.

Client Alert

California Adopts Emergency Cannabis Regulations for Licensing Beginning on January 1, 2018

November 28, 2017

by Jason Brenkert

Download as a PDF

Share this page

On November 16, 2017, California published the long awaited rules and regulations to implement voter approved Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Cannabis Act of 2016, which legalized adult use of cannabis in the State of California. The California Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), which creates the general framework for the regulation of both commercial medicinal and adult-use (recreational) cannabis. Under MAUCRSA, the California cannabis industry is regulated by three state agencies: Bureau of Cannabis Control (distribution, testing, retail and microbusiness), Department of Food and Agriculture (cultivation), Department of Public Health (manufacturing). Each of these state agencies established new regulations under an “emergency” rule-making process for commercial medicinal and adult-use (recreational) cannabis industries. The “emergency” regulations will be followed by a formal rule making process beginning next year.

The published “emergency” regulations, a total of 276 pages, apply to medicinal and adult-use cannabis and consist of California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 42, Bureau of Cannabis Control (115 pages); California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 8, Cannabis Cultivation (62 pages); and California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 13, Manufactured Cannabis Safety (97 pages)(collectively, the “Regulations”). The Regulations provide the rules and regulations that commercial cannabis businesses must comply with by January 1, 2018, when California is scheduled to begin issuing temporary cannabis permits.  Formal rule making will follow.

Summary of Regulations
The Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) regulates the distribution, testing, retail sales and microbusinesses of commercial cannabis in California under the MAUCRSA and adopted emergency regulations under California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 42, Bureau of Cannabis Control.

Some highlights under the BCC Regulations:

Temporary Permits

  • In December 2017, California will begin accepting on-line applications for temporary business permits.  
  • Priority application review will be provided for annual licenses applicants that were in operation under the Compassionate Use Act prior to September 1, 2016. To be eligible for priority review, an applicant must be able to demonstrate that the business was in operation and in good standing with the local jurisdiction.
  • Temporary permits will be good for four months (120 days) for cannabis businesses, which may be extended for two 90-day extensions (only if the temporary licensee has applied for an annual license).
  • There is no fee for temporary permits.  
  • Businesses receiving temporary permits will be required to provide documentation in support of a permanent cannabis license, including security plans, insurance bonds, business formation documents and for the state to complete applicant reviews and background checks.
  • Cannabis business will need local approval for conducting commercial cannabis activities, which must be demonstrated to receive a temporary permit.
  • The State will contact local jurisdictions to verify applicant information and provide the jurisdiction at least 10 days to respond before issuing a license.  The State will presume local compliance if the local jurisdiction has not responded in 60 days.
  • Beginning January 1, an email notification will be issued from the State confirming that a temporary permit has been approved.  

Transitional Rules

  • The State has adopted a six-month grace period (until July 1, 2018) for licensed businesses to:
    • Sell products in their inventory (with specified labeling) that do not comply with Regulation (testing and labeling) guidelines.
    • Sell non-child-resistant products that are placed in child-resistant packaging at the time of sale.
    • Package dry flower for retail sales.
    • Work with other licensed businesses without worrying about whether their permits are for medical and recreational activities.  
  • Temporary licensees will not be required to use the state’s track-and-trace system but will need to complete manifests and other paperwork to keep track of cannabis products.


A-License and M-License

  • A license holder must hold an A-license to engage in adult use commercial cannabis activity, and an M-license to engage in medical cannabis activity. 
  • It is unclear whether an A-license can be used for a medical dispensary or a business would require separate A and M licenses.
  • Testing labs may test cannabis goods for both types of licenses.  


