Senate limit on $100M regulations hits hurdle in House

Officials from the state's executive branch poked holes in the proposal as well, complaining of vague language and unintended consequences. For example: Would House Bill 162's prohibition on regulations that cost "all persons affected" $100 million or more over five years mean the state can't re-up immunization requirements for school children?

Probably not, said state Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabarrus. That's a set of regulations that "will probably go through" the new process this legislation lays out, he said, though some parents would no doubt like to see them abandoned.

After a committee meeting to review the bill, House Speaker Pro Tem Sarah Stevens said she couldn't predict its fate next week, when the legislature is set to reconvene on a number of issues. But Stevens, R-Surry, a House negotiator on this legislation, said it "still needs some work."

Both Stevens and House Appropriations Chairman Nelson Dollar, R-Wake, expressed concerns with the bill's nuts and bolts, even though they liked its expressed intent. Dollar called it "a pretty blunt instrument" that would force the General Assembly deep into the weeds of state regulations usually decided by state agency experts then potentially subject to legislative review.

The process now has the General Assembly set regulatory parameters when they pass a law, but agency experts fill in blanks by writing regulations that can grow to dozens, even hundreds, of pages.

For others, including state Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford, the General Assembly's new responsibility would be a feature, not a bug. Too many burdensome business regulations come from the executive branch despite the legislature's constitutional authority, he said.

"Why does the legislature get to punt law-making authority?" Blust asked.

The bill bans regulations that cost $100 million or more outright, but the General Assembly could always write regulations directly into the law to circumvent that. Agency representatives who appeared in committee Thursday said the bill's broad language would handcuff the routine re-codification of existing regulations, not just limit new rules. They also said it would encourage agencies to lay out policies instead of regulations, or to split regulations to avoid the $100 million cap.

Newton said that sort of attitude is a prime example of the problem he wants addressed. He said he envisions agencies giving the legislature 10- to 20-minute presentations before the General Assembly votes on re-upping regulations.

A representative from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services wanted to know whether the cost of re-upped meat and poultry rules should be calculated as zero, since there are no plans to overhaul them, or be compared to the early 1900s, when the first rules went into effect.

He didn't get a direct answer, though Newton later said common sense should drive decision making.

In addition to the $100 million cap, the legislation essentially requires the General Assembly to sign off on permanent rules with $10 million or more in impact over five years. Under current law, this process kicks in if 10 or more people file written objections to the rule.

Both requirements would affect only permanent rules, not temporary or emergency ones. The state's Office of State Budget and Management expressed concern that the rules would be based on costs without taking into account the benefits of regulation. It gave examples of regulations meant to protect the public from 911 system regulations to regulations at nursing homes.