Like all government departments that do a mediocre job of over-regulating complex industries, the California Department of Cannabis Control purportedly follows a set of published regulations. As priorities, realities, and lobbyist influences change, these regulations get updated. Going into 2026, the DCC has published a list of changes to their regulatory rules. Since most sane people don’t want to read a bunch of government jargon, we’ve done our best to organize and translate these changes into a more normal-person friendly format. If you want to read the DCC’s report on these changes, you can find it here. When digging into these regulatory changes, the logic of the changes make sense in support of several different goals. Let’s go through them.
Goal #1: Increase the sanitation standards for cultivation and processing
The DCC clearly thinks that processing of cannabis products needs a higher standard of sanitation. The way they have targeted and worded their changes makes it clear they are specifically worried about “non-manufactured” products like kief, flower, joints etc that are made from plant material, which can be processed on the farm. Nothing in these directions seems unreasonable, and they seem similar to food industry requirements. Since the vast majority of operators already have gloves and cleaning/sanitation chemicals available, for most people who already take cleaning into consideration this will probably just result in an updated set of SOP’s. We’re sure some operators will have to spend a few bucks on gloves and chemicals, but overall, basic sanitation is a reasonable expectation- if manufacturers and distros can do it, so can cultivators. For larger operations running high volumes on tight schedules, these rules may increase their cleaning downtime.
15000-TT: Updated the definition of “Nonmanufactured Cannabis Products” to include “Dried Flower” and “Kief”.
15060: This new section defines rules on animals and their waste.
15060-a-1&2: No animals except service animals are allowed in any facility, or in outdoor areas used for processing harvests, nonmanufactured products, or packaging.
15060-b: Animal waste, except fertilizer, must be removed immediately.
15061: This new section establishes cleaning procedures for tools, containers, utensils, and equipment.
15061-a: Specifies that these cleaning/sanitation rules apply to cultivators, processors, and those who create and package nonmanufactured goods.
15061-a-1: Hand tools like scissors, sieves, shakers, funnels, etc must be cleaned and sanitized daily when in use or in between work on different harvest batches.
15061-a-2: Surfaces and equipment like trim machines, rolling machines, sorters, tables, trays, tarps etc must be cleaned and sanitized daily while in use.
15061-a-3-A&B: Any container that holds cannabis must be cleaned and sanitized between storage and transport of each harvest batch, and at the beginning and end of each growing season.
15061-b&c: Defines “Clean” as being unable to see anything on the surface, and “Sanitized” based on various contact times with different cleaners.
15062: This new section establishes hand washing and glove use requirements for working with unpackaged cannabis or nonmanufactured cannabis products.
15062-a-1&2: Requires that workers have access to either a full handwashing station or rubber gloves
15062-b-1&2: Requires that workers either wash their hands or put on gloves before touching cannabis products.
Goal #2: Enforce METRC reporting timelines and labeling for harvesting and packaging.
As we’ve said many times in the past, METRC is only as good as the information that gets put into it. Any track and trace consultant will tell you that delayed entry of harvest data is one of the most common things they have to fix in their client’s regulatory reporting. On the State’s side, we’ve seen multiple instances of their inspectors asking for clarification on how exactly harvest batches should be stored during inspections. Now, it seems that the State has had enough, and is tightening timelines and clarifying storage and labeling. While this makes sense from a regulatory standpoint, it actually doesn’t really do anything from a consumer protection or tracking standpoint. Harvest time is already hectic enough, and adding a 72-hour clock ticking down to the reporting timeline is just another stress inducer at the busiest time of the year. Something like 10 days or 2 weeks seems more realistic and gives operators time to relax for a day or so after harvesting before they have to sit in front of their computer and fight with METRC. Realistically, is this extra time pressure going to make any consumers safer or prevent product diversion? We don’t think so. The labeling and storage requirements do make a little more sense, since it makes keeping track of stuff easier, and makes the inspector’s job a lot easier and faster.
