Wisconsin lawmakers are debating Republican-backed bills designed to cut back on the number of state regulations.
One of the bills would cause state regulations to expire after seven years unless officials take the steps needed to re-adopt them.
State Rep. Adam Neylon, R-Pewaukee, an author of the bill, said the goal is to make sure old regulations are still relevant.
“We cannot afford to let regulations linger on the books for decades without scrutiny, particularly when they impose real costs on employers, consumers and taxpayers alike,” Neylon said. “The red tape reset bill is not about eliminating necessary protections. It’s about ensuring that every rule is up to date and justified in serving the public good.”
Another proposal would affect any new regulation that’s expected to cost businesses or local governments more than $0 to implement. Under that proposal, the new rule could not be added unless Wisconsin first repeals an old rule to offset the compliance costs of the old one.
That differs from existing Wisconsin law, which only requires expenses to be offset if compliance with a new rule is expected to cost more than $10,000 over two fiscal years. As is the case with the existing law, that bill would include an exception for new emergency rules, as well as for new rules needed to comply with federal air and water quality standards.
Another part of the package would require the state to pay back legal costs if someone successfully challenges an administrative rule in court. Additionally, a fourth bill debated on Thursday would change the process for putting out a new rule, by requiring an agency to put out a separate statement describing the scope of each new proposed rule. That differs from the current practice, in which an agency can put out a single scope statement to cover multiple related rules.
Republican backers have said their goal is to increase transparency while ensuring regulations are put up to public scrutiny.
But state Rep. Mike Bare, D-Verona, suggested the package could run afoul of the state constitution by attempting to create a “new legislative veto.”
In a ruling this summer, the state Supreme Court found that a GOP-led legislative committee had violated the constitution’s separation of powers principle by indefinitely blocking rules advanced by executive agencies.
Lawmakers first introduced the bills in April. Neylon said they may be altered to comply with the July ruling.
“We probably will need to do amendments to tighten up the language to make sure that it is in line with the current law of the land,” Neylon said.
But Neylon said that doesn’t mean lawmakers should “cede” their authority to state agencies.