Wisconsin Senate Bill SB289

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/30/25
• Refer: 5/30/25
• Report Pass: 11/7/25
• Engrossed: 2/11/26
• Enrolled: 2/20/26
• Vetoed: 3/20/26

Caption

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.

Summary

SB289 tightens Wisconsin’s administrative rule review process by lowering the threshold at which a proposed rule is halted for cost concerns. Under current law, an agency must stop work only if a proposed rule is expected to impose at least $10 million in implementation and compliance costs over a two-year period. This bill replaces that threshold with any expected net implementation and compliance costs, meaning even rules with relatively small projected costs could be paused unless the agency modifies the rule, obtains separate legislative authorization, or offsets the costs with another rule adopted in the same calendar year. The bill also expands and standardizes the economic impact analysis agencies must prepare for proposed rules. Agencies would have to quantify both costs and cost savings, break them out by affected businesses, local governmental units, and individuals, and present the totals as a single net dollar figure. The bill further directs that costs and savings be attributed to the proposed rule even when they stem from statutory directives, federal requirements, or other constraints, and it adjusts the procedures and funding rules for independent economic impact analyses when those analyses differ from agency estimates.

Impact

SB289 would significantly alter Wisconsin’s rulemaking statutes in ch. 227 by making cost-based review far more restrictive for administrative agencies. It amends the economic impact analysis provisions in ss. 227.137, 227.139, and 227.19, creates new provisions requiring net-cost calculations and offsetting rules, and changes when agencies may continue rulemaking after a cost-triggering analysis. In practical terms, agencies would face a lower threshold for stopping rule development, more detailed reporting obligations, and a new mechanism for using other rules to offset projected compliance costs.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in both chambers but also substantial opposition. It passed the Senate 18-15 and the Assembly 53-45, indicating a partisan or closely divided debate rather than broad consensus. The final action notes that it failed to pass notwithstanding the Governor’s objections, which suggests the bill remained controversial even after legislative approval. Overall, the sentiment appears supportive among proponents of regulatory restraint and skeptical among opponents concerned about the bill’s effect on agency rulemaking.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s dramatic expansion of the cost trigger from rules expected to impose $10 million or more in costs to rules with any net implementation and compliance costs. Supporters likely view this as a way to increase legislative oversight and reduce regulatory burdens, while opponents may see it as making ordinary rulemaking more difficult and potentially blocking rules with modest or unavoidable costs. Another likely dispute is the bill’s requirement that agencies attribute costs to the rule even when those costs are driven by statutory mandates or federal requirements, which could be criticized as overstating agency responsibility. The new offset rule also raises questions about whether agencies can realistically neutralize costs through separate rules in the same calendar year.