License Fees

  • Annual cannabis license fees are based on a sliding scale ranging from $800 to $120,000 based on activity and revenues.
License Type  
 Operation 
($ Million Max. Per License)
 Fee Per License
 Self-Distribution  Greater than $2m to $8m  $2,000
 Distributor Transport Only  Up to $2m

Greater than $2m to $8m

 $800

$2,500

 Retailer Up to $500k 

Greater than $500k to $1.5m 

Greater than $1.5m to $4.5m 

Greater than $4.5m 

 $4,000

$12,000

$36,000

$72,000

 Microbusiness

 Up to $500k 

Greater than $500k to $1.5m 

Greater than $1.5m to $4.5m

Greater than $4.5m
 $5,000

$15,000

$42,000

$120,000

 Testing Laboratory

 Up to $50m 

Greater than $50m to $500m 

Greater than 500m 

 $20,000

$45,000

$90,000
  • Cannabis license fees for event organizers are determined by the number of planned events.
 License Type 
 Planned Operations
(Number of Operations)
 Fee Per License
Event Organizer   1-10 Events Annually $5,000

 Greater than 10 Events Annually 
$10,000

  • Cannabis application license fees are: 
    • $1,000 for Annual License Application
    • $1,000 for Cannabis Event Organizer
    • $1,000 for Temporary Cannabis Event License
    • $500 for Physical Premise Modification

Ownership

  • The state Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) says “owners” must submit fingerprints (via the Department of Justice’s Live Scan service) and background information including any past criminal convictions.
  • The BCC defines an “owner” as:
    • any person who holds an aggregate of  20% or more ownership interest in the person applying for a license or a licensee (except interest held solely as a security interest, lien or encumbrance); 
    • the Chief Executive Officer;
    • any member of the board of directors; and
    • any person participating in the direction, control, or management of the person applying for a license, including any of the following:
      • partner of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a partnership.
      • member of a limited liability company of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a limited liability company; and
      • officer or director of a commercial cannabis business that is organized as a corporation.
  • Individuals that are employed by the State of California or district attorney’s offices and law enforcement agencies are prohibited from holding a license when the duties of their employment have to do with enforcement of cannabis regulations.

Financial Interests

  • “Financial interests” mean an investment into a commercial cannabis business, a loan provided to a commercial cannabis business, or any other equity interest in a commercial cannabis business.  
  • The license application must disclose the holders of “financial interests” in a commercial cannabis business, including the name, birthdate, and government issued identification type and number for all individuals that have a financial interest in a commercial cannabis business, but are not subject to the same requirements as “owners” (i.e., background checks and fingerprints).
  • The following holders of financial interests are not required to be listed: (a) a bank or financial institution whose interest constitutes a loan; (b) individuals whose only financial interest in the commercial cannabis business is through an interest in a diversified mutual fund, blind trust, or similar instrument; (c) individuals whose only financial interest is a security interest, lien, or encumbrance on property that will be used by the commercial cannabis business; and (d) individuals who hold a share of stock that is less than 5 percent of the total shares in a publicly traded company.
Site Location

  • An application must include a copy of the lease agreement, property title, or deed indicating a right to occupy the property. 
  • Cannabis business will need local approval for conducting commercial cannabis activities, which must be demonstrated to receive a permit.
  • Property diagram is required to be submitted with the application.
Labor and Employment

License applicants with more than 20 employees must attest that they have entered into a labor peace agreement (which employer agrees not to resist organizing attempts by its workers), and provide a copy to the Bureau of Cannabis Control.  If no such agreement exists, the license applicant will have to provide a notarized statement indicating that the company will enter into a labor peace agreement.

Surety Bond

License applicants must obtain a surety bond of $5,000, payable to the State as obligee, to ensure payment of cost incurred for the destruction of cannabis product necessitated by violation of the MAUCRSA or Regulations.

