RULES – Adds to existing law to require the use of AI to review administrative rules annually.
House Bill 917 creates the “AI Regulatory Review Act” and adds a new chapter to Title 67 of the Idaho Code. The bill requires every state agency to use an artificial intelligence system when conducting periodic reviews of regulations and guidance documents under existing law. The AI must analyze whether requirements are legally necessary, duplicative, conflicting, or capable of being simplified, and it must also evaluate plain-language use, compliance costs, economic impacts, and potential savings. It must then generate recommendations, a cost-benefit analysis, and estimated savings from proposed changes.
The bill also requires human oversight. Qualified agency personnel must review and approve all AI-generated analyses and recommendations before any regulation or guidance document is amended or repealed, and they must document reasons for retaining provisions the AI identifies as unnecessary. Agencies must promptly begin rulemaking to implement changes, use expedited procedures when possible for non-substantive or burden-reducing revisions, and publish annual reports describing the reviews, accepted recommendations, burden reductions, and cost savings. The act includes an emergency clause, so it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
The bill would amend Idaho law by adding a new chapter to Title 67 governing agency regulatory review. It would impose a new statewide procedural requirement on all agencies authorized to adopt rules or regulations, directing them to acquire or develop AI systems, review regulations and guidance documents, and initiate rulemaking based on the review results within six months of the act’s effective date. It would also expand reporting obligations to the public and to the Legislature, while leaving final authority with qualified human personnel and existing administrative rulemaking procedures under chapter 52, title 67.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a generally pro-reform, anti-bureaucracy sentiment, emphasizing reduced regulatory burden, cost savings, and plain-language drafting while preserving public protections. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or support beyond the bill’s text and caption. The available context indicates the measure was introduced and referred to the House Business Committee.
The main points of potential contention are the mandate to use AI in regulatory review, the speed and scope of the required six-month agency implementation, and the extent to which agencies must rely on AI-generated recommendations. Supporters are likely to favor the bill as a tool for reducing unnecessary regulation and compliance costs, while critics may question AI reliability, data accuracy, administrative burden, and whether the bill could pressure agencies to revise rules too aggressively. The bill addresses some of those concerns by requiring human review and approval, but it still leaves room for disagreement over how much weight AI should carry in rulemaking.