The 2026‑27 Budget

California Cannabis Control Appeals Panel
Permanent Funding Request

Background

California Cannabis Appeals Panel (CCAP) Hears Cases Brought by Licensees Who Object to Decisions Made by the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC). Established as a three-person panel by Proposition 64 (2016), the purpose of CCAP is to provide cannabis licensees and applicants with an impartial appellate body that can review licensing decisions made by DCC. The panel was expanded to five persons by Chapter 27 of 2017 (SB 94, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review). Three of the panel members are appointed by the Governor and two are Legislative appointees. Panel members receive about $180,000 a year. Their salaries are governed by statute. CCAP first received funding in 2017-18 on a three-year, limited-term basis. This included $964,000 from the Cannabis Control Fund (CCF), which receives revenue largely from fees paid by cannabis licensees, and ten positions. Funding for CCAP was reauthorized twice (in 2020-21 and 2023-24), each time on a three-year, limited-term basis. The revised 2025-26 budget for CCAP includes $3.4 million CCF and 13 positions.

Provisional Licensees Did Not Have Appeal Rights, Which Contributed to Dearth of Cases Between 2017-18 and 2025-26. In 2018-19, CCAP asserted that in light of the thousands of applications that were being received by DCC at the time, that “hundreds of appeals” would follow. In actuality, CCAP reports that the panel heard no cases that year. Four cases reached the panel in subsequent years—2021 to 2024—but all were withdrawn or dismissed because the appellants had provisional licenses. CCAP asserts that the dearth of cases during this period was attributable to the fact that large numbers of cannabis licensees held provisional licenses during these years, which meant they could not appeal to the CCAP. (Only applicants and holders of annual licenses may appeal to CCAP.)

Provisional Licensing Generally Ended in January 2026, First Two CCAP Cases Scheduled for Hearing in March and May. DCC has been moving cannabis licensees from provisional to annual licenses. January 1, 2026, was the last day for most provisional licenses to be in effect. The transition away from provisional licenses does appear to have increased the number of cases eligible for appeal to CCAP (somewhat). CCAP reports that it expects to hear its first two cases in March and May.

Governor’s Proposal

Provides Permanent Staff and Funding for CCAP. The Governor’s budget proposes $3.5 million ($3.4 million CCF and $57,000 in reimbursement authority) in 2026-27, increasing annually to $3.6 million ($3.5 million CCF and $65,000 reimbursement authority) in 2030-31 and ongoing. The 2026-27 amount is $127,000 (or 3.8 percent) more than the revised 2025-26 level. The Governor also proposes a one position reduction (from 13 to 12) in 2026-27 and ongoing.

Assessment

Still Too Early to Know What Actual Caseload and Workload Will Be. As mentioned previously, CCAP has argued that the reason the panel has heard so few cases is because so many licensees held provisional licenses. It further asserts that more cases will come now that the transition to annual licenses is largely complete. With two cases prepared for hearing in 2026, this argument appears to have some merit. However, it is unclear how many cases will actually reach the panel each year now that most licensees have transitioned to annual licenses. Moreover, because the panel has not finished processing any cases yet, the amount of staff time and other resources that each case will require is also unclear. As such, the panel’s ongoing resource need remains unknown.

CCAP Has More Resources Than the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (ABCAB), Which May Have the Larger Workload. ABCAB and CCAP perform broadly similar functions. Specifically, they are both impartial appellate bodies designed to review licensing decisions made by a separate licensing department. (For ABCAB, this is the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.) However, there are notable differences in workload, budget, and some salaries between them. ABCAB receives 20 to 35 appeals per year, in contrast to a projected 4 to 6 cases for CCAP. The 2026-27 proposed budget for ABCAB includes $1.4 million from Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Fund—which is about half the amount proposed for CCAP. Additionally, ABCAB board members receive a statutory salary of $25,500 annually, in contrast to the $180,000 provided for CCAP members. It is important to note that there may be qualitative and substantive distinctions between the work carried out by these two entities that could justify these differences. However, without data from completed CCAP cases, this is unknown.

Recommendation

Provide Funding on a Three-year, Limited-Term Basis and Require Workload Report. We recommend that the Legislature approve the proposed funding on only a three-year, limited-term basis, as it has done in past years when the panel’s resource needs were not known. By the end of this period, the number of cases CCAP is likely to receive annually on an ongoing basis should be clearer. We further recommend that the Legislature direct CCAP to provide an updated workload justification for each CCAP position. This would provide information on the amount of staff time and other resources each case requires. This report should also include a comparative analysis showing how CCAP’s caseload, tasks, positions, salaries, and budget compares to similar entities in state government, including ABCAB and any other state entities CCAP considers appropriate. This would provide information allowing the Legislature to assess how efficiently CCAP processes cases relative to other, similar entities. Taken together, this information will help the Legislature assess what CCAP’s actual ongoing resource needs will be when it would next deliberate CCAP’s budget under our recommendation.