15048.5-a: Clarifies that plants in the same harvest batch must be assigned a unique harvest batch name and be recorded in METRC. Harvest batches must be stored separated by an identifiable boundary when hanging, drying, or curing. The area where the batch is stored must also be labeled with the harvest batch name, with the label in clear view. Any container containing part of a harvest batch must be labeled with the harvest batch name.
15048.5-b: Clarifies and strengthens language around when processed cannabis is labeled. Any harvested cannabis that is processed to the full extent intended at that facility must be tagged within 24 hours of completion.
15048.5-c: If you’re storing the batch of finished product in a container, that container needs a clearly visible package tag. If the batch has to be stored in multiple containers, one container needs the package tag, all the containers need a UID number on them, and all the product units in the containers must have UIDs on them. Likewise all containers must be stored together as close as possible so they can easily be located in case of inspection.
15049.1-(a&b): Strengthens language to state that cultivators must record harvest activities in METRC for each harvest batch within 3 days.
15049.1-b-1&2: The wet weight of the harvest batch (not specifically for each plant) must be recorded in METRC within 3 days of weighing.
15049.1-c: Strengthens language to state that cultivators must record a finished harvest in METRC within 3 days.
16300-a: Strengthens language around plant flowering, requiring that cultivators move plants into their licensed canopy area within 1 day of flowering, and report it in METRC within 3 days.
Goal #3: Clarify what counts as “Canopy” with regards to mature plants.
These changes focus on clarifying and tightening up language around what defines canopy. Making sure all mature plants count towards the canopy of a facility makes sense from a definitional standpoint. There doesn’t seem to be any government funny business here, although this may cause some understandable grumbling from people who had a few plants off on the side “just to see what they would do.” This doesn’t do anything to keep consumers safer or strengthen the legal market- it just seems like a mostly harmless bureaucratic clarification.
15000-m: Updates the definition of “Canopy” to include areas that “include mature plants used for seed production or R&D”
15006-h-5-A: In line with the definition change in 15000-m, this requires any areas where mature plants are located for seed production or R&D to be included in the total calculation of canopy and on the premises diagram for cultivation license applications.
15006-h-7-D: Explains how canopy should be recorded for mature plants, specifically on the premises diagram for nursery license applications.
15006-h-7-E: Removes language that is now redundant due to the above changes
Goal #4: Update the transfer rules for seeds and immature plants
These changes serve to strengthen the genetic diversity of the state crop. After ongoing feedback from operators that the prohibition on immature plant and seed transfer to nurseries was leading to waste and genetic loss, the DCC seems to have relented. These changes are great, since it allows for two-way flow of genetic material between nurseries and farms, allowing specialized cultivars from different regions to get to nurseries, expanding their genetic diversity. This also allows farms to sell seeds to nurseries. This is a step in the right direction, but we would like to see it go a step further, and eliminate any requirement of sourcing documentation for seeds. There’s a wealth of genetic information stored in the seed vaults of old heads across the state, and requiring the source of a seed to be regulated is a serious obstacle. You can’t smoke a seed, it contains no psychoactive compounds, and where it came from really shouldn’t matter, especially from a consumer safety standpoint. We argue that deregulation of seed sourcing would actually strengthen the legal market, as it would expand diversity across the board, resulting in better, more resilient crops.
16202-a: Removed text prohibiting cultivators from transferring products from their premises without going through a licensed Distributor.
16300-b (old): Removes text requiring plant tags for plants/cuttings used for seed production.
16300-b: Clarifies and strengthens language around requiring cultivators to have a nursery license in order to propagate seeds or clones that they intend to transfer to another license
16300-c: Creates an exception to 16300-b allowing cultivators to transfer seeds or clones to a licensed nursery.
