime agricultural soils and clearer engineering standards.
Committee members and presenters discussed how licensed professional engineering inputs and commonly used reference data (such as National Renewable Energy Laboratory figures) could be incorporated to make reviews quicker and less costly while maintaining public‑safety and soil‑protection standards. One staff presenter said allowing engineering firms to rely on vetted generic reference numbers could speed permitting without reducing oversight.
Members reiterated the bill's central purpose: to place hemp under a consistent state regulatory structure, administered in part by the cannabis control board, so growers can enter commercial contracts with national companies and have confidence in state oversight. Several members said that if the regulatory framework harmed farmers, the legislature would return to write protective legislation.
On fees, the meeting record shows the cannabis control board signaled it will revisit fee levels as market conditions evolve; the committee left fee language in the draft but discussed that the board and the 2027 legislature could make adjustments based on rulemaking and stakeholder input.
Next steps: staff will incorporate edits raised at the working session, verify any cross‑references with the Budget Adjustment Act where funding or administrative tasks were mentioned, and circulate clean draft language to the committee. The chair reiterated the intent to move the bill toward a committee vote the next day, with additional refinements available in future sessions.
