It is safe to say Montana’s beer fans don’t care much for our state’s on-premise limitations at our local breweries (48 ounces/person/day; only open between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; only breweries between 100 and 10,000 barrels). Attempts to add additional restrictions during the 2013 Montana Legislature created one of the most watched and most contentious issues of the entire session. There’s little question the growing popularity of Montana’s local breweries and the power of social media had a lot to do with stifling these attempts.
Montanans have enjoyed the ability to purchase pints at their local breweries (most of them) since 1999. Well before the craft beer boom, few of Montana’s current craft beer fans witnessed the complexities of how this ability came to be. That separation makes the limitations easy to criticize. Then again, the failure of Montana’s general licensing system to evolve with the times and embrace the economic benefits and popularity of craft beer provide its own impetus for criticism.
On June 6, 2013, South Carolina’s governor signed the “Pint Bill,” granting breweries the ability to sell up to 48 ounces/per person/day for on-premise consumption. Up to 16 of those ounces can be greater than 10% abv and additional signage and insurance requirements also apply.
Why would South Carolina adopt similar limitations that Montanans view with disdain? Fundamentally, the answer lies in the type of compromise necessary to navigate an often illogical political system. Yet, it also has a connection to Montana Beer.
South Carlina attorney and beer blogger Brook Bristow (Beer of SC) authored the original bill presented to the legislature and helped steer it through the system. His experiences visiting Montana’s breweries while visiting his girlfriend (who was working as a meteorologist for a Missoula television station) helped shaped the process.
I posed a series of questions to Brook about his experiences. If you’re curious how the sausage gets made at our states’ legislatures, read on:
Growler Fills: What is South Carolina’s beer culture like?
Brook Bristow: Our beer culture has only really come about in the last 10 years. Prior to 2007, our breweries could only produce beer up to 6.25% ABV. In 2005, Pop the Cap was founded with the mission of raising that. The law changed in 2007. In 2010, the law changed to allow tastings at breweries and to allow for growler fills to take home. So, we’ve come a long way in a long time. Usually, things don’t change very quickly in South Carolina. When it comes to change, I like to say that we have 2 speeds: slow and stop. I’m happy that this is one area where we are progressing fairly quickly. Our state now boasts 12 breweries, with more by the end of the year. We have many bottle shops throughout the state that offer growlers, bottles, and kegs. Our fan following has grown exponentially the last few years as more and more people are exposed to beer. While I was in Colorado at Rocky Mountain National Park, my girlfriend and I actually pulled off the road to view some elk. A guy who worked at the national park actually walked up to me because he saw my Holy City Brewing shirt and started telling me about how much he loved their brown ale. It was unbelievable to see the reach we’re starting to have.
GF: What was SC’s law pertaining to brewery pints/growlers/on-premise consumption prior to the change in law?
BB: Prior to the Pint Bill becoming law, breweries were only allowed to serve 4 tasters to customers. Usually, those were 4 ounce tasters; however, if the ABV was over 10% ABV, then the specific beer could only be a 2 ounce pour. So, at best, as a customer you could come to a brewery and only have 16 ounces in tasters. As for growlers to take off-premises, the law was the same as it is now – 288 ounces. It’s important to note that our breweries just won the right to have tastings at all in 2010. Prior to that, breweries could do nothing but produce beer.
GF: How did you come to draft the pint bill?
BB: Good luck, I suppose. I had heard that the brewers wanted to make a push for a law change during the legislative session. While I really had a passion for beer, nobody in our state’s beer circles knew who I was or what I could do. That’s when I decided to start the beerofsc.com beer blog. I just covered the state’s beer news. People started to read what I had to say. When the brewers association started putting feelers out there, I volunteered right away and was contacted by Jaime Tenny, the president of the brewers association here. I jumped at the opportunity. As the bill progressed, the blog was a great tool in outreach to the public to raise awareness, but also to put the legalities of the process into plain language.
GF: What was the original proposal?