Retail Operations 

  • Adult-use cannabis sales are limited to adults 21 years and over.
  • Cannabis businesses cannot be located within 600 feet of schools (K-12 school, day care center, or youth center) in existence when the license issued.
  • Cannabis stores must close by 10:00 p.m.
  • Cannabis businesses must have 24-hour surveillance.
  • Annual licensees will need to complete a training and register for the track-and-trace system.
  • Adult-use customers can buy up to 28.5 grams (one ounce) of non-concentrated cannabis, eight grams of concentrate and six immature plants. 
  • Medical patients can buy or receive eight ounces of cannabis or, if a valid physician’s recommendation contains a different amount, medical patients can purchase an amount consistent with the doctor’s recommendation.
  • Only medical cannabis patients or their caregivers will be permitted to receive free cannabis products or samples.
  • Delivery is permitted by a delivery employee of a licensed retailer. 
  • Businesses may not sell both alcohol and cannabis.
  • Businesses will be able to apply for a special license to host cannabis events, such as festivals at fairgrounds.
  • Advertising is permitted in outlets where at least 71.6 percent of the audience “is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older.”  Online advertising requires visitors to confirm age compliance.
  • Cannabis window displays are prohibited and interior displays must not be visible to the outside public.
  • Cannabis products must be tested for cannabinoids (THC, CBD, and others), foreign material, heavy metals, microbial impurities, mycotoxins, moisture content and water activity, residual pesticides, residual solvents and processing chemicals, and terpenoids.
  • Cannabis products must be in child-resistant packaging.
Distribution 

  • Only a licensed distributor may transport cannabis.
  • Cannabis may only be stored on a licensed premises.  A distributor must (1) ensure cannabis goods are properly stored, handled, packaged, and tested; (2) ensure distributors keep and maintain records that are adequate to effectively track and trace the cannabis goods, thereby assuring that cannabis goods are safe for use by the consumer prior to distribution for retail sale; and (3) ensure cannabis goods are transported in a safe and secure manner.
  • Distributors must maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount no less than $2,000,000 and in an amount no less than $1,000,000 for each loss. 
  • Transportation of cannabis goods requires that the cannabis goods are not visible or identifiable during transport, that the cannabis goods are only transported by vehicle, requiring the cannabis goods to be in a secure locked box within the interior of the vehicle, requiring the vehicle to be attended at all times in residential neighborhoods, and requiring all transport vehicles to be equipped with alarm systems.
  • Only persons 21 years or older may be in a Distributor’s vehicle transporting cannabis.   
Cannabis Manufacturing and Products
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) is responsible for regulation of manufacturing of cannabis and adopted regulations under California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 13, Manufactured Cannabis Safety. These Regulations are administered through the Manufacture Cannabis Safety Branch of the CDPH. 

  • Manufacturing licenses are subject to the same or similar requirements related to temporary licenses, local approval, site location, ownership, criminal background checks, Labor Peace Agreement, bonding requirements and documentation requirements.
  • Manufacturing licenses (A-License and M-Licenses) fall under four license types:
    • Type 7: Extraction using volatile solvents (butane, hexane, pentane). 
    • Type 6: Extraction using non-volatile solvents or mechanical method (food-grade butter, oil, water, ethanol or carbon dioxide). 
    • Type N: Infusions (using pre-extracted oils to create edibles, beverages, capsules, vape cartridges, tinctures or topicals).
    • Type P:  Packaging and labeling only. 
  • Product Processing and Packaging:
    • All cannabis products must contain a state mandated warning label and the CDPH-issued universal symbol.
    • Cannabis products must be tested for cannabinoids (THC, CBD, and others), foreign material, heavy metals, microbial impurities, mycotoxins, moisture content and water activity, residual pesticides, residual solvents and processing chemicals, and terpenoids.
    • All edibles must be tested for serving consistency:  uniform concentrations (THC, CBD) across the product.
    • Cannabis products can only be “additionally processed for remediation” and retested twice.
    • Edible products may not be in shapes that may appeal to children – no human beings, animals, insects, or fruit shapes.  
    • Edible products must be produced in serving sizes that have no more than 10 milligrams of THC and no more than 100 milligrams of THC for the total package.
    • Non-edible cannabis products (concentrates, topicals, tinctures, extracts, etc.) separate limits based on medical (up to 2,000 mg of THC per package) or Adult-use products (up to 1,000 mg of THC per package). 
    • Products cannot be infused with nicotine or alcohol or have added caffeine.  
    • Potentially-hazardous foods, such as meat and seafood, and other products requiring refrigeration, are prohibited for sale as cannabis products.
  • Manufacturing Practices and Controls:
    • Licensees must have written procedures for inventory control, quality control, transportation, security and cannabis waste disposal. Descriptions of these procedures or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) must be submitted with the annual license application. Cannabis waste cannot be sold, must be placed in a secured area and be disposed of according to applicable waste management laws. 
    • Good manufacturing practices must be followed to ensure production occurs in a sanitary and hazard-free environment, cannabis products are contaminant free and THC levels are consistent throughout the product and within required limits. 
    • Extractions using CO2 or a volatile solvent must be conducted using a closed-loop system, certified by a California-licensed engineer. Volatile, hydrocarbon-based solvents must have at least 99% purity. Finally, volatile solvent, CO2 and ethanol extractions must be certified by the local fire code official. 
  • Application processing fee of $1,000 per application (non-refundable).
  • Annual cannabis manufacturing license fees are based on a sliding scale ranging from $2,000 to $75,000 based on gross revenues of the licensed premises.
Tier  
Premises
 Gross Revenue
  Fee Per License
Tier I   Less than $100k 
$2,000  
 Tier II   Greater than $100,001 to $500k
$7,500 
 Tier III   Greater than $500,001 to $1.5m 
 $15,000
Tier IV   Greater than $1,500,001 to $3m  $25,000
 Tier V  Greater than $3,000,001 to $5m
$35,000
 Tier VI   Greater than $5,000,001 to $10m 
$50,000 
 Tier VII   Greater than $10m 
$75,000 