Goal #5: Clarify some things about what cultivators can and can’t do:
The main effect here is that people can now move their products around to different facilities that they own, if they have a distribution license. This allows multi-license operators to specialize and centralize their operations at the most convenient location. If an operator has 4 different farms but only one has a good set of buildings for processing, they now self-transfer their crop to be processed in one single location, rather than having to process it all on site. This also gives farms more latitude to move their clones around or share seeds between their locations. Realistically, this change will have the most impact on mid-sized operators, allowing them to streamline some of their operations. The downside is that this added capability to shuffle weed around to different locations makes the regulators job harder- it seems like they’re already struggling with the basic inspection of standalone farms, so this will likely cause headaches and more paperwork for them. Overall this seems like a pretty reasonable change to simplify logistics for vertical operators.
16300-d: Strengthens language around where cultivators can process their own cannabis, (in the processing area specified in their premises diagram).
16300-e: Allows cultivators who own multiple licenses to transfer immature plants, seeds, or harvested cannabis from one license location to another via a licensed distributor. (This can be via their own distribution license).
Goal #6: Eliminate all rules regarding emissions, power, generators, and carbon offset
These sections were based on an incorrect reading of a renewable energy law, and parts didn’t apply to cannabis. Likewise, the authority for emissions regulation belongs to the California Air Resources Board, not the DCC. Finally, the DCC believes that it will be easier to capture and understand information regarding an operator’s emissions and power usage through the existing CEQA process, so they want to do that instead of relying on other reporting. Repealing these sections solves all of these conflicts and streamlines the process. This is really just bureaucratic editing, and at best will result in less reporting paperwork, although it might make the CEQA process even more nightmarish.
16304-4: Removes a requirement for compliance with generator regulations
16305: Removes this entire regulation on greenhouse gas emissions/renewable energy/carbon credits regulatory compliance.
16306: Removes this entire regulation on generators
15020-e-(1-4): Removes language requiring reporting of power consumption from all sources, as well as average weighted greenhouse gas emissions.
Goal #7: Transfer all regulation of pesticides to the Department of Pesticide Regulation
Since the Department of Pesticide Regulation already manages pesticide requirements for businesses in California, this section was redundant. Also, the DCC found that pest management plans weren't useful because the need for different pesticides in cultivation is a shifting situation, so they agreed to repeal the requirement for them. These seem to be pretty basic changes that merely render the regulation of pesticides to their rightful regulators, and remove a useless planning step. Overall, less paperwork for cultivators and less regulatory double handling for the DCC is a win for everyone.
15011-a-12: Removes language requiring applicants to submit a signed attestation to their local Agricultural Commissioner regarding pesticide management requirements.
16307-a: Removes all specific regulations in this section, leaving behind the simple requirement that cultivators comply with Department of Pesticide Regulation standards.
16309-3: Removes the requirement for a pest management plan
16310: Removes the entire regulatory section on pest management plans.
Odds and Ends:
These are just a few extra changes that don’t really seem to fit into any larger strategic goal. These changes seem pretty neutral to us. The idea of a 30 day cannabis event does seem kind of cool and could allow for longer term popup-style sales venues.
15601-c: Sets the maximum time limit for a cannabis event license at 30 days.
16202-b: Removes text prohibiting the use of grow lights outside the canopy area for anything other than immature plants.
16209: Removes text regarding legislatively obsolete limits on Medium licenses.
That’s all the changes! Hopefully none of these will negatively impact your business. It seems that while the on-the-ground economic effects of the DCC’s regulations are often harmful to the industry, they still are able to keep a precise bureaucratic process going to change these rules as they see fit. Government regulations are like huge container ships: they’re complicated, take an extremely long time to change direction, carry massive economic potential, and operate at the direction of the highest bidders. Do these changes impact your business? We’d love to hear about it. Tell us your thoughts at [email protected], or DM us on our Instagram.
Higher Origins exists to bring as many small cannabis farms into the California market as possible at sustainable prices. We’ve built all our tools and outreach around this mission, and we’re building momentum. If you’re a licensed operator in any section of the industry who is interested in sourcing, selling, or promoting small farm cannabis, you can join Higher Origins for free today. The more small farms we can get into stores, the more we can effectively advocate for economic change together.
Hope all this regulatory reading hasn’t given you a headache!
-The Higher Origins Team