BB: SC is a pretty strict three-tier state, so we need to have the distributors on board with what we’re doing. They’re also a pretty powerful lobby, so we wanted them on our side. They had agreed to allow us 64 ounces for on-premises tastings. I went with that, but had some back and forth with them about how that was to be done. Some of my Montana education came in here, because of all the samplers I had gotten to try while spending time there. The idea of writing the bill solely in pints didn’t jive with me. Eventually, the distributors bought in to my proposal of writing it in ounces instead of just “pints.” So, the original bill was for 64 ounces for on-site consumption (however they wanted, pints, snifters, samples, etc) with an ABV cap of what brewers are legally allowed to make in SC, which is about 17.5%.
GF: Did you have friendly legislators/sponsors lined up to carry the bill?
BB: We did. One of the state’s largest breweries – RJ Rockers – is located in Spartanburg. Our original primary sponsor in the House (Derham Cole) was a lawyer from Spartanburg and was gung ho about getting it done. He was also on the judiciary committee, where our bill was to start its journey. He realized that it was an economic boon for the city and state. On the senate side, we had a senator from near Charleston named Sean Bennett – where many of the state’s breweries are located. He was instrumental in getting this thing passed.
GF: What kind of opposition did you expect to receive, if any?
BB: We had a political consultant (Wesley Donehue) that was a big craft beer guy who was volunteering his time to get this thing done. He’s a pretty big deal as far as political consultants go here, so he could tell us all about what he was hearing on the ground. Originally, our fear was that we would have to battle it out with the conservative Christian groups. Not necessarily because they normally would oppose a bill like this, but because we didn’t have any big social issues come on the legislative agenda this year. Usually, that is not the case. South Carolina is a very conservative state, and usually we have a whole lot of social issues on the legislative calendar – whether warranted or not. So, we were thinking that we’d be hearing from them just because they didn’t have anything else to focus on. We also suspected that MADD would be involved simply because there were no other alcohol bills this session.
GF: What kind of opposition did you end up receiving?
BB: Wesley was able to get the Christian groups to back off, so we had to deal with MADD and SLED. SLED is the SC law enforcement division. They already have to worry about bars and such all over the state, so needless to say the idea of more work when you’re already underfunded wasn’t very enticing for them. We were able to work through those issues, though. MADD was the one that really gave us a run on this. But not until we got to the Senate. South Carolina has some legislative quirks. One of those is that on the Senate side, any one Senator can object to a bill, which effectively shuts it down until they pull an objection. Sometimes, senators do that to better understand a bill. Sometimes, they do it because they want something in exchange. Sometimes, they do it because they just object to what it is. The latter is what happened here. MADD asked a senator to object to the bill. The senator at issue was a teetotaler from the Upstate, which is where I live. This is the most conservative area of South Carolina. His objection was a moral one at the request of MADD.
GF: Were there moments when it looked like the bill would not succeed?
BB: This bill sailed through the House. Our consultant told us that he hadn’t ever seen a bill move as fast as this one did. It wasn’t until we got to the Senate that I started thinking that we might not win this. When the senator objected, I thought, well, we’ll work something out. But once we saw some of the demands that were being made, I couldn’t help but think we might be better off just killing the bill. One of those was an insurance requirement. In SC, anyone who serves alcohol isn’t required to carry liability insurance. Now, is it a good idea? Absolutely. But nobody was being required by law. Until now. One of the demands on us was that breweries had to carry insurance policies that had 1M in underlying coverage with 10M in umbrella coverage. Insane. Sure, our biggest breweries could afford it, but our smaller ones would really feel the pinch. And considering this bill was suppose to be an economic stimulus for people to open breweries, this proposal did not sit well with us. So, just trying to get through the negotiation phase with the objecting senator and MADD proved to be very frustrating.
GF: How did you overcome the opposition? What compromise did you make?
BB: At first, the senator wasn’t really open to talking. I thought he was just going to sit on the objection, and it’d be over. We were able to rally the troops and just have the public flood it with calls and emails. Eventually, we had a meeting. And kept the conversation going. What we had to end of doing was to go from 64 ounces to 48 ounces. Also, of the 48 ounces, only 16 of those could be above 10% ABV. We also agreed to come down from our original proposal to allow breweries to serve only 15% ABV. I think our original proposal was the law allowed a brewer to make which was 17.5%. We also had to agree to post signs in breweries warning about certain alcohol laws (drunk driving, etc). We had to keep an insurance requirement, but only of 1M. In the end, all these little things were fine. The economics of this bill far surpassed what we would need to do.
