California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: In Committee

SB 196 — Regulations: economic analysis and review.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) The Administrative Procedure Act governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. The act requires that state agencies proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal any administrative regulation assess the potential for adverse economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals, as specified. This bill would require the standardized economic assessment to consider additional factors, such as the benefits of the regulation and the extent to which it will achieve regulatory and statutory objectives. The bill would require agencies preparing the economic assessment to request a review of the assessment by the University of California, and to include any review by the university with the assessment. The bill would require the Department of Finance to adopt regulations, on or before June 30, 2013, to guide agencies in conducting the standardized economic assessments, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2014, would make the standardized economic assessment requirements applicable only to a proposed regulation that the agency has concluded may have an economic impact of more than $50,000,000. (2) The act requires an agency that seeks to adopt a regulation to issue a notice of proposed action that contains prescribed information, including an informative digest that includes, among other things, a policy statement overview explaining the broad objectives of the regulation. This bill would also require the policy statement to explain the specific benefits anticipated by the regulation and evaluate whether the proposed regulation is inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. (3) The act requires an agency to prepare and submit to the office with an adopted regulation a final statement of reasons that includes, among other things, a determination that no alternative considered by the regulation would be more effective, or equally effective and less burdensome, than the regulation, and an explanation setting forth reasons for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. This bill would require this determination to be based, in part, on the economic impact assessment, if an assessment is required. The bill would also require that the economic impact assessment be included in the final statement of reasons as supporting information for an explanation for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. (4) The act establishes a procedure for a priority review of existing regulations by the office, pursuant to a request by specified committees of the Legislature, to determine if a regulation continues to meet prescribed standards. This bill would authorize any interested person to petition an agency to perform an economic analysis on an existing regulation. The bill would require the agency to conduct the analysis, except in specified circumstances. (5) The act requires the office to approve, or disapprove and return to the agency, all regulations adopted pursuant to the act using specified standards. The act requires the office to return a regulation to the agency in specified circumstances, including failure to comply with the requirement to assess the economic impact of the proposed regulation. This bill would provide, for purposes of that provision, that noncompliance includes failing to complete an economic impact assessment, if one is required, as specified. The bill would specify additional criteria that would require the return of a proposed regulation, as specified. (6) The act exempts the Public Utilities Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission from specified provisions of the act. This bill would revise the exemptions and require these entities to comply with specified requirements regarding the performance of the economic analysis. (7) Existing law authorizes the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to appoint a Legislative Analyst, who has specified duties. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to prepare a benefit-cost analysis, as specified, of proposed legislation that he or she has identified as having a potential cost to the California economy of more than $50,000,000 in one year, or that would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health or safety.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  3. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  4. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 11.

  5. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Cannella · Primary
  • Emmerson · Cosponsor
  • Harman · Cosponsor
  • Bill Berryhill · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Cannella

Co-sponsors (3)

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety finance labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 196 do?
(1) The Administrative Procedure Act governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. The act requires that state agencies proposing to adopt, amend, or repeal any administrative regulation assess the potential for adverse economic impact on California business enterprises and individuals, as specified. This bill would require the standardized economic assessment to consider additional factors, such as the benefits of the regulation and the extent to which it will achieve regulatory and statutory objectives. The bill would require agencies preparing the economic assessment to request a review of the assessment by the University of California, and to include any review by the university with the assessment. The bill would require the Department of Finance to adopt regulations, on or before June 30, 2013, to guide agencies in conducting the standardized economic assessments, as specified. This bill, commencing January 1, 2014, would make the standardized economic assessment requirements applicable only to a proposed regulation that the agency has concluded may have an economic impact of more than $50,000,000. (2) The act requires an agency that seeks to adopt a regulation to issue a notice of proposed action that contains prescribed information, including an informative digest that includes, among other things, a policy statement overview explaining the broad objectives of the regulation. This bill would also require the policy statement to explain the specific benefits anticipated by the regulation and evaluate whether the proposed regulation is inconsistent or incompatible with existing regulations. (3) The act requires an agency to prepare and submit to the office with an adopted regulation a final statement of reasons that includes, among other things, a determination that no alternative considered by the regulation would be more effective, or equally effective and less burdensome, than the regulation, and an explanation setting forth reasons for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. This bill would require this determination to be based, in part, on the economic impact assessment, if an assessment is required. The bill would also require that the economic impact assessment be included in the final statement of reasons as supporting information for an explanation for rejecting alternatives that would lessen the adverse economic impact of the regulation. (4) The act establishes a procedure for a priority review of existing regulations by the office, pursuant to a request by specified committees of the Legislature, to determine if a regulation continues to meet prescribed standards. This bill would authorize any interested person to petition an agency to perform an economic analysis on an existing regulation. The bill would require the agency to conduct the analysis, except in specified circumstances. (5) The act requires the office to approve, or disapprove and return to the agency, all regulations adopted pursuant to the act using specified standards. The act requires the office to return a regulation to the agency in specified circumstances, including failure to comply with the requirement to assess the economic impact of the proposed regulation. This bill would provide, for purposes of that provision, that noncompliance includes failing to complete an economic impact assessment, if one is required, as specified. The bill would specify additional criteria that would require the return of a proposed regulation, as specified. (6) The act exempts the Public Utilities Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission from specified provisions of the act. This bill would revise the exemptions and require these entities to comply with specified requirements regarding the performance of the economic analysis. (7) Existing law authorizes the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to appoint a Legislative Analyst, who has specified duties. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to prepare a benefit-cost analysis, as specified, of proposed legislation that he or she has identified as having a potential cost to the California economy of more than $50,000,000 in one year, or that would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health or safety.
Who sponsors SB 196?
SB 196 is sponsored by Cannella, Emmerson, Harman, and Bill Berryhill.
What is the current status of SB 196?
This bill died with 2011-2012 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 196?
Track SB 196 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 196

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 196

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →