BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2529
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2529 (Fuentes) - As Amended: April 14, 2010
Policy Committee: Business and
Professions Vote: 8 - 2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) to conduct
an economic impact analysis of any proposed regulation.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires BSA to conduct an economic impact analysis of all
proposed regulations.
2)Requires the agency submitting the regulation to provide the
BSA with any information necessary to conduct the economic
impact analysis.
3)Requires BSA to provide the analysis to the Appropriations
Committees in both houses of the Legislature if the impact is
determined to be in excess of $10 million.
4)Requires the Appropriations Committees to conduct a public
hearing to review each regulation for which it receives
notification from BSA and requires the committees to issue a
recommendation as to whether the regulation should be
invalidated by statute.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Given the 600 to 800 regulations packages per year and the
fact that many of them exceed several hundred pages this
legislation would result in significant costs, potentially in
the range of several million dollars, for the workload
associated with departments gathering the required information
and BSA conducting a cost/benefit analysis of all new
regulations and any amendments to existing regulations.
AB 2529
Page 2
2)Potential increase in the range of $500,000 (GF) for the
workload associated with both the Senate and Assembly
Appropriations Committees reviewing and making recommendations
concerning any proposed state regulation that has an impact of
$10 million or more. This funding would need to be provided
either through an increase or redirection from other areas of
the Legislature's budget.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The intent of this bill is to require in independent
third party review of the economic impact of state
regulations. In addition, the author is concerned that in
some cases the adverse economic impact may not have been the
intent of the Legislature when they passed the legislation.
This bill is intended to help rectify that situation by
requiring the Appropriations Committees in both houses to hold
hearings on regulations that appear to result in a significant
economic impact.
2)Funding for the State Legislature . In 1990, California voters
passed Proposition 140 which imposed term limits for
legislators and established a funding formula for the
Legislature's budget. Under that formula, funding for the
legislature was reduced by 38% and expenditures were limited
to $950,000 per member or 80% of the amount of money expended
for the prior fiscal year, whichever is less. For each
subsequent fiscal year, the funding level is adjusted by an
established formula. Therefore, the Legislature operates
within a capped funding system and any additional workload
imposed on the Legislature must be absorbed within those
resources.
3)Binding Future Legislatures ? This bill would require the
Legislature not only to review but to make recommendations to
repeal or limit any state regulations that have an adverse
economic impact and may not be in keeping with the intent of
the original legislation. Of concern is the fact that one
legislative body may not limit or restrict its own power or
that of subsequent legislatures, and the act of one
Legislature may not bind its successors [County of Los Angeles
v. State of California (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 568, 573]. In
practical terms, it means that subsequent legislatures are
under no legal obligation to comply with the provisions of
AB 2529
Page 3
this bill. Furthermore, since this bill is a statutory, and
not a constitutional, measure, any subsequent legislature
could dispense with this requirement by including a provision
in a statute to override this legislation.
4)Related Legislation . AB 2299 (Blakeslee) requires the Air
Resources Board (ARB) to submit an impact analysis for "major
proposed regulation" to external peer review. That bill is
currently pending in this committee.
AB 2466 (Smyth) requires the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) to submit all regulations packages to the Legislature
and requires that the appropriate legislative policy
committees review those regulations. That bill is currently
pending on this committee's Suspense File.
AB 2652 (Niello), 2010, requires a standing committee with
jurisdiction over a state agency that proposes a regulation
with costs exceeding $10 million, to hold an informational
hearing regarding the proposed regulation. This bill is
pending hearing in this committee.
AB 3511 (Jones; Chapter 1306, Statutes of 2002) requires state
agencies proposing to adopt or amend any administrative
regulation to assess the potential for adverse economic impact
on California business enterprises and individuals, and to
avoid the imposition of unnecessary or unreasonable
regulations or reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance
requirements.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081