Cannabis Cultivation

The California Department of Food and Agriculture adopted regulations under California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 8, Cannabis Cultivation, regulating the cultivation of commercial cannabis.  

  • Cultivation licenses are subject to the same or similar requirements related to temporary licenses, local approval, site location, ownership, criminal background checks, Labor Peace Agreement, bonding requirements and documentation requirements.
  • Cultivation of cannabis fall under three categories (regulated by the California Department of Food and Agriculture):
    • Cultivators: Numerous license types for commercial cultivators, ranging from specialty cottage to medium-sized grows. 
    • Nurseries: Cultivation of cannabis solely as a nursery, including cloning and seed propagation. 
    • Processors: A site that conducts only trimming, drying, curing, grading, or packaging of cannabis and nonmanufactured cannabis products.
  • Application fees are non-refundable and range between $135 to $8,655 depending on the type of licensed facility.
  • Applications for temporary and annual commercial cannabis cultivation licenses are anticipated to be available in December 2017 via CDFA’s CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing website at calcannabis.cdfa.ca.gov
  • A useful application checklist is available at: https://static.cdfa.ca.gov/MCCP/document/CalCannabis%20Annual%20License%20Checklist_web_11.20.17.pdf
Testing Laboratories

All cannabis goods must meet certain health and safety standards before they can be sold to consumers. To ensure that cannabis goods meet those standards, a representative sample of the cannabis goods must be tested by a licensed testing laboratory.  The Regulations provide the minimum laboratory-operation requirements, which would include requirements such as sampling procedures, personnel qualifications, standard operating procedures, and recordkeeping requirements. These proposed regulations would set forth action levels, threshold values that provide the criterion for determining whether a cannabis goods sample passes or fails an analytical test, that the Bureau considers to be both protective of public health and achievable by the cannabis industry.  The Regulations provide specific testing requirements such as proof of ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, and requirements for obtaining a provisional license if an applicant meets all requirements for licensure apart from the ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation.

Microbusiness

A microbusiness license allows a licensee to conduct multiple commercial cannabis activities under one license. A microbusiness licensee is permitted to: cultivate cannabis on area less than 10,000 square feet; act as a licensed distributor; manufacture cannabis as a Level 1 manufacturer; and/or sell cannabis as a retailer. The Regulations would clarify that an applicant may engage in at least three of the four activities: cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and/or retail sale. The Regulations would specify the information that must be provided in the application depending on the commercial cannabis activities the licensee intends to engage in. A microbusiness licensee must comply with all the rules and requirements promulgated for each commercial cannabis activity the licensee intends to engage in.

