House Bill 1046 would require the North Carolina Department of Commerce to produce and publish a biennial report on economic opportunity, affordability, and family economic security in the state. The report is intended to supplement traditional economic measures by giving lawmakers and the public a broader picture of conditions affecting individuals, families, and communities, with data presented statewide and, where practicable, by county.
The bill specifies a set of required metrics the report must cover, including poverty and deep poverty, labor force participation, employment and unemployment, job quality and access to employer-sponsored health insurance, household spending burdens for housing, food, child care, and health care, the cost of postsecondary education and workforce training, and indicators of persistent or concentrated poverty. It also allows the department to include other county-level indicators of economic opportunity, business formation, or workforce access based on reliable public data, and requires the report to explain its sources, methodology, and limitations. The department would submit the report to legislative oversight and fiscal committees and post it publicly.
The bill would amend Chapter 143B of the General Statutes by adding a new reporting requirement for the Department of Commerce and would appropriate $200,000 in recurring General Fund money beginning in fiscal year 2026-2027 to implement the act. It would take effect July 1, 2026, and would create an ongoing state obligation to collect, analyze, and publish economic well-being data on a biennial schedule.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to have a neutral-to-supportive policy framing, with no recorded votes or committee debate yet. Its emphasis on affordability, family economic security, and county-level data suggests a broad informational purpose rather than a regulatory one, which may make it attractive to lawmakers interested in economic development and social conditions. Because there is no transcript or vote history, there is no documented opposition in the materials provided.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the recurring cost to the state, the administrative burden on the Department of Commerce, and whether existing data sources are sufficient to produce reliable county-level measures. Another possible issue is the scope of the report, since it reaches beyond traditional economic indicators into housing, child care, health care, and education affordability, which could draw differing views about the proper role of state reporting and policy analysis.
HB1046 would add a new section to Chapter 143B requiring the Department of Commerce to prepare a biennial statewide and county-level report on economic opportunity, affordability, and family economic security. It would also appropriate $200,000 in recurring General Fund support starting in 2026-2027, creating an ongoing fiscal and administrative responsibility for the department. The bill does not directly change eligibility rules, taxes, or benefits, but it would expand the state’s statutory reporting framework and provide lawmakers with a recurring data source for policy oversight.
The available materials show little to no recorded debate, vote history, or committee testimony, so the bill’s sentiment is best characterized as neutral and informational. The bill’s stated purpose—improving understanding of economic hardship and affordability—suggests a generally constructive framing, and its broad metrics may appeal across policy perspectives. No explicit opposition or support is documented in the provided record.
The main likely points of contention are fiscal and administrative rather than ideological. Critics could question the $200,000 recurring appropriation and whether the Department of Commerce should take on a new reporting mandate when much of the data may already exist in federal or state sources. Others may debate the bill’s broad scope, especially its inclusion of housing, child care, health care, and education affordability metrics, and whether county-level reporting will be feasible or sufficiently reliable in all categories.