Rhode Island Senate Bill S2665

Rhode Island 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/27/26
• Refer: 2/27/26

Caption

RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- SMALL BUSINESS, REGULATORY FAIRNESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES-ECONOMIC IMPACT, STATEMENTS

Summary

S2665 amends Rhode Island’s Small Business Regulatory Fairness in Administrative Procedures law to add a more specific requirement for economic impact statements prepared for proposed regulations affecting small businesses. Before adopting a covered regulation, agencies would still need to prepare and submit an economic impact statement, but the statement would now have to include a finding that the anticipated compliance costs scale proportionally with business size and do not impose fixed costs that larger businesses can absorb more easily. The bill also continues to require estimates of affected small businesses, compliance and administrative costs, and less costly alternatives. The bill keeps the existing framework that requires agencies to work with the office of regulatory reform and to provide the proposed regulation and impact statement in advance of formal rulemaking. It also requires the statement to be published in guide form and posted online, and directs the office of regulatory reform to develop criteria for the statement. The bill excludes certain heavily regulated industries from these requirements, including public utilities, regulated financial institutions, broker-dealers, and insurance companies.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would tighten the content requirements for economic impact statements under chapter 42-35.1 by adding a proportionality finding focused on small business compliance burdens. It would affect state agencies engaged in rulemaking, especially when proposed regulations may adversely affect small businesses, and would reinforce the role of the office of regulatory reform in reviewing and shaping those statements. The bill would not broadly change substantive regulatory authority, but it would add an additional procedural safeguard and documentation requirement before certain rules are adopted.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a small-business regulatory fairness bill and is generally pro-small-business in purpose. The sponsor list suggests support from a bipartisan group of senators, indicating some cross-party interest in reducing regulatory burdens on smaller firms. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or opposition in the provided materials.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the new requirement that agencies affirm compliance costs scale proportionally with business size and do not impose fixed costs that larger businesses can absorb more easily. Supporters would likely view this as a needed check on burdensome regulation, while critics could argue it adds another procedural hurdle, may complicate rulemaking, or could be difficult to apply consistently. Another possible issue is the scope of exclusions for utilities, financial institutions, broker-dealers, and insurers, which may be seen as appropriate given their existing regulation or as creating uneven treatment among industries.