Unanswered Questions

The Regulations leave some uncertainty for cannabis business that may be subject to future releases, regulations, rules and interpretation.  These questions include:

  • When will applicants be able to submit applications for temporary or annual licenses?  
    Applications for temporary and annual commercial cannabis manufacturing licenses are anticipated to be available in December 2017.
  • When will temporary licenses be issued?  
    Beginning January 1, 2018, an email notification will be issued from the State confirming that a temporary license has been approved.  Priority application review will be provided for annual licenses applicants that were in operation under the Compassionate Use Act prior to September 1, 2016. To be eligible for priority review, an applicant must be able to demonstrate that the business was in operation and in good standing with the local jurisdiction.
  • Is foreign ownership restricted?  
    The Regulations do not expressly limit foreign ownership or contain residency requirements.  The persons prohibited from holding licenses include individuals that are employed by the State of California or district attorney’s offices and law enforcement agencies are prohibited from holding a license when the duties of their employment have to do with enforcement of cannabis Regulations.
  • Can a public company hold a license? 
    The Regulations require as part of the license application process that persons who own a “financial interest” in a commercial cannabis business to submit personal information.   A “financial interest” means an investment into a commercial cannabis business, a loan provided to a commercial cannabis business, or any other equity interest in a commercial cannabis business.  Disclosure of ownership and financial interests requires the disclosure of the person’s name, birthdate, and government issued identification type and number for all individuals that have a financial interest in a commercial cannabis business; however, “individuals who hold a share of stock that is less than 5 percent of the total shares in a publicly traded company” are not required to be listed in the application.  This exclusion suggests that a publicly traded company could apply for a cannabis license.
  • How would a public company address the ownership and financial interest reporting requirements?
    The Regulations require as part of the license application process that “owners” submit personal information and be subject to criminal background checks and persons who own a “financial interest” in a commercial cannabis business to submit personal information.  “Owners” include the CEO, directors, any person who holds an aggregate of  20% or more ownership interest in the licensee and person participating in the direction, control, or management of the licensee (including partners of a partnership, members of an LLC and officers and directors of a corporation).  It is unclear how far up the corporate structure an applicant would need to go for the purposes of determining ownership or financial interests.  A public company that serves as a holding company for a licensee may be required to submit personal information for its 5% beneficial owners and 20% beneficial owners may also be subject to background checks.
  • Have the Regulations addressed federal law or banking related challenges? 
    The Regulations are silent on the implications of federal law on the cannabis industry or how cannabis companies can bank.    

General Information
General information about the California cannabis industry can be found at the California Cannabis Portal at https://cannabis.ca.gov/ 

Each of the state agencies have posted useful information on their websites to guide cannabis businesses through the Regulations and licensing process:

Federal Law Warning
The United States federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 811), which places controlled substances, including cannabis, in a schedule. Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug.  A Schedule I controlled substance is defined as a substance that has no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of safety for use under medical supervision and a high potential for abuse. The Department of Justice defines Schedule 1 controlled substances as “the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.” 
The United States Federal Drug Administration has not approved the sale of marijuana for any medical application.  
State laws regulating Cannabis are in direct conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes cannabis use and possession federally illegal.  


About Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Dorsey & Whitney LLP is an international law firm with offices throughout the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia with expertise assisting U.S. based cannabis companies with their legal needs.  

About the Authors
Kenneth Sam is a Partner in Dorsey’s Denver office and a member of the firm’s Canada cross-border practice group.  Mr. Sam is recognized by Chambers U.S.A. as a leading corporate attorney.  He represents companies, underwriters, agents and investors on U.S. legal matters, including SEC reporting, mergers and acquisitions, takeover defense and other related issues.  Mr. Sam can be contacted at 303-629-3445 or sam.kenneth@dorsey.com.

Jason Brenkert is a Partner in Dorsey’s Denver office and a member of the firm’s Canada cross-border practice group and Cannabis practice group. Mr. Brenkert is the co-chair of the firm’s Capital Markets and Corporate Compliance practice group.  He counsels both domestic and foreign public companies with respect to U.S. securities laws, corporate governance matters, periodic reporting obligations, mergers and acquisitions, public and private financings, takeover defense, and access to foreign capital markets.  Mr. Brenkert can be contacted at 303-352-1133 or brenkert.jason@dorsey.com.

 
(Number of Operations)
 
(Number of Operations)

Firm Highlights

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.