SF0127 expands Wyoming’s legislative review of administrative rules by creating a new requirement for the Legislative Service Office to prepare regulatory impact analyses for “major rules.” A major rule is one expected to have at least a $1 million annual economic impact or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or particular industries or regions. The analysis must address the agency’s stated need for the rule, legal authority, alternatives, and a detailed cost-benefit review, including direct benefits, compliance costs, revenue and expenditure effects, opportunity costs, sources, and assumptions. The Legislative Service Office must provide the analysis to all legislators and make it public within 50 days of submission of the rule, and agencies must supply information and assistance needed to complete the review.
The bill also changes notice and review procedures for administrative rules. It requires notice to all legislators when an agency proposes new rules, updates cross-references in the administrative procedure statutes, and allows the legislature, a committee, or an individual legislator to introduce legislation in the next session to prohibit implementation or enforcement of a major rule after reviewing the analysis. The act applies to rules noticed on or after July 1, 2026, and it directs the Management Audit Committee to study the new process during the 2025 interim and report recommendations by December 1, 2025.
In addition to the procedural changes, SF0127 appropriates $400,000 from the general fund to the Legislative Service Office to hire up to two full-time employees to carry out the new duties. The appropriation is made non-lapsing unless changed by later legislative action, and the office is authorized to begin implementation steps, including hiring, before the main effective date. The bill therefore increases legislative staffing and resources tied to rule review and oversight.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears generally favorable but not unanimous. It advanced through committee and floor votes with strong support in both chambers, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee recommendations and passage margins of 25-6 in the Senate and 56-5 in the House. However, the failed concurrence vote and the later veto-override-related vote indicate some continuing disagreement over the final form or process. The bill’s structure suggests broad support for stronger legislative oversight of agency rulemaking, while also reflecting concern about how far that oversight should extend and what resources it requires.
The main points of contention are likely the scope of legislative control over executive-branch rulemaking, the cost and staffing needed to perform the analyses, and whether the new process could slow or complicate agency rule adoption. Supporters appear to favor greater transparency, economic scrutiny, and legislative accountability for major regulations, while opponents likely worry about added bureaucracy, delays, and the potential for legislative interference with administrative expertise. The requirement for a later study by the Management Audit Committee suggests lawmakers also wanted to revisit how the new system fits with existing rule-review statutes before full implementation.
SF0127 amends Wyoming’s administrative procedure and legislative rule-review statutes by adding W.S. 28-9-109 and revising related notice, review, and legislative-order provisions. It expands the Legislative Service Office’s role from reviewing submitted rules to performing formal regulatory impact analyses for designated major rules, and it requires agencies to cooperate with those analyses. It also broadens notice to all legislators, updates the definition of the administrative rules act, and creates a pathway for future legislation to block implementation or enforcement of a major rule after review. The act appropriates $400,000 and authorizes up to two new full-time positions to support these duties, with applicability beginning for rules noticed on or after July 1, 2026.
The bill appears to have been viewed positively overall, with strong committee support and comfortable passage in both chambers, suggesting broad agreement on the value of more detailed legislative oversight of administrative rules. At the same time, the recorded votes show that the proposal was not unanimous and that some members remained skeptical, especially as the bill moved through concurrence and later reconsideration-related votes. The general tone is one of cautious support for regulatory review reform, paired with concern about implementation details and the balance of power between the legislature and agencies.
The principal disagreement concerns how much authority the legislature should exercise over agency rulemaking and whether the new review process could become a tool to delay or block regulations. Another likely point of contention is the fiscal and administrative burden of the new analyses, including the $400,000 appropriation and the creation of new staff positions. Supporters emphasize transparency, economic analysis, and accountability for major rules, while critics are likely focused on cost, timing, and the risk of politicizing technical rule review.