The Thirsty Beagle: Crisis averted? Positive resolution eyed by brewers, ABLE

Monday, July 25, 2016

Crisis averted? Positive resolution eyed by brewers, ABLE

If you read my blog post from last night, you know there was a lot of nail-biting today as representatives from the ABLE Commission and the Craft Brewers Association of Oklahoma met to discuss the application of Senate Bill 424.

Over the weekend, word circulated that ABLE had floated an interpretation on the bill that would prohibit sales of brewers' high-point beer for consumption at the brewery. 

ABLE's rumored interpretation would still allow for sales of locally made high-point beer for off-premise consumption (think bottles, cans and growlers), but it is the former -- sales of their regular beer by the glass -- that the state's craft brewers view as a true game-changer for their businesses.

When SB 424 was passed in May -- it's set to go into effect Aug. 25 -- the public consensus was that it would allow on- and off-premise consumption.

The problem, as I noted yesterday, is that the bill expressly states brewers can sell their beer at the brewery, but does not specifically address where it can or can't be consumed.

That led to today's meeting, where ABLE and the brewers were expected to discuss the situation. I spoke today with several people with knowledge of the situation, and the consensus is that the meeting went well from the brewers' perspective.

All reports indicate that ABLE and the state's brewers are working toward a positive resolution to the issue.

That should serve as a relief to the state's brewers and those looking to open up breweries.

From talking to industry experts and observers, it's clear that a green light for by-the-glass consumption will be a catalyst for a great deal of commercial/retail development -- especially in Oklahoma City's districts and downtown area.

You would hate to see that type of momentum derailed when it appeared such a certainty only a few days ago.


  1. ok, here's a weird idea. Go to the guy that sponsored the bill, and see what he intended?

  2. Shouldn't that be " . . . does not specifically address . . . "?

  3. Can you elaborate on any details of that meeting?

  4. Trey, I wish I had more info -- people I talked to did not want to share many details.