Committee deadlocks on eight-year review proposal; related limits on agency rulemaking held after broad debate

The Idaho House State Affairs Committee declined to advance House Bill 217 after extended testimony from business and industry representatives, and later voted to hold House Bill 218 for further work.

House Bill 217, sponsored by Rep. Barbieri, would change current administrative-rule review procedures by replacing a periodic “review” framework with a “sunset” requirement and require agencies to prepare statements justifying rules, including costs to implement and enforce them. Supporters said the change would force legislative oversight; opponents said it would impose heavy cost and administrative burdens and could threaten state primacy for federally delegated programs.

Rep. Barbieri told the committee that HB 217 aims to “get better control over the agency rule process” and that the measure would require agencies to justify a rule’s benefits relative to costs and estimate implementation expenses. She described the proposal as a response to rules remaining in effect without sufficient legislative review.

Alan Prouty, vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs at the J.R. Simplot Company and chairman of Food Northwest, urged the committee to vote no. He told lawmakers that having to review all regulations every eight years would create a large administrative burden for both agencies and the regulated community. “From the environmental natural resources perspective, all of Idaho’s rules flow 99% from federal statutes,” Prouty said, adding that frequent wholesale review would be costly and could complicate compliance where state rules mirror federal requirements.

John Eaton, vice president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, also opposed HB 217 and offered alternatives. Eaton said the existing statutory process (the committee discussed Idaho Code citation 67-454 during testimony) is not being followed and suggested restoring a subcommittee review process or other targeted reforms rather than forcing a statewide eight-year sunset.

Committee members questioned witnesses about how the changes would affect environmental permitting, the state’s ability to maintain primacy under federal programs, and the use of temporary rules in emergencies. Witnesses cited examples—including site-specific water quality standards and prior emergency rulemaking for quagga mussel response—to argue that some rulemaking and periodic updates are necessary to satisfy federal requirements and scientific change.

A roll-call vote on a motion to send HB 217 to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation was held after debate. The committee recorded the motion as failing by a vote of 7 to 6. (The hearing transcript contains the roll-call record.)

After the HB 217 vote, the committee considered House Bill 218, a separate measure that would restrict agencies’ ability to promulgate rules after a 10-year window unless the legislature amended the underlying statute. Testimony on HB 218 echoed arguments from the HB 217 hearing: industry representatives urged rejection because the change could impede necessary updates tied to federal changes or new science. Representative Alfieri moved to hold HB 218 in committee; the committee approved the motion to hold.

With HB 217 defeated in committee and HB 218 held, sponsors and opponents indicated they expect to continue discussions and drafting changes in follow-up work and future hearings.