GF: Was the compromise necessary?
BB: Absolutely. A lot of it was at our request. We suggested required training for all servers, postage of signs, and developing a monitoring system. All the other stuff had to have been done. While a lot of the beer public complained initially about giving in on the ABV, nobody seems to be complaining now. All of it was necessary. But I think we came out ahead.
GF: Where did you get your ideas for the compromise language?
BB: A lot of it was just from talking with Senators and of what we thought as a group that we could voluntarily do to get the opposition to back off. The 48 ounces was a no brainer, since that was one pint less than where we had been. It also made me think about all the times that I had sat at the bar at Bayern and have them check off my card for the pints I was allowed to have. Knowing that we’d be in such good company with Montana made me feel better about it, even though I felt like we were giving up a lot.
GF: What was it like watching the final steps of the bill making its way through the legislature?
BB: You know, at the time, I didn’t think about it as a “we’re about to pass this bill” type of thing. As it was going through the final steps, I was looking at it more from a lawyer standpoint in what do I need to do to get our breweries ready for this? Because as soon as the Governor signed it, it would become law. I didn’t want any of our folks receiving fines or getting warnings against their licenses. On the day the Governor signed it, I was talking with Coast Brewing about the signage that was needed. I remember that Coast was going to open at 4pm that day for its normal Thursday tastings. We had gone back and forth on what the signs would say that day, and about 3:45, I was notified that the Governor had signed the law. At that moment, I wasn’t thinking that wow, we did it! I was thinking, oh, no. I have to make sure that we have our signs up! It wasn’t until I went to a brewery for a first time and saw pints being poured that it hit me that we had accomplished something major. It’s still great to see.
GF: What has been the effect of the bill thus far/how have breweries responded?
BB: They are really happy and so are beer goers. We’re seeing great turnouts at breweries and I’ve been contacted by a number of folks that want to open breweries. This law is going to be a great step for our state and beer culture.
GF: What’s next for SC?
BB: Well, right now, our brewers are enjoying this new law. We’re working on developing the brewers association here. This was a great victory for us, and I’m looking to do more. I think that as far as changing the law for more ounces in tastings, that’s a few years out. In this bill, we built in a study to demonstrate the economic impact that this will generate. I’m hopeful we can come back in a few years and say, see, we told you so. Let’s do more. So, I want us to be focused on awareness and education. Also, if I have my way, I’d also like to take a whack at the beer excise taxes in SC. Currently, we have the sixth highest in the country. Compare that to Montana, which is 40th.
GF: What else do we need to know?
BB: I owe a lot of my success and of the success of the bill’s passage to my time spent in Montana. When Chrissy went out there to do weather for KPAX, I didn’t know a lot about Montana. But once I started visiting, I just fell in love with it. Going to most of the breweries in western Montana was a real eye opener for me. To be able to come in and have a pint was something that was a pretty foreign concept as crazy as that sounds. I also got to see how the different breweries monitored what you took in, which became really important when we were trying to negotiate the bill. My original proposal was based on a lot of what I saw in Montana. I wanted it all in ounces instead of pints. Bouncing around to different breweries there and being able to sample all that I did was big for me. Western Montana is becoming a real beer tourism destination (we’re still trying to educate our public and legislators that beer tourism is a thing despite it being prominent right above us in North Carolina). There’s nothing like trying all the beers that a brewery makes. The idea of going to Great Northern or Bayern or Blacksmith and not being able to have a sampler of the beer before trying pints would have not been great for me as a tourist (being a local is a whole other thing). I want to try it all. My vision for SC is to be a craft beer destination, much like western Montana. I’m hopeful we can continue down that path. I’m glad that I got to do it when we were out there. It changed my perspective on things and really built up my passion for craft beer. I’m where I am now because of my experiences in Montana, especially in its taprooms.
