Committee debate splits over proposal to make administrative rules ‘sunset’ every eight years; motion to advance fails 7-6

House Bill 217, sponsored by Representative Barbieri, would replace the current terminology of "review" with "sunset" for administrative rules and require agencies to provide the legislature a statement justifying each rule’s statutory basis, benefits relative to cost, and implementation costs. The proposal drew lengthy testimony from industry representatives and business groups and a divided committee vote.

Representative Barbieri said the intent is to get better control over the agency-rule process and to compel agencies to justify costs and benefits and estimate implementation costs. “Let's get an idea of what it's gonna cost the agency to implement, to monitor and enforce this rule,” Barbieri told the committee.

Alan Prouty, vice president of environmental and regulatory affairs at the J.R. Simplot Company and chair of Food Northwest Trade Association, urged a “no” vote, calling the measure an administrative burden that would impose significant costs on state agencies and the regulated community. Prouty warned most environmental rules implement federal statutes and that frequent wholesale review could undermine the state’s ability to maintain primacy for delegated federal programs.

John Eaton, vice president at the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, also testified in opposition and proposed an alternative process to restore use of legislative subcommittees to review pending rules. Eaton argued the legislature is not following existing statute governing subcommittees and recommended process reforms rather than a blanket sunset.

Committee members pressed witnesses on how frequent review would affect environmental permitting, site-specific water-quality standards, and agency capacity. Witnesses said targeted rulemaking tied to federal changes or new science is preferable to opening all rules for wholesale review on an eight-year cycle.

Representative Nicholson moved to send H 217 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. The committee conducted a roll-call vote; the motion failed 7 to 6.

Committee discussion and public testimony flagged potential consequences for state primacy and agency workloads. The bill will not advance from the committee at this time pending further action by its supporters.