Connecticut House Bill HB06073

Connecticut 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/22/25
• Refer: 1/22/25
• Refer: 2/13/25
• Report Pass: 2/25/25
• Refer: 3/6/25
• Report Pass: 3/12/25
• Engrossed: 5/19/25
• Report Pass: 5/20/25

Caption

An Act Concerning The Process And Timeline For The Review Of Existing Regulations Of Connecticut State Agencies And The Reporting Of Implementation Of Certain Consultant Study Recommendations.

Impact

The potential impact of HB 6073 on state laws is significant, as it lays down a structured framework for continuous regulatory oversight and improvement. The requirement for agencies to submit a review summary to the legislative committee introduces an element of accountability into the regulatory process. By making agencies responsible for periodically assessing their regulations, the bill seeks to foster a culture of evaluation and adaptability, addressing regulatory issues before they become more entrenched.

Summary

House Bill 6073 focuses on reforming the review process and timeline for existing regulations by Connecticut state agencies. The bill mandates that each state agency conduct a thorough review of its regulations every seven years, starting in 2027. This review must assess whether regulations are obsolete, rarely used, inconsistent with current laws, or have been subject to complaints. Agencies are also encouraged to recommend substantial reductions in regulation length and complexity as part of this review process, aiming to streamline governance and make the regulatory landscape more efficient.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 6073 appears to be generally positive among proponents who view it as a necessary step toward ensuring that state regulations remain relevant and effective. Supporters argue that streamlined regulations can enhance operational efficiency for both the government and the entities it regulates. However, there may be apprehensions from those who fear that the review process could lead to deregulation of important protections if not conducted with adequate scrutiny.

Contention

Notable points of contention may revolve around the execution of the review process itself and the balance between reducing regulatory burdens and maintaining necessary oversight. Critics might argue that the bill could weaken regulatory protections if agencies prioritize reduction over effective governance. The provision for public hearings following the review adds a layer of transparency but also brings into question how stakeholder input will influence regulatory decisions.