Senators debate and advance competing bills to increase legislative review of major regulations

Senators spent much of a committee session debating how far the Legislature should reassert control over major agency regulations.

Senator Strickland introduced SB 885, the "Restore Accountability Act," saying the measure would require legislative review and approval of any regulation with an estimated economic impact of $50,000,000 or more. "Every bill that comes before us, I know, at least for me, every bill that comes before us, I look at what the economic impact would be for my constituents," he said, arguing voters deserve oversight by elected officials. Strickland said he would accept a 60‑day timing amendment but not committee amendments he said would unduly slow the process.

Supporters including Tim Taylor of the National Federation of Independent Business and Scott Kaufman of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association told the committee SB 885 would restore transparency and democratic accountability over costly rulemaking. "Any major regulation with an anticipated economic impact of more than $50,000,000 be reviewed and approved by the legislature before it is finalized," Taylor said in support of the proposal.

Opponents warned the bill risks delaying health and safety protections. Elmer Lazarde of the California Federation of Labor cited the indoor‑heat standard, noting the regulatory process that yielded the standard took many years and arguing an extra legislative checkpoint could have prevented protections from taking effect. "Requiring an additional legislative approval for a regulation such as this would further delay the implementation of life saving protections for workers," Lazarde told the committee.

Committee members pressed authors on timing and guardrails. Senator Akilah Weber said she understood the intent but asked how the committee would ensure the Legislature acts quickly on returning regulations; Strickland agreed to accept a 60‑day deadline amendment to address that concern. The committee later voted; the transcript shows the motion on SB 885 failed on the first roll call (motion failed), and members then granted reconsideration so the author could return with further amendments.

The same theme recurred in two related measures. Senator Sajarto presented SB 986 and accepted committee amendments that set a 60‑business‑day legislative review clock, required notice and informational hearings, and preserved the Office of Administrative Law's technical role. Free Sempii of the Pacific Legal Foundation described the bill as a measured good‑government reform that would subject only the most consequential rules to direct legislative oversight. The committee passed SB 986 as amended and reported it out to the next committee round.

Senator Wiener offered SB 1123, which would change how agencies determine whether a regulation triggers the state's standardized regulatory impact analysis (SREA) by requiring agencies to net costs and benefits. Wiener and consumer and public‑safety supporters argued the change would prevent regulations that produce net benefits from being subjected to delay‑prone economics reviews; business groups said it could effectively eliminate SREA for many important rules. The committee passed SB 1123 to appropriations on a roll call recorded in the transcript.

What happens next: committee members asked authors to continue discussions to refine timing, exemptions for emergency regulations or worker protections, and reporting requirements. The committee advanced multiple oversight bills but left room for negotiated language to address members' concerns about implementation speed and public safety.