Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Business group backs bill to force periodic review of state regulations, urges public posting
Summary
The Connecticut Business & Industry Association urged the Government Oversight Committee to pass HB 6073, which would require agencies to review regulations on a set timetable, identify obsolete or inconsistent rules, and report findings; CBIA recommended posting agency review reports to make the process more accessible to the public.
The Government Oversight Committee heard testimony Feb. 18 in favor of House Bill 6073, a proposal to impose a process and timeline for state agencies to review existing regulations and identify obsolete, inconsistent or ineffective rules.
"By requiring state agencies to review and identify obsolete, inconsistent, and ineffective regulations, this bill represents a significant opportunity to modernize Connecticut's regulatory environment," Christopher Davis, vice president of public policy for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA), told the committee.
Davis said CBIA's research and its Opportunity Connecticut plan — developed through 30 statewide forums — found that Connecticut businesses cited regulatory climate as a top challenge for growth. He recommended several best practices drawn from other states, including regular review cycles (the draft bill specified seven years; Davis and some witnesses suggested five years), public portals for submissions and clearer timelines for permitting decisions.
Representative Dathan and others discussed examples where regulatory modernization is already underway: Davis cited the long-running effort to convert the Transfer Act's decades-old rules into "release-based" regulations at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a process he said has taken roughly five years.
CBIA asked that agency review reports be posted to committee websites or the state's eReg system to improve public access. Committee members and business advocates also raised specific complaints: multiple permits required across agencies, unclear or open-ended permitting timelines, and the lack of consolidated portals that allow applicants to track progress through different agencies.
Public commenters including Josiah Schley urged shortening the review period from seven years to five and recommended that when new regulations are added, an old regulation be removed to reduce regulatory accumulation.
Ending: The bill aims to standardize regulatory review to reduce burdens on businesses and improve transparency; the committee will weigh stakeholder suggestions — including changes to the review cycle and public-access provisions — before advancing language.
