Relative to establishing an office of regulatory efficiency and oversight.
Impact
The creation of the Office of Regulatory Efficiency and Oversight represents a significant shift in how New Hampshire manages regulatory affairs. The bill mandates the office to conduct overall and targeted cost-benefit analyses, assessing the implications of existing and proposed regulations on private industry. This focus on analysis aims to provide a clearer understanding of regulatory impacts, balancing compliance burdens against necessary safeguards for the public. By emphasizing collaboration, the new office is intended to facilitate ongoing dialogue between regulatory agencies and industry stakeholders, potentially leading to more responsive and informed governance.
Summary
SB483 establishes an Office of Regulatory Efficiency and Oversight within New Hampshire's Department of Business and Economic Affairs. This independent agency is tasked with enhancing the efficiency of regulations affecting private industries in the state. The office will be empowered to engage in regulatory rulemaking processes, ensuring that the interests of private industry are adequately represented as new rules and regulations are developed and revised. Additionally, the office will conduct comprehensive reviews and collaborate with stakeholders to identify unnecessary duplications and streamline processes across various regulatory bodies.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding SB483 appears to be supportive among proponents of regulatory reform, particularly within business communities and sectors that feel burdened by regulatory requirements. Supporters view the establishment of this office as a proactive measure to modernize and streamline New Hampshire's regulatory environment, fostering a more business-friendly landscape. Conversely, there are concerns about the potential for diminished oversight and scrutiny of regulatory practices, leading to a debate about the balance between business interests and public protections.
Contention
Notable points of contention stem from concerns over the implications of prioritizing business interests through this regulatory framework. Critics argue that the bill might lead to regulatory capture, where the interests of private industries disproportionately influence public policy to the detriment of social and environmental protections. Furthermore, issues have been raised regarding the adequacy of the $1,500,000 appropriation for the office's operations, questioning whether this funding will cover all necessary operational expenses given the complexities of state regulations and industry needs.
Relative to least cost integrated resource plans of utilities; municipal hosts for purposes of limited electrical energy producers; the cost of compliance with disclosure of electric renewable portfolio standards; repealing the energy efficiency and sustainable energy board; and procedures for energy facility siting by the site evaluation committee.
Prohibiting the intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding, weather modification, excessive electromagnetic radio frequency, and microwave radiation and making penalties for violation of such prohibition.