An Act to consolidate, renumber and amend 227.137 (3) (b) (intro.) and 1.; to amend 227.137 (3) (c), 227.137 (4m) (b) 2. a., 227.137 (4m) (b) 2. b., 227.137 (4m) (c) 1., 227.139 (1), 227.139 (2) (b), 227.19 (5) (b) 3. a. and 227.19 (5) (b) 3. b.; to create 227.137 (3m) and 227.139 (2) (c) of the statutes; Relating to: requirements for proposed administrative rules that impose any costs.
AB277 would substantially tighten Wisconsin’s administrative rule review process for cost-imposing regulations. Under current law, an agency must halt work on a proposed rule only if it is expected to impose at least $10 million in implementation and compliance costs over a two-year period. This bill lowers that threshold to any amount of net implementation and compliance costs, meaning a proposed rule could be stopped even if the projected costs are relatively small. An agency would then have to either revise the rule to eliminate the costs, obtain separate legislative authorization, or offset those costs by promulgating another rule in the same calendar year that produces equivalent cost savings.
The bill also expands and clarifies the economic impact analysis agencies must prepare for proposed rules. Agencies would have to provide a single dollar estimate of total implementation and compliance costs and cost savings, broken out by affected businesses, local governmental units, and individuals, and then state the net result as one figure. The bill further directs that these costs and savings be attributed to the proposed rule even when they stem from statutory mandates, federal requirements, or other constraints, which broadens the scope of what counts as rule-related cost in the analysis. It also updates procedures for independent economic impact analyses and the allocation of their costs.
In practical terms, AB277 would affect state agencies’ rulemaking authority and likely slow or deter the adoption of rules that impose any measurable cost on regulated parties. It would also affect businesses, local governments, and individuals by making cost impacts a central gatekeeping issue in the administrative process. The bill amends Wisconsin statutes governing rule promulgation, economic impact statements, and independent review, and it applies prospectively to proposed rules whose scope statements are submitted after the effective date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s introduction and sponsorship appears supportive of stricter oversight of agency rulemaking and greater accountability for regulatory costs. The large number of legislative sponsors suggests a strong interest among supporters in limiting or scrutinizing administrative burdens. At the same time, the bill’s structure indicates a policy preference for cost avoidance and legislative control over agency discretion, rather than a neutral technical adjustment.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s very low trigger for stopping rulemaking. Critics could argue that requiring agencies to halt work for any net cost, and attributing costs broadly even when driven by federal law or statutory directives, would make it much harder for agencies to implement needed regulations and could create significant administrative delays. Supporters would likely view that same feature as the bill’s core purpose: preventing agencies from imposing even modest costs without stronger justification or offsetting savings.
AB277 would amend Wisconsin’s administrative rulemaking statutes, especially ss. 227.137, 227.139, and 227.19, by replacing the current $10 million two-year cost threshold with a standard that applies to any net implementation and compliance costs. It would require agencies to stop rulemaking on cost-imposing proposals unless costs are eliminated, separately authorized by legislation, or fully offset by another qualifying rule adopted in the same calendar year. It also expands economic impact analysis requirements and changes how independent analysis costs are allocated, thereby increasing procedural burdens on agencies and potentially reducing the number of rules that can advance without legislative intervention.
The bill appears to have been introduced in a generally favorable environment among its sponsors, with broad legislative support reflected in the number of assembly and senate cosponsors. The absence of recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material limits direct evidence of debate, but the bill’s framing suggests a pro-accountability, anti-regulatory sentiment among supporters. Overall, the measure reads as a deliberate effort to constrain agency rulemaking and emphasize cost control.
The central controversy is the bill’s expansion of the rule-stopping trigger from major costs to any net costs, which opponents would likely see as overly restrictive and likely to impede routine agency action. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s instruction to attribute costs to the proposed rule even when they arise from underlying statutes, federal requirements, or other external constraints, which could be criticized as overstating agency responsibility. Supporters, by contrast, would likely argue that these provisions are necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and legislative oversight of regulations that affect businesses, local governments, and individuals.