Law fights regulation with regulation

SACRAMENTO, Calif Fri Oct 7, 2011 4:18pm EDT

California Governor Jerry Brown speaks after vetoing the budget passed the day before by state legislators in Los Angeles, California June 16, 2011. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

California Governor Jerry Brown speaks after vetoing the budget passed the day before by state legislators in Los Angeles, California June 16, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson

Related Topics

SACRAMENTO, Calif (Reuters) - In an odd twist, California business groups applauded Governor Jerry Brown for signing legislation on Thursday to create a new layer of government regulation they say will lessen the burdens imposed by future regulations.

The measure orders the Democratic governor's Department of Finance to establish a uniform method of measuring the economic consequences of regulations put forward by other state agencies.

Starting in 2013, those agencies will be required to consider the job gains or losses, advantages or disadvantages to various businesses, and investment increases or declines projected as a result of any proposed regulation with an economic impact of more than $50 million.

The Department of Finance will create guidelines for other agencies to follow in conducting those impact assessments.

"This new law creates a standard yardstick everyone is measured against -- both the regulatory agency and those who offer alternatives that they say are more cost-effective," California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg told Reuters.

"It ensures the state follows an accepted practice of doing an economic impact analysis, takes any stakeholder recommendations for what is the most cost-effective approach and -- if the agency doesn't adopt the most cost-effective approach -- it must explain why."

The chamber and other business groups, including the California Manufacturing and Technology Association, hailed the legislation as a victory because they say for the first time the state is required to assess the potential harm new regulations impose on the state's economy.

"Our legislation will ensure that businesses spend fewer dollars on regulation compliance and more on innovation and expansion," said state Senator Ron Calderon, who authored the bill along with fellow Democratic Senator Fran Pavley.

The genesis of the bill is in part a reaction to the regulations created by the state Air Resources Board implementing the state's landmark greenhouse gas measure.

Business groups still complain over what they consider a lack of concern about compliance costs shown by the board in its economic analysis of the law, which demands a 20 percent cut in emissions of heat-trapping air pollutants by 2020.

The board rejected arguments by critics that the true price tag of implementing the law was far higher than estimated, generating short-term job losses and higher energy costs. Instead, the board insisted its plan would be a net economic gain for California.

There are some potentially major loopholes in the regulation measure signed by Brown.

Each state agency decides whether a proposed regulation will generate the $50 million in economic impacts set as a trigger for the new law's provisions. And the densely worded 20-page measure contains no criteria for such a determination.

(Editing by Steve Gorman)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
BOBWSA wrote:
What about a regulation that requires legislators to actually read any bill they vote on. A regulation that requires them to swear under oath that they have read a bill in order to be able to vote on it. Then prosecute them for perjury if they lie. Unintended consequences of legislation is a nice easy out, in most cases in my opinion it more uninformed consequences that occur. If they read the bill at least as voters we know where they stand. Publish the voting records daily on the web – lets see who is working and who is not. After a very short time bills would become less “densely worded ” and more concise.

It’s probably unconstitutional to require them to work – so no way this would be considered.

Oct 07, 2011 2:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:
If the Chamber of Commerce likes it, then it’s going to be bad for the people of California. The impact on business should be one of the last considerations when enacting regulations — the effect on people and the environment should be the yardstick all regulations are measured against. The government is there to protect the people, including from the innate corrosive effects of capitalism on freedom, liberty and society. If a regulation is hard on an industry, then that just means that they’ve been doing things wrong before that, and they should have fixed it long ago at a more gradual rate.

The people and where they live are the two most important things about any society, and corporations are neither. The Constitution makes no guarantee of success or profit, so government should not be legislating either for business. If an industry hurts people, or where they live, then regulations *must* be imposed — if they hurt the people or the environment a lot, then they need to be harsh and painful regulations. As for the companies; well, it sucks to be them. They should have been watching out for the consumer, the neighbourhood and the environment in the first place, and erring on the side of caution.

Companies have been allowed far too much power in America today — not just the insane nonsense of declaring them “persons”, but in giving them more power than the actual citizens. The power of money needs to be considered in any situation involving rights. If an entity can afford to do something in a better, less harmful way, then it must be forced to; retarded Supreme Court decisions aside.

Protect the people, not the companies. The companies have the money and the lawyers to take care of themselves, thanks.

Oct 09, 2011 7:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoePublic wrote:
RE-regulation is the new DE-regulation!

Oct 10, 2011 6:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.