Requiring economic impact statements for certain legislative rules
The introduction of SB570 is expected to improve the transparency and accountability of the legislative rule-making process by ensuring that lawmakers and the public are informed about the possible economic consequences of proposed rules. This change could significantly influence how agencies develop and advocate for rules, potentially leading to a more cautious and considered approach in regulatory matters, while also assisting in prioritizing rules that yield positive economic benefits.
Senate Bill 570 addresses the requirement for economic impact statements in the legislative rule-making process in West Virginia. Specifically, the bill mandates that any proposed legislative rule that may impact the state's economy by more than $200,000 in one year or $1,000,000 over five years must include a detailed analysis of the potential economic effects. This includes evaluating the rule's impact on regulatory costs, business productivity, job creation, and overall economic growth.
Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB570 appears to be supportive, particularly among those advocating for more informed governance and fiscal responsibility. Proponents see it as a necessary step toward responsible regulation that balances economic interests with public welfare. However, there is a possibility of contention over how strictly these economic impact statements are implemented and the extent of the analysis required, raising concerns about bureaucratic delays and the potential for rules to be unduly influenced by economic concerns rather than public health or safety matters.
Notable points of contention may arise concerning the definition and scope of what constitutes significant economic impact, as well as who determines the accuracy and objectivity of the economic impact statements. There could be disagreements on the methodologies used for these analyses, particularly how they account for long-term versus short-term economic effects, and whether the proposed rules could be seen as unnecessarily burdensome on state agencies tasked with creating and enforcing legislation.