Relating to the required repeal or amendment of two state agency rules before adoption of a new state agency rule that increases costs to regulated persons.
The implications of HB4245 on state law are significant, as it establishes a clear framework that necessitates state agencies to actively manage and reduce the cumulative cost of regulations on affected individuals and businesses. This requirement may lead to a more cautious approach in rule-making, where agencies must consider the financial implications of new rules more thoroughly. The bill is intended to alleviate some of the regulatory burden that may exist, potentially fostering a more business-friendly environment by preventing unnecessary financial strain from new regulations.
House Bill 4245 introduces a new requirement for state agencies that seek to adopt rules imposing costs on regulated individuals or entities. The bill specifies that before a state agency can implement a new rule that increases costs, it must repeal or amend two existing rules that create an equal or greater financial burden. This measure aims to ensure that the overall regulatory cost to these entities is not increased without corresponding offsets, promoting a more balanced approach to fiscal governance within state regulations.
Though the bill promotes fiscal responsibility, it could also result in some contention. Advocates for more stringent regulations may argue that such requirements could hinder the development of necessary rules aimed at protecting public interest. Additionally, critics may contend that repealing existing regulations to offset new costs could undermine protections previously afforded to the public or the environment. Balancing the necessity for regulatory updates while ensuring compliance costs are managed will likely be a collaborative challenge for state agencies moving forward.