BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2652
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2652 (Niello) - As Amended: April 8, 2010
Policy Committee: None Vote:n/a
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires that a standing committee of the Legislature
with jurisdiction over a state agency hold an informational
hearing if the agency is proposing to adopt a regulation with an
estimated cost of more than $10 million.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential increase in the range of $500,000 (GF) for the
workload associated with various Senate and Assembly policy
committees holding informational hearings on any proposed state
regulation that has an estimated 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 . AB 2652 addresses what the author views as a gap in
legislative oversight by requiring an informational hearing be
held for any legislation requiring regulations that have a
financial impact in excess of $10,000,000, as determined by
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
The author argues that while some delegation is necessary, the
regulatory process needs to provide the Legislature with more
opportunity for input. Currently, nothing in statute requires
that the Legislature be informed of new regulations.
2)Key Issue . As the bill is currently written, it requires the
Legislature to review any regulations package where the
estimate in the initial OAL statement of reasons is over $10
AB 2652
Page 2
million. Fiscal estimates, however, are not provided in the
initial statement of reasons. The first estimates are
provided on a required Department of Finance STD Form 399,
which departments submit with their notice of proposed
rulemaking. That same form is resubmitted at the end of the
rulemaking process with the final regulations package, because
the estimates often change over the course of the rule making.
The author may wish to amend the bill to clarify which
estimated cost he is referring to in this legislation.
3)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.
4)Binding Future Legislatures ? This bill would require the
Legislature to hold informational hearings on any state
regulations that are estimated to cost more than $10 million.
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 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.
5)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
AB 2652
Page 3
and requires that the appropriate legislative policy
committees review those regulations. That bill is currently
pending on this committee's Suspense File.
AB 2529 (Fuentes), 2010, requires the Bureau of State Audits
(BSA) to conduct an economic impact analysis of any proposed
regulation. This bill is pending on this committee's Suspense
File.
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