Senate Bill 705 would tighten North Carolina’s administrative rulemaking process for rules that impose large financial burdens. It revises the state’s “substantial economic impact” fiscal-note requirements by defining that term as an aggregate financial impact of at least $1 million over a five-year period, requiring agencies to prepare and obtain approval of a fiscal note before publishing affected permanent rules, and setting deadlines for the Office of State Budget and Management to review or prepare those notes. If the office does not act in time, the agency must prepare the note itself, and failure to comply can be used as grounds to object to the rule.
The bill also creates a new voting threshold for certain agency boards, commissions, councils, and similar bodies. For rules projected to cost affected persons at least $1 million over five years, adoption would require a two-thirds vote of members present and voting. For rules projected to cost at least $10 million over five years, adoption would require a unanimous vote, unless the rule is required by federal law or needed to maintain a federally delegated program, in which case the threshold drops to two-thirds. The bill applies to new rules and to rules undergoing periodic review and readoption.
Impact
The bill would amend G.S. 150B-21.4(b1) and add a new G.S. 150B-19.4 in Chapter 150B, which governs North Carolina administrative procedure and rulemaking. It would increase procedural hurdles for agencies adopting high-cost permanent rules by expanding fiscal-note analysis requirements, imposing review timelines, and creating supermajority or unanimous-vote requirements for certain rulemaking bodies. The practical effect would be to slow or limit adoption of rules with significant projected costs on regulated parties, while preserving a lower threshold for rules required by federal law.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or partisan division in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for tighter oversight of agency rulemaking and stronger legislative-style checks on costly regulations. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied context means overall sentiment cannot be measured from the legislative history provided.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between regulatory oversight and agency flexibility. Supporters would likely view the bill as a safeguard against expensive rules being adopted without sufficient scrutiny, while critics may argue that the supermajority and unanimous-vote requirements could make it difficult for agencies to respond to public health, environmental, labor, or consumer-protection needs. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of federally required rules, which preserves a lower threshold for compliance-related actions but may still raise questions about how to classify rules tied to federal programs. No specific lawmakers or stakeholder groups were identified in the provided record.
Requires all major hospitals within the state constructed or substantially renovated or expanded on or after 1/1/2028 to use renewable energy sources for power.
Requires all major hospitals within the state constructed or substantially renovated or expanded on or after 1/1/2028 to use renewable energy sources for power.